President Trump

Dax777 said:
Only if the media would take this attitude when it comes to rhetoric from the right. There is a double standard here. It's so glaring. Rhetoric from.the left is simply passion and facts. While rhetoric from the right is dangerous, hateful, harmful and endangers lives.

But somehow it's only the life of one candidate that constantly seems at peril.
Click to expand...

I dont see why the media should have a problem with calling a threat to democracy a threat to democracy.

And I don't think they have much of a problem with Trumps rhetoric that isn't racist, sexist or generally offensive.

Dax777 said:
It's a fair presumption. When you call someone an existential threat, a Hitler, a threat to Democracy, a Dictator. Someone who should be punched, put in the bullseye, someone who should be pushed back on and let them know we wthey are not wanted....

There is only so much of repeating this nonsense you can do before someone takes matter into there own hands.
Click to expand...
I genuinely have only heard one person refer to Trump as Hitler.

His running mate.

Maybe someone else has, but as someone that has spent a fair bit of time over the past month or so following the election I can't recall any in particular. Not sure I've heard anyone call for him to be punched.

I've heard him referred to as a threat to democracy, which I'm sure he doesn't like but is true (IMO). Similarly he should be pushed back on, as should the Democrats.

I believe Biden has said that with the benefit of hindsight he regrets the bullseye comment.
 
Dax777 said:
It blows my mind that you think I'm the one who's morals is warped considering the highlighted.

I agree with almost everything you've said here. And you've always come across as a decent person.

But the bolded above is mind boggling. The only thing that's absolutely certain is that Democrats hold zero moral high ground. Intuitively even you can see that. Hence why you subconsciously dismiss the evidence that shows the opposite of what you believe.
Click to expand...
My God.

For about the 439,287th time -- this is not about right and left, Republicans and Democrats.

This is about a singular man wholly unfit for office in nearly every way and his either stupid or ethically-challenged or cowardly (or some combination thereof) enablers who support him despite the Olympus Mons of evidence showing said lack of fitness.

Your blindness has to be willful at this point. You're cornered like a rat, logically and ethically, and like Trump, you've done it to yourself.

Were he running as a Democrat I would be here saying the same things the same way. You wouldn't.

How can you sit here and pretend?
 
Last edited:
mancity2012_eamo said:
What comes across to me is that America holds no higher ground generally. It baffles me how they think they have the right to police the world. It’s self interest only when it comes to foreign policy.

Would I have them do that over Russia however. Absolutely. Unfortunately thems the choices and that’s the world we live in.

Looking from the outside in to the American election I know for sure I wouldn’t give Trump, the steam off my piss.
Apart from being a gobshite, the power behind him have an agenda that would seek to alter the prospects of maintaining any sort of democracy even further.

America looks a mess to me. Even if Kamala gets the presidency she doesn’t seem to have a mandate to govern half a continent or a third perhaps depending on how you count the votes, the way they want to be governed.

That’s unsustainable in the not too distant long run in my view.
Click to expand...
So I'll give you my take.

The average popular vote margin (unweighted) since 1940 has been 8.7%. In history ex-Washington (who won by 100%) it's 12.7%. What do you consider a mandate?

The reason the US has two parties that matter instead of 28 is because the nation is ungovernable given its size, its varied interests, its topographical differences, and the fact that just about everyone's ancestors came from elsewhere. Thus two parties which represent a broad set of interests -- but, recall, with a ton of power given to states to govern themselves -- require compromise by definition, and they've both historically sidelined extremism in favo(u)r of centrism (as America would define it -- I recogniz(s)e that on balance the US is more conservative than much of Europe, which I attribute in part to the nation's religious roots and evolution as a "world power" to your point).

America has nearly always looked a mess. What would you have said during the McCarthy era? Or the battle over slavery?
 
Last edited:
mancity2012_eamo said:
What comes across to me is that America holds no higher ground generally. It baffles me how they think they have the right to police the world. It’s self interest only when it comes to foreign policy.
Click to expand...
All nations are and should be to an extent self interested. America is no different.

mancity2012_eamo said:
Would I have them do that over Russia however. Absolutely. Unfortunately thems the choices and that’s the world we live in.
Click to expand...
Fair point.

mancity2012_eamo said:
Looking from the outside in to the American election I know for sure I wouldn’t give Trump, the steam off my piss.
Apart from being a gobshite, the power behind him have an agenda that would seek to alter the prospects of maintaining any sort of democracy even further.
Click to expand...
I understand disliking Trump the man. He is a self absorbed pompous ass. Have no issues with that.

But it's just hyperbole that he is a threat to democracy. Not only is he not, he is objectively lesser of a threat than saying Harris or Biden. Who by the way aren't threats to democracy either.

mancity2012_eamo said:
America looks a mess to me. Even if Kamala gets the presidency she doesn’t seem to have a mandate to govern half a continent or a third perhaps depending on how you count the votes, the way they want to be governed.

That’s unsustainable in the not too distant long run in my view.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a divided nation. Even more so with every passing election. But I predict it would be even more divided long after Trump is gone.
 
Dax777 said:
But it's just hyperbole that he is a threat to democracy. Not only is he not, he is objectively lesser of a threat than saying Harris or Biden.
Click to expand...

Only one of them has helped to incite a violent riot on government property off the back of not getting the results they wanted through democratic process.
 
Dax777 said:
But it's just hyperbole that he is a threat to democracy. Not only is he not, he is objectively lesser of a threat than saying Harris or Biden. Who by the way aren't threats to democracy either.
Click to expand...
So we should believe you -- not the dozens of well-known life-long conservatives with decades of public service who have said the opposite.

See, the way it works is, when you're in quicksand, the more you struggle, the worse your predicament becomes.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
So we should believe you -- not the dozens of well-known life-long conservatives with decades of public service who have said the opposite.

See, the way it works is, when you're in quicksand, the more you struggle, the worse your predicament becomes.
Click to expand...
Nope. Believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not stopping you or condemning you for your silly beliefs. I just don't feel the compulsion to share them.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
So I'll give you my take.

The average popular vote margin (unweighted) since 1940 has been 8.7%. In history ex-Washington (who won by 100%) it's 12.7%. What do you consider a mandate?

The reason the US has two parties that matter instead of 28 is because the nation is ungovernable given its size, its varied interests, its topographical differences, and the fact that just about everyone's ancestors came from elsewhere. Thus two parties which represent a broad set of interests -- but, recall, with a ton of power given to states to govern themselves -- require compromise by definition, and they've both historically sidelined extremism in favo(u)r of centrism (as America would define it -- I recogniz(s)e that on balance the US is more conservative than much of Europe, which I attribute in part to the nation's religious roots and evolution as a "world power" to your point).

America has nearly always looked a mess. What would you have said during the McCarthy era? Or the battle over slavery?
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong Foggy and I’m not suggesting you do. A mandate is mandate in any legal system. And if you win a legal election then you have one.
But I know you understand my perspective regarding the recognition of a mandate in quite a vast part of the American continent.

You describe the reason for the traditional two party system quite well and I can see the logic of that, but as I suspect you fear yourself, with the new normal in parts of America that seems to be saying we won’t recognise defeat, that doesn’t bode well for the future of the federation, particularly as the same people seem to be indicating further democratic restrictions on change, if they actually win.

And @Dax777 i won’t answer you separately, just to say that ‘No’ I don’t see things as exactly the same threat from both parties.

Neither are perfect but it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of objectivity that Trump hasn’t the intelligence on his own to understand half the political implications of what he is asked.
It’s self interest pure and simple with him and he’s not just stupid, he’s vile.
What I see is a useful idiot for what’s behind him and if I was American I would not want them anywhere near power. I think it would be regressive for US society.

But hey! What do I know. I’ll leave it to those that live there.
 
Dax777 said:
Yes! So funny. Always so funny.
Click to expand...

I don't find it funny I find it pathetic.

www.snopes.com

JD Vance Once Called Trump 'America's Hitler'?

In a 2016 text message, Vance described Trump as either "like Nixon" or "America's Hitler."
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com

Why does Trump have to have such a pathetic waste of space sell-out as his running mate?

Oh yeah, because he incited a mob to murder his last pick and even most republicans aren't insane enough to think they'd be immune from him doing the same to them.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Don’t get me wrong Foggy and I’m not suggesting you do. A mandate is mandate in any legal system. And if you win a legal election then you have one.
But I know you understand my perspective regarding the recognition of a mandate in quite a vast part of the American continent.

You describe the reason for the traditional two party system quite well and I can see the logic of that, but as I suspect you fear yourself, with the new normal in parts of America that seems to be saying we won’t recognise defeat, that doesn’t bode well for the future of the federation, particularly as the same people seem to be indicating further democratic restrictions on change, if they actually win.

And @Dax777 i won’t answer you separately, just to say that ‘No’ I don’t see things as exactly the same threat from both parties.

Neither are perfect but it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of objectivity that Trump hasn’t the intelligence on his own to understand half the political implications of what he is asked.
It’s self interest pure and simple with him and he’s not just stupid, he’s vile.
What I see is a useful idiot for what’s behind him and if I was American I would not want them anywhere near power. I think it would be regressive for US society.

But hey! What do I know. I’ll leave it to those that live there.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know you aren't! I know this is simple curiosity from a non-Yank.

My belief is ultimately the "revolution is nigh" nutters are mostly talk, amplified by social media soapboxes that give extremist views similar platforms to more deeply-held ones. The former bell curve of amplitude is now a flat-topped histogram because naturally extremist views get more attention when their megaphone is the same size as centrist views, which it didn't use to be because discourse (print and broadcast) used to be edited by professional editors to appeal to the majority of the audience, who are centrist (that's how print and broadcast media make money -- i.e. Time magazine has more readers than Vietnamese Goat Fancier magazine). Now, all views are effectively unfiltered, and unedited, and all the microphones of similar decibel level (I can spread my views worldwide, instantaneously for free, vs. needing to have some gravitas or expertise to do so), so it makes it seem as if wingnut views are more common than they really are. The majority of Trump supporters, I think, are merely lifelong Republicans -- that they've had to rationaliz(s)e his behavio(u)r, personality, stupidity, amorality, etc. is a sad tale, but when it comes right down to it, very few are going to take up arms, kiss their loved ones and their jobs goodbye, buy an AK-47 and go on a "kill the Dems" spree. As I've noted, that's why very aggressive prosecution on January 6 was so important. They're going to moan and complain, but if Trump loses again, he'll be tarred by more and more as unelectable, especially the money backers, and my suspicion is they'll need to move on to a new kind of conservatism that will be more economic and less social.

One thing for sure -- they'll need a recession. So in other words, I expect US political discourse to return to some kind of balance. That it's imbalanced is in part of the nature of message purity -- in a fight to see who is most loyal to the cult of personality, like courtiers of old, they must twist themselves on the words and changing whims of a quite clearly mentally-imbalanced leader so as to avoid cognitive dissonance. Dax is an excellent example of one such sort, who has painted himself into a rhetorical corner so tightly he has to claim a liar who admitted he lied isn't lying. When Trump goes, it will free him (and actual, real conservatives, which he isn't) of having to defend him, and they can push the reset button. This, of course, is what happened with Nixon, and Hoover for that matter. The GOP will get their chance to reconstruct their ideals when -- inevitably -- the economy suffers enough for even many Democrats to demand change. Errors abroad can influence this feeling too. History is replete with these shifts on both sides -- Hoover to FDR, Nixon/Ford to Carter and then to Reagan; on a smaller stage, Bush to Clinton, etc.

Now as for me, I will never support any political creature who supported or excused Trump, ever, until I die. I will only support those that renounced him day one. There will be many who will "betray" him once he has no power to hurt them any longer (i.e. they can't get primaried by a cult member or one who poses as such). But that day will bring about some re-balance to the pendulum, as it ever has. I am hopeful that day will be a few months from now, or at least there will be progress made to putting him out to pasture for good. I am skeptical it will be so declarative, but one can hope.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Oh, I know you aren't! I know this is simple curiosity from a non-Yank.

My belief is ultimately the "revolution is nigh" nutters are mostly talk, amplified by social media soapboxes that give extremist views similar platforms to more deeply-held ones. The former bell curve of amplitude is now a flat-topped histogram because naturally extremist views get more attention when their megaphone is the same size as centrist views, which it didn't use to be because discourse (print and broadcast) used to be edited by professional editors to appeal to the majority of the audience, who are centrist (that's how print and broadcast media make money -- i.e. Time magazine has more readers than Vietnamese Goat Fancier magazine). Now, all views are effectively unfiltered, and unedited, and all the microphones of similar decibel level (I can spread my views worldwide, instantaneously for free, vs. needing to have some gravitas or expertise to do so), so it makes it seem as if wingnut views are more common than they really are. The majority of Trump supporters, I think, are merely lifelong Republicans -- that they've had to rationaliz(s)e his behavio(u)r, personality, stupidity, amorality, etc. is a sad tale, but when it comes right down to it, very few are going to take up arms, kiss their loved ones and their jobs goodbye, buy an AK-47 and go on a "kill the Dems" spree. As I've noted, that's why very aggressive prosecution on January 6 was so important. They're going to moan and complain, but if Trump loses again, he'll be tarred by more and more as unelectable, especially the money backers, and my suspicion is they'll need to move on to a new kind of conservatism that will be more economic and less social.

One thing for sure -- they'll need a recession. So in other words, I expect US political discourse to return to some kind of balance. That it's imbalanced is in part of the nature of message purity -- in a fight to see who is most loyal to the cult of personality, like courtiers of old, they must twist themselves on the words and changing whims of a quite clearly mentally-imbalanced leader so as to avoid cognitive dissonance. Dax is an excellent example of one such sort, who has painted himself into a rhetorical corner so tightly he has to claim a liar who admitted he lied isn't lying. When Trump goes, it will free him (and actual, real conservatives, which he isn't) of having to defend him, and they can push the reset button. This, of course, is what happened with Nixon, and Hoover for that matter. The GOP will get their chance to reconstruct their ideals when -- inevitably -- the economy suffers enough for even many Democrats to demand change. Errors abroad can influence this feeling too. History is replete with these shifts on both sides -- Hoover to FDR, Nixon/Ford to Carter and then to Reagan; on a smaller stage, Bush to Clinton, etc.

Now as for me, I will never support any political creature who supported or excused Trump, ever, until I die. I will only support those that renounced him day one. There will be many who will "betray" him once he has no power to hurt them any longer (i.e. they can't get primaried by a cult member or one who poses as such). But that day will bring about some re-balance to the pendulum, as it ever has. I am hopeful that day will be a few months from now, or at least there will be progress made to putting him out to pasture for good. I am skeptical it will be so declarative, but one can hope.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Quite comprehensive.
I do find with most threads in here and particularly in the political threads, that if you read, even when not contributing, you do invariably tend to steer objectively towards certain contributors and opinion in general.

I am who I am and it is who I present myself to be in here. I don’t have a forum persona.

I have said before that I work in the courts over here. I see and hear logic presented in court and evidence given on a daily basis.

I do feel I can decipher what’s real and what is not and believe me I share your apparent disbelief at times at how some people either choose to, or genuinely cannot see the scam that is Trump and those that back him.

I do seek reassurance from not just yourself but a few others in here who regularly contribute that this is not America.
I sincerely hope not as like I have also said, that is not an ethic that I’m comfortable with policing the world.

Totally off subject but perhaps an aside that naturally springs from that last sentence, I made a point that I’m more curious about, than certain about in the Israeli conflict thread.

In light of American foreign policy there and the criticism the Biden administration gets from certain members in here, do you feel that neither side in this election is ever going to condemn any actions by Netanyahu’s government before the election. Nothing that alienates any voters would be risked?

I personally feel that is being exploited in Israel.
There again like i say, what do I know however.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
In light of American foreign policy there and the criticism the Biden administration gets from certain members in here, do you feel that neither side in this election is ever going to condemn any actions by Netanyahu’s government before the election. Nothing that alienates any voters would be risked?
Click to expand...
Yes I think they will both steer clear and if asked claim extremist actions on both sides are resulting in innocents in the crossfire being harmed. It’s politically expedient. It isn’t necessarily moral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top