The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-04-2019, 01:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You keep bringing it back to "competence" to augment you assertion of who was morally superior and that's really all I need to prove the point. 

No. To PROVE your claimed point, you need a comparison of moral/ethical behavior which passes vetting better than your first list of Hillary scandals, and which puts Hillary on the level of the p-grabber and celebrity grifter, philaderer and multiple bankrupt whose model was Roy Cohn.

I repeat--you cannot defend Trump without lowering, trashing, or distorting standards, without gaslighting. So far, that is what you are "rolling" with.

From Congress to right wing media to this message board, that is the tendency of all Trump defenses.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 01:25 AM)Dill Wrote: No. To PROVE your claimed point, you need a comparison of moral/ethical behavior which passes vetting better than your first list of Hillary scandals, and which puts Hillary on the level of the p-grabber and celebrity grifter, philaderer and multiple bankrupt whose model was Roy Cohn.

I repeat--you cannot defend Trump without lowering, trashing, or distorting standards, without gaslighting. So far, that is what you are "rolling" with.

From Congress to right wing media to this message board, that is the tendency of all Trump defenses.

Show me where I've defended Trump in this thread.

[hollodero]

(05-06-2019, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Show me where I've defended Trump in this thread.

I'd say by claiming his opponents were on the same low level.

[*bfine32*]

(05-06-2019, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Show me where I've defended Trump in this thread.

(05-06-2019, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd say by claiming his opponents were on the same low level.

I said show me, not assert. 

But your response does provide us some insight to the real issue.

[CJD]

I fear the DNC is going to do the same thing in 2020 that they did in 2016 and put forth an "electable" centrist democrat who has retrospectively bad decisions, retrospectively bad votes and controversial social engagements in their past.

This will give people the false equivalency angle and justification to vote for Trump and risk causing the very problem they intended to solve. Almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Such is the lengths I fear the DNC will go to overcome their hysteria over Trump. "Electability" is a sham.

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2019, 01:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I fear the DNC is going to do the same thing in 2020 that they did in 2016 and put forth an "electable" centrist democrat who has retrospectively bad decisions, retrospectively bad votes and controversial social engagements in their past.

This will give people the false equivalency angle and justification to vote for Trump and risk causing the very problem they intended to solve. Almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Such is the lengths I fear the DNC will go to overcome their hysteria over Trump. "Electability" is a sham.

My teenage daughter is very much into politics.  I was just telling her how I guarantee the democrats will nominate some more centrist type instead of someone from the extreme left.

She replied by reminding me that I also guaranteed her Donald Trump would never be elected President.

[CJD]

(05-06-2019, 02:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My teenage daughter is very much into politics.  I was just telling her how I guarantee the democrats will nominate some more centrist type instead of someone from the extreme left.

She replied by reminding me that I also guaranteed her Donald Trump would never be elected President.

Yea, I mean I hope they don't. But it's my fear.

I think Donald is the most pure and distilled proof that "electability" is not a thing.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Show me where I've defended Trump in this thread.

Not just Trump, but Trump voters as well. Posts #13, #37, and #55 stand out in this regard.

Central to your defense are two claims:

1. of moral/ethical equivalence between Hillary and Trump, and

2. the incredible claim that those who voted for the repeatedly bankrupted Birther-in-chief were "no worse" in their judgment than those who voted for the Secretary of State who got China and India committed to the Copenhagen Accord--a claim you made even before we were separating ethics from competence.

If your claim now is that you are just attacking Hillary, not defending Trump, that also rests upon more equivocation.  It's not like YOU just started this thread to bash Hillary and then SOMEONE ELSE introduced the topic of Trump. No, this thread is about TRUMPISM, and your Hillary claims are introduced to water down and neutralize the assessment of Trump and Trumpism.

THAT's how an attack on Hillary becomes a defense of Trump.

In repeating Fox talking points about Hillary, you dismiss the kind of analytical framework which would compare apples with apples using accurate information.

Thus, family to family, the P-GrabbingTrump, who cheated on three wives and paid off a pornstar with his personal "fixer" and arranged to kill other negative stories, has no less integrity than Hillary, who is "reported" to have called a woman who slept with his husband a "bimbo" (meaning she is careful NOT to make public statements about such matters). And decided to stay with Bill.

Works out the same way if the terms of comparison are financial history or "lies," and gets worse when we get to competence, comparing them on statecraft and debate performance.

To repeat, again, to defend Trump, you must lower standards of evidence, deflect, equivocate and dismiss logical/analytical comparison. You must breakdown all the means and tools for helping voters decide who is likely to make a competent president--and who is not. Pretend it all really comes down to a hunch.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 01:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I fear the DNC is going to do the same thing in 2020 that they did in 2016 and put forth an "electable" centrist democrat who has retrospectively bad decisions, retrospectively bad votes and controversial social engagements in their past.

This will give people the false equivalency angle and justification to vote for Trump and risk causing the very problem they intended to solve. Almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Such is the lengths I fear the DNC will go to overcome their hysteria over Trump. "Electability" is a sham.

You make a central point about all elections now--the breakdown of political evidentiary and logical standards makes equivocation the currency of the realm.  Trump's win seems to rest on the suppression of the Hillary vote (via Fox and Putin) and direct address to a larger illiberal base than anyone supposed existed, rather than any really broad appeal.

But after two years of Trump, I think "electable" may be the way to go. Much could depend on the VP choice.  Bernie and Warren, no.  Buttigieg and Harris, maybe.  Or Biden and Harris. Or Biden and Booker. Bernie and Warren might make useful VPs. (They certainly know how to debate.)But not Biden and Bernie. 

The first few rounds of dem primary debates will tell us much more about "electability."

Finally, I would say that just as in the last election Republicans could count on Hillary hate to reduce support of independents, this time around there will be far more Trump hate than before. doubtful he will get Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania again, no matter who runs against him.

[*bfine32*]

(05-06-2019, 03:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Not just Trump, but Trump voters as well. Posts #13, #37, and #55 stand out in this regard.

Central to your defense are two claims:

1. of moral/ethical equivalence between Hillary and Trump, and

2. the incredible claim that those who voted for the repeatedly bankrupted Birther-in-chief were "no worse" in their judgment than those who voted for the Secretary of State who got China and India committed to the Copenhagen Accord--a claim you made even before we were separating ethics from competence.

If your claim now is that you are just attacking Hillary, not defending Trump, that also rests upon more equivocation.  It's not like YOU just started this thread to bash Hillary and then SOMEONE ELSE introduced the topic of Trump.  No, this thread is about TRUMPISM, and your Hillary claims are introduced to water down and neutralize the assessment of Trump and Trumpism.

THAT's how an attack on Hillary becomes a defense of Trump.

In repeating Fox talking points about Hillary, you dismiss the kind of analytical framework which would compare apples with apples using accurate information.

Thus, family to family, the P-GrabbingTrump, who cheated on three wives and paid off a pornstar with his personal "fixer" and arranged to kill other negative stories, has no less integrity than Hillary, who is "reported" to have called a woman who slept with his husband a "bimbo" (meaning she is careful NOT to make public statements about such matters). And decided to stay with Bill.

Works out the same way if the terms of comparison are financial history or "lies," and gets worse when we get to competence, comparing them on statecraft and debate performance.

To repeat, again, to defend Trump, you must lower standards of evidence, deflect, equivocate and dismiss logical/analytical comparison.  You must breakdown all the means and tools for helping voters decide who is likely to make a competent president--and who is not.  Pretend it all really comes down to a hunch.

Let me quote the posts you identified as defending Trump:

Quote:The issue is that at the end of the day there were 2 viable candidates. It's too easy to sit on a pedestal and associate those that voted for one with everything that is wrong with that candidate, while ignoring the warts on the other. The truth is the vast majority that voted for Trump are no "worse" than those that did not. It's just the Left have to make themselves feel more enlightened.

Quote:If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Quote:Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.


Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia


Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't


Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed


Whitewater


Travelgate


Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot


The Clinton foundation


These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.


There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

Quote:I haven't dismissed Trump's behavior or just like you I would award one morality points over the other. I have also stated reasons why it's a "wash" at best. Let's just end with you awarding Hills morality points. You can live with it after all.

Anyone can plainly see there was 0 attempt at "defending Trump". There's a reason both you and hollo failing when trying to do so. And you know why that was? Because there was no defending of Trump. But you did identify the true problem You chose to point the finger at me while displaying the true problem and that is "if you're not with us in our mission of hate, you're against us"


I do like how you moved the goalpost from defending Trump to defending Trump supporters. You want to know why you did that? Because that is the actual point of the thread and is exactly what I said in the first post you referred to.


Just look at some of the rhetoric thrown around in this post and the attempts to outwardly hate one candidate:


"Tossing out Checks and Balances" "Prize moral Character".. Let me just leave you with a little of the good boo:


You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 04:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me quote the posts you identified as defending Trump:

Anyone can plainly see there was 0 attempt at "defending Trump". There's a reason both you and hollo failing when trying to do so. And you know why that was? Because there was no defending of Trump. But you did identify the true problem You chose to point the finger at me while displaying the true problem and that is "if you're not with us in our mission of hate, you're against us"

I do like how you moved the goalpost from defending Trump to defending Trump supporters. You want to know why you did that? Because that is the actual point of the thread and is exactly what I said in the first post you referred to.

Just look at some of the rhetoric thrown around in this post and the attempts to outwardly hate one candidate:

"Tossing out Checks and Balances" "Prize moral Character".. Let me just leave you with a little of the good boo:

You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

LOL  "moved the goalpost."   Anyone can "plainly see" that you jumped into a Trumpism thread to talk about Hillary. Somehow saying that those who voted for the bankruptcy champ and "king of debt" and world-class philanderer are "no worse" in judgment than those who voted for an accomplished statesperson is no attempt to defend Trump supporters, and so no attempt to defend Trump? You thought maybe your Fox list could at least establish moral equivalency.  In the meantime, no other mission has been articulated.  

Again, where others can discern repeated efforts to reground discussion in a factual record with a logical, analytic comparison, you see only a "rhetoric" of "attempts to hate."   As you have so often done in the past, you substitute some vague "hate" as the REAL motivation for Trump critique, and not Trump's public behavior. 

HOW IS THAT SUBSTITUTION NOT A DEFENSE OF TRUMP?

Outside the bubble, you cannot create any table of Hillary offenses which would make her Trump's unethical equal. So to defend Trump, you have to dismiss the factual record, now even enlisting Bible verses to assert false equivalences.  You didn't jump into this thread with your defense of Trump supporters and critique of Fox-Hillary because you'd "removed the beam" from your own eye.  You want to avoid beams and specks altogether, if they can be documented and compared

[*bfine32*]

(05-06-2019, 05:42 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL  "moved the goalpost."   Anyone can "plainly see" that you jumped into a Trumpism thread to talk about Hillary. Somehow saying that those who voted for the bankruptcy champ and "king of debt" and world-class philanderer are "no worse" in judgment than those who voted for an accomplished statesperson is no attempt to defend Trump supporters, and so no attempt to defend Trump? You thought maybe your Fox list could at least establish moral equivalency.  In the meantime, no other mission has been articulated.  

Again, where others can discern repeated efforts to reground discussion in a factual record with a logical, analytic comparison, you see only a "rhetoric" of "attempts to hate."   As you have so often done in the past, you substitute some vague "hate" as the REAL motivation for Trump critique, and not Trump's public behavior. 

HOW IS THAT SUBSTITUTION NOT A DEFENSE OF TRUMP?

Outside the bubble, you cannot create any table of Hillary offenses which would make her Trump's unethical equal. So to defend Trump, you have to dismiss the factual record, now even enlisting Bible verses to assert false equivalences.  You didn't jump into this thread with your defense of Trump supporters and critique of Fox-Hillary because you'd "removed the beam" from your own eye.  You want to avoid beams and specks altogether, if they can be documented and compared

We'll just let folks read and decide if there was any defense of Trump as I have been accused, but their silence is deafening. 

For the 3rd time. I'm not the one dismissing anything. But your doubling. tripling down on the assertion says more than I ever could. 

You want to make yourself feel superior to those that differ in your opinion hence the ridiculous "prize morale character". I "jumped into" a thread about voter's motivation to talk about voter's motivation. You chose to make it personal. Damn me for not just going with Trump. anyone associated to him, anyone that voted for him, or anyone who doesn't constantly slur him and those associated with him are beneath me mantra. 

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll just let folks read and decide if there was any defense of Trump as I have been accused, but their silence is deafening. 

For the 3rd time. I'm not the one dismissing anything. But your doubling. tripling down on the assertion says more than I ever could. 

You want to make yourself feel superior to those that differ in your opinion hence the ridiculous "prize morale character". I "jumped into" a thread about voter's motivation to talk about voter's motivation. You chose to make it personal. Damn me for not just going with Trump. anyone associated to him, anyone that voted for him, or anyone who doesn't constantly slur him and those associated with him are beneath me mantra. 

Ha ha, let's see if anyone defends your defense of Trump. The silence is deafening.

Pointing out flaws in someone's argument by indicating logical inconsistencies and counterargument with evidence is the opposite of "making it personal."  No one who understands that would think criticism of Trump's bad behavior, based upon his actual bad behavior, is "slurring" him and just "hate." In your book, people who stick to evidence-based logically consistent arguments rather than speculation about opponents' motives do so to "feel superior." In effect, you have defined any criticism of your Fox facts or Trump's behavior as personal attack--whether true or not. Either you really don't see a relation between criticism and evidence and/or you are more comfortable treating statements as accusations, whether backed by evidence or not.

And yes, Trump critics DO prize "moral character" as a standard of presidential conduct.  But you call addressing Trump's moral and character flaws by presenting manifest evidence of them as simply "slurring" him, motivated by hate. Which is defending Trump.

And you apparently are tripling down on your insistence that no one who prizes moral character could see a difference between Trump and Hillary. Also defending Trump and Trump voters. You are right that my factually based assertion that Trump is far far more ethically challenged than Hillary "says more" than your asserted equivalence ever could. Separating Trump and Hillary from comparable evidence of their ethical behavior is the basis of your false equivalence.

You jumped into a thread about voter motivation to claim Trump voters were "no worse" in judgment than Hillary voters. Why isn't that "slurring" Hillary and Hillary voters by the standards you set for Trump's defense?

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, let's see if anyone defends your defense of Trump. The silence is deafening.

Pointing out flaws in someone's argument by indicating logical inconsistencies and counterargument with evidence is the opposite of "making it personal."  No one who understands that would think criticism of Trump's bad behavior, based upon his actual bad behavior, is "slurring" him and just "hate." In your book, people who stick to evidence-based logically consistent arguments rather than speculation about opponents' motives do so to "feel superior." In effect, you have defined any criticism of your Fox facts or Trump's behavior as personal attack--whether true or not. Either you really don't see a relation between criticism and evidence and/or you are more comfortable treating statements as accusations, whether backed by evidence or not.

And yes, Trump critics DO prize "moral character" as a standard of presidential conduct.  But you call addressing Trump's moral and character flaws by presenting manifest evidence of them as simply "slurring" him, motivated by hate. Which is defending Trump.

And you apparently are tripling down on your insistence that no one who prizes moral character could see a difference between Trump and Hillary. Also defending Trump and Trump voters. You are right that my factually based assertion that Trump is far far more ethically challenged than Hillary "says more" than your asserted equivalence ever could. Separating Trump and Hillary from comparable evidence of their ethical behavior is the basis of your false equivalence.

You jumped into a thread about voter motivation to claim Trump voters were "no worse" in judgment than Hillary voters. Why isn't that "slurring" Hillary and Hillary voters by the standards you set for Trump's defense?

I'm just kinda post random things and use the bold function periodically while not addressing the point the other person made. I do realize regardless how many times I assert you are defending those that voted for Trump, because their only other choice was flawed, and state that is a defense of Trump; is in no way logically sound. But just try and stop me

Perhaps if I use terms like jumping in when you provide your input into the discussion it and use bold font whenever I wrongly accuse you of defending Trump my lack of actually having a point will be lost in the white noise. Hell I'm even going to throw in the term false equivalency even those folks can see a comparison between the two candidates when you are equating each to acts that can be considered immoral.

I further realize you did not slur any voter as I have done but in some twist of logic I can make it seem you're suggesting no voter had an legitimate option that they could sit his/her morale compass by and bold defending Trump again may lead one or two to believe that's actaully what you've done. I can only hope the don't read too closely

[jj22]

(04-30-2019, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The issue is that at the end of the day there were 2 viable candidates. It's too easy to sit on a pedestal and associate those that voted for one with everything that is wrong with that candidate, while ignoring the warts on the other. The truth is the vast majority that voted for Trump are no "worse" than those that did not. It's just the Left have to make themselves feel more enlightened. 

I disagree. It's not that they voted for Trump. Ok. They didn't like Hillary and was manipulated by Russian fake news propaganda and which they had no idea was taking place, and to this day are still confused about what was real Hillary news and fake Hillary news.

But now that he's in what is their excuse for continuing to allow for what they would have never allowed from a Democrat? Or worse, side with Putin over America? Attack our vets and Intel?

Excusing them for voting is one thing, what they continue to do is a whole nother.

[CJD]

(04-30-2019, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The issue is that at the end of the day there were 2 viable candidates. It's too easy to sit on a pedestal and associate those that voted for one with everything that is wrong with that candidate, while ignoring the warts on the other. The truth is the vast majority that voted for Trump are no "worse" than those that did not. It's just the Left have to make themselves feel more enlightened. 

I think the issue is that there were 2 non-viable candidates. So how do you pick? Do you take the guy with no experience in government, a lot of bad experience in business, allegations of sexual assault, racism, sexism, general bigotry and hatred? Or do you take the woman with more controversies and investigations than we'd ever seen in a modern candidate (well, at the time) that was still given major consideration?

From either side's perspective, the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job. And, for an awful lot of people, their own candidate was mostly just "better than that other piece of shit."

That's not how elections should be run. You should actually WANT your candidate to be president. It shouldn't really have much to do with making sure the other candidate definitely does not get into office (although the differences in those two statements is subtle).

I don't know what the DNC was thinking throwing their hopes on the back of Hillary. And now they're potentially doing the same thing with Biden.

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 01:03 PM)jj22 Wrote: I disagree. It's not that they voted for Trump. Ok. They didn't like Hillary and was manipulated by Russian fake news propaganda and which they had no idea was taking place, and to this day are still confused about what was real Hillary news and fake Hillary news.

But now that he's in what is their excuse for continuing to allow for what they would have never allowed from a Democrat? Or worse, side with Putin over America? Attack our vets and Intel?

Excusing them for voting is one thing, what they continue to do is a whole nother.

I think 2020 will determine how much they "continue" to let happen

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 01:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the issue is that there were 2 non-viable candidates. So how do you pick? Do you take the guy with no experience in government, a lot of bad experience in business, allegations of sexual assault, racism, sexism, general bigotry and hatred? Or do you take the woman with more controversies and investigations than we'd ever seen in a modern candidate (well, at the time) that was still given major consideration?

From either side's perspective, the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job. And, for an awful lot of people, their own candidate was mostly just "better than that other piece of shit."

That's not how elections should be run. You should actually WANT your candidate to be president. It shouldn't really have much to do with making sure the other candidate definitely does not get into office (although the differences in those two statements is subtle).

I don't know what the DNC was thinking throwing their hopes on the back of Hillary. And now they're potentially doing the same thing with Biden.

I agree with this 100%. Given my profession and sources of income Clinton would have been a much better choice for me than Sanders, but what the DNC did was below board and then Nation had to reap what the DNC sowed.

I've said it numerous times: The RNC did everything they could to not make Trump the nominee while the DNC did everything it could to make Hills the nominee. Which NC's actions were better/worse? 

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2019, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The RNC did everything they could to not make Trump the nominee while the DNC did everything it could to make Hills the nominee. Which NC's actions were better/worse? 

Well the DNC got the candidate they wanted while the RNC did not.  

Then the DNC candidate got 3 million more votes than the RNC candidate.

But the RNC still won thanks mostly to Russian leaks, and the FBI reopening the Hillary investigation.  Can't really blame the DNC for that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 07:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well the DNC got the candidate they wanted while the RNC did not.  

Then the DNC candidate got 3 million more votes than the RNC candidate.

But the RNC still won thanks mostly to Russian leaks, and the FBI reopening the Hillary investigation.  Can't really blame the DNC for that.

If only the DNC realized how the Electoral College works. 

We'll put you down as one vote for the losing side.