Trump's Axios interview

[*Nately120*]

(08-07-2020, 10:04 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It doesn't change the point I was making, either.  And I started by stating I understand why Republicans would support a faux Republican.

It's the power of the two party system, for sure.  Trump isn't even a republican and had never expressed particularly conservative views until conservatism's primary point of membership hinged upon bitching about Obama but he got major party support and the ever important R next to his name.  Meanwhile, Gary Johnson who has a successful career as an actual republican politician gets treated like some sort of fringe maniac (he is a bit odd, but you get my point) while Trump makes some very un-republican statements and promises.

I spose my main point is that Trump being president is evidence that an unaffiliated 3rd party off the wall candidate can win as long as he gets a superficial letter by his name.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2020, 11:50 AM)Nately120 Wrote: It's the power of the two party system, for sure.  Trump isn't even a republican and had never expressed particularly conservative views until conservatism's primary point of membership hinged upon bitching about Obama but he got major party support and the ever important R next to his name.  Meanwhile, Gary Johnson who has a successful career as an actual republican politician gets treated like some sort of fringe maniac (he is a bit odd, but you get my point) while Trump makes some very un-republican statements and promises.

I spose my main point is that Trump being president is evidence that an unaffiliated 3rd party off the wall candidate can win as long as he gets a superficial letter by his name.

I can't recall how many times Trump has switched party affiliations to include a third party.  I can't think of any strongly held beliefs other than how making a dollar shapes his world view. I understand how Republicans would support him based upon economic promises during the last and this election.  But, I don't really see where he has improved the economic outlook of lower and middle income workers/farmers in places like Appalachia.

Biden and the Democrats need to address that block of voters if they want to secure a win.  I hope they do it in a meaningful way and not just lip service for votes, also.

[*Nately120*]

(08-07-2020, 12:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can't recall how many times Trump has switched party affiliations to include a third party.  I can't think of any strongly held beliefs other than how making a dollar shapes his world view. I understand how Republicans would support him based upon economic promises during the last and this election.  But, I don't really see where he has improved the economic outlook of lower and middle income workers/farmers in places like Appalachia.

Biden and the Democrats need to address that block of voters if they want to secure a win.  I hope they do it in a meaningful way and not just lip service for votes, also.

Methinks Biden needs to mobilize the people who stayed home because "there was no way this country would put Trump in office."  Trump also has the disadvantage of being the toxic status quo against which he wisely rallied in 2016.  He's now the face of an incompetent government and he no longer has that "Let's give him a shot, why the hell not?" aspect to his campaign.

I'd wager that is why his 2016 was about what he would/could do and fix/change and the 2020 campaign focuses more upon the more common political tactic of warning that it's not about him being good so much as his opponent being dangerous if elected. I realize he did a good amount of bashing Hillary to get elected, but I don't see him basing his 2020 bid around getting around to locking her up, building that wall, defeating ISIS or any of the things he either couldn't do or in some cases flat-out admitted were hot air to get elected.

EDIT - Additionally, the notion that he was going to combat the PC police movement has been a big ol' failure since he gave the PC lovers a common enemy and made people who are proudly un-PC look like very appealing targets...just my take.

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 02:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: dill: If we don't want gridlock and crazy then a Dem House, Senate and WH IS our only salvation, if that means some stable and responsible governance, finally, plus a national healthcare solution.

Your standards are entirely subjective.  What you define as "stable and responsible" is not so defined by others.  Solipsism springs to mind.

Semantic argument aside, it's an objection to the politics you define as "stable and reasonable".  Not everyone thinks the same as you.  Your pedantry does not alter this.  

Of course what I define as "stable and responsible" is not so defined by some others. That is why they are voting for Trump and not Biden. E.g. you just said you'd prefer "gridlock" to Dem control of Congress and the Exec. I suppose that is an ideological kind of stability, or maybe "paralysis" would be a better word, but it doesn't comport with managing the business of the nation. So yes, your "stability" is different from mine. And that is why I am arguing against it.

At this point, the majority of American voters share my "entirely subjective" ideals of stable and reasonable government, including many "normal" Republicans. Can there be mass "solipsism"?

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 02:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:When over 80% of Republicans embrace Trumpism, that certainly is a symptom of a shift in GOP priorities. Not an aberration. You've given no account of why the rejection of diplomacy and the desire for walls and bans and harsh treatment of immigrants and fear of "lefistm/socialism" will stop when Trump leaves office. As if all the divisive, xenophobic images and deep state conspiracies won't be ready to hand for the next Republican national leader who wants to elbow moderates aside.

You clearly seem determined to ignore the central thrust of my argument, that Trump's priorities and policies are largely dependent on his presence as a political figure.  Absent that, the GOP will revert to it's norm.

Here you complain that I don't accept the conclusion of your "argument" because I (again) require that you provide more support. The single operative premise of your "argument," that Trump's priorities etc. are largely dependent on his political presence, is a bare claim with much that speaks against it.

I and others have noted how the party was already primed for Trump before he arrived. His "priorities" evolved organically, beginning with his 1989 editorial on the Central Park Five and moving on to his support of birtherism. As he noted how Republican voters responded enthusiastically to xenophobic nasty, he introduced his wall and his call for Muslim bans and his Snake Poem. Then in a LANDSLIDE, Republican supported shifted from your "GOP NORM" to Trump. They didn't want Trump's policies/priorities because Trump wanted them. They wanted his policies because they ALREADY SHARED HIS PRIORITIES and figured Trump would fight for them where the GOP establishment wouldn't.  "Establishment"-- those would be the guys leading that "reversion to the norm" you predict.

My objection, far from "ignor[ing] the central thrust of [your] argument," addresses it directly, via its weak warrant.  There is every reason to believe that Trump tapped into and followed voter frustrations which pre-existed him and which he, in his contempt for civil norms, enthusiastically articulated and further developed. STYLE as much as policy. What speaks against that? How would you show that his base's hatred of immigrants/Muslims didn't pre-exist Trump? Will disappear when he is gone?

Further, in 3 1/2 years of presidency, he has fundamentally undermined his base's view not only of the free press, but also of FBI, CIA, courts, the CDC, the NIH, the State Department, and the electoral process itself, creating an alternative reality of hoaxes and conspiracies which indeed define "stable and responsible" in a very different way than the majority of voters and I do. Your "argument" conveniently ignores this alternative, Fox-bred worldview, in which people are easily led to believe that Ukraine was really responsible for hacking the DNC server and the US election and the FBI attempted a deep state coup. But your "argument" asks us to believe all this will suddenly stop when Trump leaves office via "rigged" election. Because the GOP platform is "the same."

So stop saying people ignore your "argument" and explain why those rabid crowds we see at Trump rallies will suddenly forget their hatred of immigrants and trust the "deep state" when Trump leaves office, happily supporting another iteration of Jeb, Marco and Ted. They are about as likely to become Democrat as (to borrow your words) to "revert to form." 

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 02:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:You seem to be arguing that mass, continued support for a Trump candidacy amidst his incompetent handling of civic unrest and a pandemic obscures the real identity of the Republican party now, to which it will magically revert once Trump is gone,  And the existence of a fraction of never Trumpers somehow proves the rule rather than the exception.

No, and this utter failure to grasp my actual argument is puzzling to me.  I state, quite simply, that support for Trump can be as utterly simple as opposing the Democratic party's position.  Being married to the ideology of Trump is not required.

Quote:Just as you seem to be arguing that the election of Biden obscures the real radical, crazy and "borderline terrifying" identity of the Democratic party. AOC as Attorney General? Elizabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury? Ilan Omar as Secretary of State?  Because Pelosi and Biden offer little "pushback" to them in an election year?

Rather than resorting to mockery I might expect you to actually refute the point actually being made.  The politics of the far left have taken deep root in the west coast, a not insignificant segment of the nation's population, at least on a majority of the state level.  Perhaps if you address the point actually being made we can delve deeper into this question?

1. Your "actual argument" is that the mass of Trump voters will suddenly go docile when he is out office.  Perhaps in a few cases support for Trump can be "utterly simple,"* e.g., among Republicans who don't follow the news. But your claim isn't just that some few simply oppose the Dem party positions, but that the current Trumpism of Republican voters en masse is only based on the "presence" of Trump and will disappear when he is gone. Because some few are not "married to the ideology of Trump" seems a very weak warrant for that conclusion.

2. The "point actually being made" is analogous to that made regarding Republicans--that in both cases the parties' mass voting behavior and choice of leadership doesn't reveal who the parties really are. For you, the "fringe" defines each party and its future potential. My "resort to mockery" calls attention to how little broad party support there actually is for some "deep root" of CA "leftism" (whose goals, by the way, deserve a hearing). That does refute the point actually being made until you can explain why in either case people should ignore what the majority of voters in each party do or do not want, will or will not tolerate.

*Even that is doubtful, since everyone who votes for Trump also has to accept the high likelihood of his continued abuse of power if left in office, especially to block investigations into that abuse, in addition to the divisive public misogyny and racism,  and four more years of undermining public institutions, especially the courts. Fox-driven fear of radical leftist Dems--a fear built over almost 3 decades-- is the only thing now keeping voters "not married to the ideology of Trump" in the fold. In voting for Trump now, one is not "simply" rejecting Dem positions but ACCEPTING an unprecedented level of malfeasance which in itself compromises any pure desire for a Republican platform supposedly based upon Constitutionalism and rule of law and carries great future risks for functioning government. That is why so many Republicans who prefer the GOP platform and abhor the Dem's are nevertheless voting Dem. They understand that any endorsement of Trump now, however qualified, is an endorsement of dishonest and bad government--putting party goals above the interest of the nation. CA "leftists" will not scare them away from that Dem vote.

[*Nately120*]

Side note as I've said before, if Trump loses his hardcore base is going to blame the entire system and I fully expect his followers to still consider him the president and continue to be led by him via Twitter. The guy is going to be the president of a segment of the population until he departs this planet. He's found a way around a 2 term limit, I tells ya!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2020, 03:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Side note as I've said before, if Trump loses his hardcore base is going to blame the entire system and I fully expect his followers to still consider him the president and continue to be led by him via Twitter.  The guy is going to be the president of a segment of the population until he departs this planet.  He's found a way around a 2 term limit, I tells ya!

The ground work that this election is a complete sham if Trump loses started being laid before he defeated Hillary.  But, if he wins it's the outsider defeating the swamp again.

[*Nately120*]

(08-07-2020, 03:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The ground work that this election is a complete sham if Trump loses started being laid before he defeated Hillary.  But, if he wins it's the outsider defeating the swamp again.

Oy, it gets on my nerves when people whine that a football game is rigged and then forget all about that declaration when their team wins in the end and they are cheering their asses off...logically Trump complaining that our entire democratic process and system needs to be thrown in the trash in favor of some South African Dictatorship because it doesn't benefit him (when it clearly already has) irks me a bit.

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 03:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Side note as I've said before, if Trump loses his hardcore base is going to blame the entire system and I fully expect his followers to still consider him the president and continue to be led by him via Twitter.  The guy is going to be the president of a segment of the population until he departs this planet.  He's found a way around a 2 term limit, I tells ya!

A reasonable prediction, at this point. And that base is the majority of the Republican party.

Best case scenario--a plurality of them decide further trashing the country is more inimical to their own and the national interest than continuing the "deep state" hoax, and so go "dormant" until the next authoritarian populist lights their fire.

But that still leaves millions ready to break whatever they can in rage and a very broken Republican party--just as the never-Trumpers predicted back in 2016.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2020, 03:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oy, it gets on my nerves when people whine that a football game is rigged and then forget all about that declaration when their team wins in the end and they are cheering their asses off...logically Trump complaining that our entire democratic process and system needs to be thrown in the trash in favor of some South African Dictatorship because it doesn't benefit him (when it clearly already has) irks me a bit.

I think it is Oregon that has mail in voting.  I read there have been over 250M ballots cast and less than 1300 cases of voter fraud.

Which means 1) voter fraud is rare with mail in voting or 2) voter fraud is exceedingly easy to get away with.

In case 1) Trump has nothing to fear if voter fraud is rare.  In case 2) Trump has nothing to fear if voter fraud is exceedingly easy to get away with because he got away with trading relief from US sanctions against Russia in exchange for hacking the DNC headquarters and releasing Hillary's email to interfere with the election for his benefit. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2020, 02:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Here you complain that I don't accept the conclusion of your "argument" because I (again) require that you provide more support. The single operative  premise of your "argument," that Trump's priorities etc. are largely dependent on his political presence, is a bare claim with much that speaks against it.

I and others have noted how the party was already primed for Trump before he arrived. His "priorities" evolved organically, beginning with his 1989 editorial on the Central Park Five and moving on to his support of birtherism. As he noted how Republican voters responded enthusiastically to xenophobic nasty, he introduced his wall and his call for Muslim bans and his Snake Poem. Then in a LANDSLIDE, Republican supported shifted from your "GOP NORM" to Trump. They didn't want Trump's policies/priorities because Trump wanted them. They wanted his policies because they ALREADY SHARED HIS PRIORITIES and figured Trump would fight for them where the GOP establishment wouldn't.  "Establishment"-- those would be the guys leading that "reversion to the norm" you predict.

My objection, far from "ignor[ing] the central thrust of [your] argument," addresses it directly, via its weak warrant.  There is every reason to believe that Trump tapped into and followed voter frustrations which pre-existed him and which he, in his contempt for civil norms, enthusiastically articulated and further developed. STYLE as much as policy. What speaks against that? How would you show that his base's hatred of immigrants/Muslims didn't pre-exist Trump? Will disappear when he is gone?

Further, in 3 1/2 years of presidency, he has fundamentally undermined his base's view not only of the free press, but also of FBI, CIA, courts, the CDC, the NIH, the State Department, and the electoral process itself, creating an alternative reality of hoaxes and conspiracies which indeed define "stable and responsible" in a very different way than the majority of voters and I do. Your "argument" conveniently ignores this alternative, Fox-bred worldview, in which people are easily led to believe that Ukraine was really responsible for hacking the DNC server and the US election and the FBI attempted a deep state coup. But your "argument" asks us to believe all this will suddenly stop when Trump leaves office via "rigged" election. Because the GOP platform is "the same."

So stop saying people ignore your "argument" and explain why those rabid crowds we see at Trump rallies will suddenly forget their hatred of immigrants and trust the "deep state" when Trump leaves office, happily supporting another iteration of Jeb, Marco and Ted. They are about as likely to become Democrat as (to borrow your words) to "revert to form." 

You're confusing the voters with the party, so yes, you are ignoring my point.  Those types of people are always going to exist and they will vote Dem or GOP based on their political leanings.

(08-07-2020, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course what I define as "stable and responsible" is not so defined by some others. That is why they are voting for Trump and not Biden. E.g. you just said you'd prefer "gridlock" to Dem control of Congress and the Exec.

Yes, I am aware of that because I would absolutely prefer it.

Quote: I suppose that is an ideological kind of stability, or maybe "paralysis" would be a better word, but it doesn't comport with managing the business of the nation. So yes, your "stability" is different from mine. And that is why I am arguing against it.

For one so versed in history and founding of our nation I'd expect you'd be aware that this was exactly how the Framers wanted it.

Quote:At this point, the majority of American voters share my "entirely subjective" ideals of stable and reasonable government, including many "normal" Republicans. Can there be mass "solipsism"?

In what way?  That they don't want Trump?  That they prefer Biden but don't want a Dem controlled Congress?  There's a lot of options between Trump wins and GOP controlled Congress and Biden wins and a Dem controlled Congress.  I don't think there's nearly as many people who want the latter, as you do, as you apparently seem to think.

(08-07-2020, 02:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Your "actual argument" is that the mass of Trump voters will suddenly go docile when he is out office.  Perhaps in a few cases support for Trump can be "utterly simple,"* e.g., among Republicans who don't follow the news. But your claim isn't just that some few simply oppose the Dem party positions, but that the current Trumpism of Republican voters en masse is only based on the "presence" of Trump and will disappear when he is gone. Because some few are not "married to the ideology of Trump" seems a very weak warrant for that conclusion.

No, that's not my argument and it's never been my argument, hence my continued statements that you aren't addressing my argument.

Quote:2. The "point actually being made" is analogous to that made regarding Republicans--that in both cases the parties' mass voting behavior and choice of leadership doesn't reveal who the parties really are. For you, the "fringe" defines each party and its future potential. My "resort to mockery" calls attention to how little broad party support there actually is for some "deep root" of CA "leftism" (whose goals, by the way, deserve a hearing). That does refute the point actually being made until you can explain why in either case people should ignore what the majority of voters in each party do or do not want, will or will not tolerate.

It's interesting that you would make this point as it is precisely describes your position as well.  Unfortunately I don't see the extremes I mention on the left as that "fringe" anymore.  I'd be very happy to be wrong, I just don't think I am.

Quote:*Even that is doubtful, since everyone who votes for Trump also has to accept the high likelihood of his continued abuse of power if left in office, especially to block investigations into that abuse, in addition to the divisive public misogyny and racism,  and four more years of undermining public institutions, especially the courts. Fox-driven fear of radical leftist Dems--a fear built over almost 3 decades-- is the only thing now keeping voters "not married to the ideology of Trump" in the fold. In voting for Trump now, one is not "simply" rejecting Dem positions but ACCEPTING an unprecedented level of malfeasance which in itself compromises any pure desire for a Republican platform supposedly based upon Constitutionalism and rule of law and carries great future risks for functioning government. That is why so many Republicans who prefer the GOP platform and abhor the Dem's are nevertheless voting Dem. They understand that any endorsement of Trump now, however qualified, is an endorsement of dishonest and bad government--putting party goals above the interest of the nation. CA "leftists" will not scare them away from that Dem vote.

Except it's not that simple.  You also keep mentioning the hordes of GOP voters who aren't voting for Trump as if the election already happened and we're doing a post mortem.  You may end up being right, but there's a lot of time between now and election day.  As I stated before for a gentlemen who appreciates nuance there's very little to none of it in your position on this topic.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting that you would make this point as it is precisely describes your position as well.  Unfortunately I don't see the extremes I mention on the left as that "fringe" anymore.  I'd be very happy to be wrong, I just don't think I am.

Biden won the primary. If there was anything that pointed to the extreme still being fringe on the left, it is that.

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:*Even that is doubtful, since everyone who votes for Trump also has to accept the high likelihood of his continued abuse of power if left in office, especially to block investigations into that abuse, in addition to the divisive public misogyny and racism,  and four more years of undermining public institutions, especially the courts. Fox-driven fear of radical leftist Dems--a fear built over almost 3 decades-- is the only thing now keeping voters "not married to the ideology of Trump" in the fold. In voting for Trump now, one is not "simply" rejecting Dem positions but ACCEPTING an unprecedented level of malfeasance which in itself compromises any pure desire for a Republican platform supposedly based upon Constitutionalism and rule of law and carries great future risks for functioning government. That is why so many Republicans who prefer the GOP platform and abhor the Dem's are nevertheless voting Dem. They understand that any endorsement of Trump now, however qualified, is an endorsement of dishonest and bad government--putting party goals above the interest of the nation. CA "leftists" will not scare them away from that Dem vote.

Except it's not that simple.  You also keep mentioning the hordes of GOP voters who aren't voting for Trump as if the election already happened and we're doing a post mortem.  You may end up being right, but there's a lot of time between now and election day.  As I stated before for a gentlemen who appreciates nuance there's very little to none of it in your position on this topic.

You are the one referencing Trump voters who simply prefer GOP positions to Dem. I am the one reminding you that people making such "simple" choices cannot do so without also freeing Trump's hand for further malfeasance. They are accepting a moral compromise, even if they refuse to think about it.

So how is that introduction of ethical complication somehow less "nuanced" than the simple choice you represent, which excludes or ignores that complication?

And I do not keep mentioning "hordes of GOP voters who aren't voting for Trump."  I keep mentioning hordes of GOP voters who ARE voting for Trump--the vast majority. That they are is why I say Trump now defines the party, and the mood, desires, and priorities of those voters won't disappear when Trump is gone. 

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-Axios-interview?pid=889185#pid889185][/url]1. Your "actual argument" is that the mass of Trump voters will suddenly go docile when he is out office.  Perhaps in a few cases support for Trump can be "utterly simple,"* e.g., among Republicans who don't follow the news. But your claim isn't just that some few simply oppose the Dem party positions, but that the current Trumpism of Republican voters en masse is only based on the "presence" of Trump and will disappear when he is gone. Because some few are not "married to the ideology of Trump" seems a very weak warrant for that conclusion.

No, that's not my argument and it's never been my argument, hence my continued statements that you aren't addressing my argument.

Quote:2. The "point actually being made" is analogous to that made regarding Republicans--that in both cases the parties' mass voting behavior and choice of leadership doesn't reveal who the parties really are. For you, the "fringe" defines each party and its future potential. My "resort to mockery" calls attention to how little broad party support there actually is for some "deep root" of CA "leftism" (whose goals, by the way, deserve a hearing). That does refute the point actually being made until you can explain why in either case people should ignore what the majority of voters in each party do or do not want, will or will not tolerate.

It's interesting that you would make this point as it is precisely describes your position as well.  Unfortunately I don't see the extremes I mention on the left as that "fringe" anymore.  I'd be very happy to be wrong, I just don't think I am.

1. So you are NOT saying that when Trump is gone, Trump voters will abandon "Trumpism" and the GOP will revert to some previous norm? You have never argued that support for Trump policies and priorities is only based on his "presence," not on what the majority of Trump voters themselves want? Things will go more smoothly if you restate your argument when you claim I have not addressed it.

2. Right now the Republican fringe would be groups like the never Trumpers and the Lincoln project, less than 15% of registered Republicans. I am saying that the Trump supporting majority now defines the party and its future potential.

For the Democratic party, the "fringe" would be all those who finally coalesced behind Bernie during the Dem primary, and then watched Biden trounce him in state after state. So at the moment they certainly do not define the Democratic party. 

So no, my description of your position does not define mine as well.  Mine is the inverse of yours, for I claim that each candidate won because he was what the majority of his party wanted. That's why the Republican party is not set to revert to some imagined GOP norm when Trump is gone. The "norm" now is conspiracy and war on the deep state.

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: I suppose that is an ideological kind of stability, or maybe "paralysis" would be a better word, but it doesn't comport with managing the business of the nation. So yes, your "stability" is different from mine. And that is why I am arguing against it.

For one so versed in history and founding of our nation I'd expect you'd be aware that this was exactly how the Framers wanted it.

Quote:At this point, the majority of American voters share my "entirely subjective" ideals of stable and reasonable government, including many "normal" Republicans. Can there be mass "solipsism"?

In what way?  That they don't want Trump?  That they prefer Biden but don't want a Dem controlled Congress?  There's a lot of options between Trump wins and GOP controlled Congress and Biden wins and a Dem controlled Congress.  I don't think there's nearly as many people who want the latter, as you do, as you apparently seem to think.

No, the Framers did not want gridlock and "ideological stability" of the sort here referenced, which keeps one party in enough control of legislation to make sure that nothing gets done--i.e., prevents good governance. If you think they did, I'd like to know to whom you are referring and in what you call evidence. 

And yes, people want Biden over Trump for reasons the Framers well understood. The presidency was designed to be an office that required internal restraint, selfless sacrifice, and "buy in" regarding the ideals upon which the Republic was founded. Trump is the anti-thesis of that. Hence the many fact-based threads in this forum on his corruption, abuse of power, and incompetence.

To continue the theme of "stability" and "entirely subjective" ideals, people on both sides of the aisle understand what it means when a President continually contradicts and mis-states his own official policies, which he cannot articulate, doesn't grasp basic points of law, and fires people who speak truth to power. His mismanagement of the pandemic brings the same disorganization and confusion-with-consequences to the domestic arena as it already has in foreign policy, which few people follow. So at the moment, the priority of the majority of US voters--and me-- would be that we don't want Trump. Certainly many Republicans (far from a majority) would prefer to get rid of Trump and keep a Republican Senate, but they understand that getting rid of Trump is in the larger interest of the country. So as I said, they are putting the country before party, though as a minority of that party.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2020, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: No, the Framers did not want gridlock and "ideological stability" of the sort here referenced, which keeps one party in enough control of legislation to make sure that nothing gets done--i.e., prevents good governance. If you think they did, I'd like to know to whom you are referring and in what you call evidence.

Yes, they absolutely did for two reasons.  One it would prevent hastily enacted legislation and two it would encourage compromise.  If the parties cannot compromise that is not indicative of the flaws of the framers design but that of the two current parties. 

Quote:And yes, people want Biden over Trump for reasons the Framers well understood. The presidency was designed to be an office that required internal restraint, selfless sacrifice, and "buy in" regarding the ideals upon which the Republic was founded. Trump is the anti-thesis of that. Hence the many fact-based threads in this forum on his corruption, abuse of power, and incompetence.

"People", what an utterly useless statement.  Some "people" want Biden, some "people" want Trump.

Quote:To continue the theme of "stability" and "entirely subjective" ideals, people on both sides of the aisle understand what it means when a President continually contradicts and mis-states his own official policies, which he cannot articulate, doesn't grasp basic points of law, and fires people who speak truth to power. His mismanagement of the pandemic brings the same disorganization and confusion-with-consequences to the domestic arena as it already has in foreign policy, which few people follow. So at the moment, the priority of the majority of US voters--and me-- would be that we don't want Trump. Certainly many Republicans (far from a majority) would prefer to get rid of Trump and keep a Republican Senate, but they understand that getting rid of Trump is in the larger interest of the country. So as I said, they are putting the country before party, though as a minority of that party.

You keep repeating the same points as if endless repetition lends your point extra validity.  I understand your position, it is absolutist and brooks no dissent.  You state your position as an objective truth allowing no counter argument.  No need to respond further, you've made your point clear and I've made my opposition to it equally clear.  Thank you and enjoy your weekend.   

[Dill]

(08-08-2020, 01:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: dill: No, the Framers did not want gridlock and "ideological stability" of the sort here referenced, which keeps one party in enough control of legislation to make sure that nothing gets done--i.e., prevents good governance. If you think they did, I'd like to know to whom you are referring and in what you call evidence.

Yes, they absolutely did for two reasons.  One it would prevent hastily enacted legislation and two it would encourage compromise.  If the parties cannot compromise that is not indicative of the flaws of the framers design but that of the two current parties. 

Madison describes a system institutions set up to check, balance and prevent "factions" from dominating and using the government for sectarian interests, as he articulates in the Federalist Papers Nos 10 and 51. That's a far cry from Gingrich, Boehner, and McConnell taking how few bills are passed as a measure of good governance, and stacking up blocked appointees for when their party gets control of the Exec. 

You may be confusing gridlock with concept of systemic checks. Gridlock prevents ANY legislation. It is created by the refusal of compromise. The Founders certainly did not want that. If you think they did then I ask again--what are your sources? 

And gridlock doesn't have to be the "flaw" of both parties when one party's representatives have regularly campaigned on hatred of compromise and government itself.

[Dill]

(08-08-2020, 01:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And yes, people want Biden over Trump for reasons the Framers well understood. The presidency was designed to be an office that required internal restraint, selfless sacrifice, and "buy in" regarding the ideals upon which the Republic was founded. Trump is the anti-thesis of that. Hence the many fact-based threads in this forum on his corruption, abuse of power, and incompetence.

"People", what an utterly useless statement.  Some "people" want Biden, some "people" want Trump.

You keep repeating the same points as if endless repetition lends your point extra validity.  I understand your position, it is absolutist and brooks no dissent.  You state your position as an objective truth allowing no counter argument.  No need to respond further, you've made your point clear and I've made my opposition to it equally clear.  Thank you and enjoy your weekend.   

Questioning or refuting a bad counterargument is not the same as "allowing no counter argument." 

"Absolutists" who "brook no dissent" do not ask their opponents to clarify and offer more evidence for, or restate their points. And conversely, they don't opt out of dialogue when asked for evidence or to further explain their reasoning, or to demonstrate an understanding of their opponent's argument.

Avoiding such ordinary challenges of civil debate--that's what absolutists do who brook no dissent. They state their conclusions, and if they're feeling generous they may restate them once more, but then that's that. 

Your claims that Trumpism is dependent only on Trump's "presence" and that the Dem party poses a radical far left danger greater than four more years of Trump are at this point unsupportable. Their weakness has been laid out step by step, unanswered, in posts #45-46. Claiming I've made my point and you've made yours doesn't make this a "tie." 

[GMDino]

(08-08-2020, 02:47 AM)Dill Wrote: Questioning or refuting a bad counterargument is not the same as "allowing no counter argument." 

"Absolutists" who "brook no dissent" do not ask their opponents to clarify and offer more evidence for, or restate their points. And conversely, they don't opt out of dialogue when asked for evidence or to further explain their reasoning, or to demonstrate an understanding of their opponent's argument.

Avoiding such ordinary challenges of civil debate--that's what absolutists do who brook no dissent. They state their conclusions, and if they're feeling generous they may restate them once more, but then that's that. 

Your claims that Trumpism is dependent only on Trump's "presence" and that the Dem party poses a radical far left danger greater than four more years of Trump are at this point unsupportable. Their weakness has been laid out step by step, unanswered, in posts #45-46. Claiming I've made my point and you've made yours doesn't make this a "tie." 

Dill!  Stop asking people to clarify or defend what they say!  You must not understand "muh free speech"! 

All seriousness aside this thread was highlighting Trump's inability to think, speak or plan until it went of on.."but Biden" along with the usual semantic arguments (you said "people" instead of "biden supporters"!!!!11!!1!)

Its too funny.