Friday, October 26, 2018

Is Trump's Behavior Driving Violence?

NPR: After Suspicious Packages, Trump Tones Down Partisan Rhetoric, Attacks Media


Personally I believe that Trump owns the responsibility for this incitement and escalation.  A leader can not go around praising violence and calling people enemies of the USA without expecting consequences.  He did it, he should own it...  Unfortunately this guy never takes responsibility when his actions or words lead to failures...  Only when he thinks he can spin something to the positive.

105 comments:

Sean said...

The ultimate responsibility for the violence belongs with the people actually engaging in it. But, yes, the President's rhetoric is not helpful -- he's the worst offender with the biggest microphone ina recent spate of unfortunate comments, and it would do everyone some good if he would get the Halloween spirit and pretend to be the President of the United States for the next two weeks.

Sean said...

Hey, where are all of you conservatives on Donald Trum's egregious breach of information security protocols? I seem to recall you guys were all over this a couple of years ago...

NYT: Whe Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese and Russians Listen and Learn

Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!

John said...

Okay I read the whole thing... Maybe...

Anonymous said...

It's hard to say that Trump's rhetoric is driving. What is clearer is that presidents and other political leaders generally avoid the kind of rhetoric Trump uses because, among other reasons, it's potential for provoking violence.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Stochastic terrorism.

Moose

John said...

Definition...

The public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted:

The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.



I learn so many new words at G2A...

John said...

Suspect Arrested

John said...

And Trump's comments

Sean said...

Teleprompter Trump mostly kept it together today (except for when he said "lock him up" when the crowd started chanting about Soros). Will he be able to keep it up at the three rallies he's holding over the next six days? History suggests no.

John said...

Agreed

jerrye92002 said...

Let's see. Suppose I put up a sign on my lawn that says "stop illegal immigration." An illegal immigrant burns my house down with me and the family inside. A readily foreseen consequence of my free speech? Yes. Legal and moral? You decide.

Anonymous said...

Suppose the president of the United States approves violent behavior at his rallies. Is violence a readily foreseen consequence of his free speech? What does history suggest?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"readily foreseen" is definitely a matter of the times we are in. Used to be respected each others' right to speech, even offensive speech, without trying to violently trying to suppress that speech. If I go to a Trump rally and try to spoil the event, who is provoking the violence? In other words, readily foreseen BY WHOM?

John said...

Jerry,
Sorry but Trump calling out normal people and businesses as enemy of the state is unacceptable.

Trump praising a politician for body slamming a reporter is just wrong...

jerrye92002 said...

Words. Chasing people out of restaurants and shooting people on the ballfield, THAT is unacceptable.

John said...

How do I say that again...

We will need to agree to disagree...

I expect more character from our President.

Anonymous said...

Agreeing to disagree with this nonsense is not good enough.

It is clearly wrong and needs to be denounced. There is a clear line between Trump’s words and the actions of these domestic terrorists.

Moose

John said...

Well we know after years of corresponding with Jerry that he will never compromise or call Trump on any of his major flaws...

So I am guessing this is the best we get... :-(


As Trump said long ago...

He could shoot an unarmed man on Fifth Ave and folks like Jerry would blame the dead man...

I am mean they already let Trump off for grabbing women's pussies and paying off porn stars...

John said...

VOX Domestic Terrorism

Sean said...

When the Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, Bernie (and Democrats generally) didn't go around suggesting that the Koch Brothers had actually hired the guy as a false flag operation. (And, crucially, Bernie had never even came close to suggesting anything that resembled a call to violent action.)

This is not a "both sides" situation right now. Only the rhetoric from one side is being embraced by purveyor of violence. When the racists, anti-Semites and white supremacists are loving what you're saying and taking action on it, maybe you need to check what's coming out of your mouth.

Sean said...

Donald Trump said some of the folks at the "Jews will not replace us" March were "very fine people".

jerrye92002 said...

"Only the rhetoric from one side is being embraced by purveyor of violence." -- Sean

Are you kidding? Conservative news outlets are running HOURS of video showing violence-promoting rhetoric from Democrat leaders, and more hours of video showing leftists actually DOING violence. It may be "both sides," but if it was a football game it would 98-3.

As for the "false flag" turning out to be untrue (face it, nutjobs come in all stripes), why do you suppose that charge was so readily accepted on the right, almost as immediately and completely as the Left assumed it was a Trump supporter? Why the breathless and exhaustive coverage of this incident, while the shooting of Steve Scalise and others goes almost unnoticed in the major media?

Sean said...

"As for the "false flag" turning out to be untrue (face it, nutjobs come in all stripes), why do you suppose that charge was so readily accepted on the right, almost as immediately and completely as the Left assumed it was a Trump supporter? "

Assuming that a person who sent bombs to people verbally targeted by Trump's rhetoric was a Trump supporter makes sense. The false flag operation doesn't.

jerrye92002 said...

Doesn't make sense to you, perhaps. But some of the parodies out there make use of the fact that it was so OBVIOUSLY intended to be found before its target [one PO employee said these packages had "every one of the things we are trained to look for"] that it could not have been intended to do harm but rather to make the news, just before the election.

Sean said...

"it was so OBVIOUSLY intended to be found before its target"

No, it just means the guy was an idiot. If this guy was just trying to send a message and not really hurt anybody, he wouldn't have used actual explosive material.

John said...

Sean,
Thank heavens a lot of those Far Righters are not so bright... :-)


Jerry,
Trump recommends and applauds violence.
Trump specifically named the targets.
A Trump True Believer executed the crime.

You can point elsewhere all you want, but those are the facts of this particular crime.


Anonymous said...

jerry has fallen right into Trump's manipulative little hands. Trump is a con man; always has been; always will be. The Stochastic Terrorist in Chief knows exactly what he's doing, and he's played the ignorant masses like a cheap fiddle.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
I guess I disagree with you. Many Trump supporters are very intelligent people. There is just something about Trump's preaching that draws them into his alternate reality. It is a bit like why some smart rational people end up joining cults.

They so want to "support him" that they are able to rationalize away his flaws.

I mean I support some of his policies, statements, etc... But I have no problem accepting that he is a flawed individual who I will often disagree with and disapprove of.

John said...

The GOP folks are not the only ones who get sucked into this psychological trap... Just think of all the Liberals that cheered on Hillary while over looking her checkered past.

Maybe people have a hard time supporting flawed politicians, so they have to mentally shield themselves from reality...

jerrye92002 said...

Oh, yes, he insults the "other side." Horrors! that is not allowed! While Democrat leaders talking about kicking, driving out, bringing a gun to a knife fight, getting in faces, allowing no peace, and routinely NOT condemning real violence from their side. Score is still 98-3 Democrats. If you want to condemn Trump's words, fine, but own up to the far more frequent violent rhetoric AND behavior from the left.

jerrye92002 said...

"They so want to "support him" that they are able to rationalize away his flaws"-- John

You still do not understand. Trump's "flaws" include his harsh rhetoric and insults of political opponents. His supporters LOVE that he offends all the right people. And when they act out, we get delighted and, unfortunately, that might lead to violent frustration on their part. It already has, many times.

Anonymous said...

All politicians are flawed, but some still have character.

jerry, please cite some sources. Please give examples of left wing violence that can be tied to the words of politicians.

Moose

Anonymous said...

"His supporters LOVE that he offends all the right people."

Jews, blacks, browns, immigrants, Muslims, the media. Yes, he has all the hallmarks of just the type of person we should expect right-wingers to support...Hitler.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

How about the terrible synagogue shooting and the words of Keith Ellison?

When GOP /candidates/ are attacked, who should we blame?
Minnesota nice

Anonymous said...

Interesting link. And what did Maxine Waters and Eric Holder say? Their words please, not yours.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, your bias is showing. Give me one example of his offending each of those classes of people. He has denounced the synagogue shooting, moved the embassy to Jerusalem, reduced black and brown unemployment to its lowest in history, offered to double the number of DACA recipients, and banned terrorists--not Muslims-- from the country. The media, well, he has been awfully polite, considering. And Hitler, by the way, was a socialist.

Anonymous said...

And one was an anarchist who said he could do whatever he wanted. Sounds like a Libertarian to me.

Moose

Anonymous said...

Hitler was a fascist who hated socialism. The fact that you believe the lie that Hitler was a Socialist tells me just how small your intellect is.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

all over the news

NOI

jerrye92002 said...

national socialist party

John said...

Sounds like it was complicated... But definitely not Socialist.Snopes Nazis

Jerry,
He denounced the shooting... Then inferred that it was their fault because they should have had armed guards at their religious service.

Trump, Pence, etc saying that it is the Jews funding the "Terrible Immigration Caravan" is part of why this guy attacked...

John said...

Now the Head of the Democrats in the House called for Maxine to stop... Where as the GOP just let's Trump go...

John said...

And even Ellison Denounces Farrakhan...

Which GOPers are denouncing Trump?

jerrye92002 said...

Just spoke with a very sensible left-centrist. She says "words matter" and suggests we should not be "triggering" these crazies. I claim we cannot all remain silent all the time just because one person is mentally deranged and takes offense at something they think they heard, i.e voices real or imagined. The only reason to denounce Trump is because you hate Trump and want to justify your hatred. Especially if you are unwilling to denounce extreme anti-Trump comments and actions. And, my friend and I agree our world is just too polarized and we are all in danger from it.

jerrye92002 said...

This blame game isn't helping. Violent things are done by crazy and violent people. Blame them and only them. If I somebody should go throw a brick through the windows of DFL HQ, and you do it, who is to blame?

John said...

And yet the Blamer in Chief continues...

jerrye92002 said...

Will you agree that the media are driving the polarization of the country?

John said...

NBC Trump Rips Media


No... The media gives the citizens what they want... It is capitalism at it's finest and worst...

FOX News and Rush Limbaugh stretch the news Right to attract their customers...

Mother Jones and DailyKos stretches the news Left to attract their customers...

And Trump obsessively plays to the Right in an attempt to keep them riled up.

So ultimately it is we the citizens creating the divided by what we choose to watch and who we talk to on social media.

John said...

If you want the most realistic news Stay in the Middle...

They have much more news and fewer opinions... And when they have opinions they include people from both sides.

One of my favorite shows is the Sunday morning Chris Wallace Fox Political show. It is so very different from the silly Fox cable news circus.

Anonymous said...

People like Chris Wallace are there to provide cover for Fox's political agenda. Something I find funny about Fox is there frequent attacks on other news organizations for not covering stories, those news organizations originally reported. It's amazing how little reporting Fox News actually does.

--Hiram

Sean said...

What the Megyn Kelly fiasco at NBC shows is that the flow of talent can only go one way: from traditional media outlets to Fox, not the other way around. Because what Fox does is not "traditional news".

John said...

I think the FOX News organization is probably pretty capable. Unfortunately they rarely use them for their cable / internet content...

Most of that is content specifically tuned to keep Trump True Believer types watching.

John said...

As for Megyn Kelly, that is on NBC...

Hire a news / opinion personality and try to make her host a fluffy talk show... What were they thinking?

Sean said...

What kind of news/opinion personality doesn't understand the history of blackface? The kind that came up through the Fox ecosystem.

jerrye92002 said...

" Stay in the Middle..."-- John

Sorry to break it to you, but FACTS have no bias. Facts are facts. Now, there can be bias in the selection of which facts to report, and there are certainly biased ways to state those facts, and obviously rampant bias in the opinions of those facts, so what you have to do is to sift through the bias, wherever you find it, find the true facts, and decide for yourself what to think about it. Example: you see Trump "rips media," yet if you saw the actual quote you would not use that word. The actual quote is the fact; the rest is bias. There is no such thing, IMHO, as an unbiased news organization. Some may err one side or the other, vacillating between the two, but objective reporting, other than CSPAN direct view, is rare bordering on impossible. Better to check stories from multiple sources and see if the underlying facts match.

And here is another thing I have discovered: bias is in the eye of the beholder. I quit taking the Star Tribune because it was taking me 3 hours every day to underline the spelling, grammar and context errors, and then highlight all the appearances of [liberal] bias. Yet I daresay there are thousands of people who read that and do NOT see any bias whatsoever. They certainly do not have such things "jump out" and assault their eyes like they do to me. We are insulated from out own bias-- "confirmation bias" at work.

And you point out that the media are making money from polarizing us-- BIG money. They are therefore to blame for making polarization worse. We are very careful what we put in our bodies, but less so with what we put in our minds. McDonald's doesn't cause obesity, strictly speaking, but it CAN be abused by willing customers. Politics is too much a part of our lives, and the "news junkies" among us might be healthier with a balanced life that included other things, like Hollywood gossip.

John said...

Sean,
Sorry but I don't see what Megyn did as awful as the politically correct folks do. Should blondes have protested White Chicks???

Jerry,
Okay... Good then I assume you will start giving equal time to both Fox News and Daily Kos in order to broaden your perspective of reality... Or you can just go to ALLSIDES.

And please remember that is you spend 3 hours marking up the Star Tribune, that means your personal bias is pretty severe.

Sean said...

"Sorry but I don't see what Megyn did as awful as the politically correct folks do."

Well, no, of course you don't. You're only offended when it affects you.

John said...

Please remember that my family mostly comes from Norway and the British Isles...

Should I protest the MN Vikings and all their gear?

Or maybe boycott things that depict them as violent marauders?

I personally do not care about the past... I prefer to live in the now.

And to take life less seriously...


Maybe I should protest the THOR Halloween Costumes

jerrye92002 said...

"Okay... Good then I assume you will start giving equal time to both Fox News and Daily Kos in order to broaden your perspective of reality... Or you can just go to ALLSIDES."

I spend almost no time watching Fox and no time at all reading Kos. I do occasionally encounter "liberal" cites, as well as "raw news" from any number of various sources. I read them for the information and block out the bias as best I can, but find MY bias confirmed often. And that to me is why ALLSIDES doesn't work. People-- all people including me-- look at a news story and immediately recognize the bias implicit in it UNLESS it already agrees with them and to that they are blind. Read enough stories from a specific outlet with (what you perceive us) the same not-your bias and you so label the news outlet as a whole. A news source rated "centrist" is more likely one that is seen as severely biased, but by both sides equally.

Looked at another way, I do not need "sources" for my opinion. I need facts and true information. The Truth is where you find it, IF you can find it. Your opinion of what to do about that truth is your own.

Sean said...

If you don't understand what the difference between blackface and dressing up as Thor is, there's not much hope for you.

John said...

Jerry,
So any news source that covers topics from a position other than yours is wrong?

"look at a news story and immediately recognize the bias implicit in it"

And any news source that covers topics from your position correct?

I think that is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.


Sean,
Agreed... I will never make it as a politically correct talk show host...



John said...

Yep PT Confirmation Bias

Sean said...

Vox: Don't Get What's Wrong With Blackface? Here's Why It's So Offensive

jerrye92002 said...

"So any news source that covers topics from a position other than yours is wrong?"

Any "news source" that reports something other than straight out fact is a biased news source, and that is pretty much all of them. But it is possible to glean facts from even the most biased source, assuming you find the same fact in opposingly biased sources. More simply put, don't believe Fake News. Remember, sometimes it is simply the selection of which news to print that is the bias. "All the news that's fit to print"? or "all the news that fits the narrative"?

John said...

Sean,
I have no desire to wear black face, however I do not think demonizing everyone who does something you think is politically incorrect and offensive is the American way either.

Or cheering the firing of someone who has a different opinion from one's own.

Jerry,
You must watch different news than I do. PBS, NPR, BBC, NBC, etc seem pretty good to my more centrist perceptions.

It seems to be the cable channels who are competing for their niche markets.

John said...

As for selection of news, that is another reason I like those sources. They keep stories short and cover a lot of them. Unlike the cable news shows that seem to obsess over some stories for hours or days...

Sean said...

"I do not think demonizing everyone who does something you think is politically incorrect and offensive is the American way either."

Are you familiar with America? That's exactly how it works! For cripes sake, conservatives still bring up "clinging" and "deplorable" and "you didn't build that" routinely.

jerrye92002 said...

"Jerry,
You must watch different news than I do. PBS, NPR, BBC, NBC, etc seem pretty good to my more centrist perceptions."-- John

Exactly. We can only perceive bias that does not align with ours. Since you (according to you) have no bias, everything looks correct to you-- as "straight news."
All the sources you mention I perceive, to varying degrees at various times, as being biased left. Any rightward tilt, of course, I wouldn't notice, and neither would you.

I am discovering that I do not need to hear "spin" from the "other side" to learn the facts-- they're almost always in there somewhere-- but you just have to extract them from the overburden of opinion and bias. I may as well find the digging pleasant rather than annoying.

John said...

Sean,
Our political figures are judged on their chosen words... It is part of their job...

And yes Megyn should have known better. That she would have to stay perfectly political correct and bland to survive as a public figure on that network with those advertisers and that audience. Her bad...

Jerry,
I guess I have never heard of a moderate bias... I mean if the new show makes few or no opinion comments? If they have guest experts from the Left and Right? How again is that "biased"?

I mean yes it is different from what a Far Right Station would present and their audience would appreciate... But it is the best attempt to look at issues from "both sides"...

Remember:
"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true.

Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices."


Sean said...

"I guess I have never heard of a moderate bias."

I think there actually are some forms of this.

One type is a sort of reflexive centrism, that automatically positions both parties on the extreme and takes a position between the two and clucks down at them. David Broder in the Washington Post was probably the most well-known practitioner of this, and today you've got folks like Ron Fournier or locally Dan Barreiro who fall into this camp.

A second type is what media critic Jay Rosen calls "the view from nowhere", where the media uncritically reports what both sides are saying without applying any fact-checking or context. we saw a lot of this yesterday, with media outlets just reporting that the President was going to sign an EO to end birthright citizenship without noting that you can't actually make that change via EO.

John said...

I guess most of the new sources I use covered that story like this.

John said...

Jerry,
Now is that "biased reporting"?

John said...

Atlantic Ron Fournier Pieces

John said...

It seems to me that Ron is more of a columnist than a news source. Meaning that some opinions are encouraged.

Sean said...

"I guess most of the new sources I use covered that story like this."

Sure, by 12 hours after it became news (like your link), most outlets put it in proper context. Initial reports on this were terrible, though. The AP and NYT, for instance, both had to republish stories because they failed to note that he just can't do that.

John said...

I guess to me "news" does not need to be fact checked. How about the following made up example...

"Man claims to be the new messiah of the Christian faith!!! Bob Smith walked up to a microphone and claimed that he was the new messiah who can heal the sick, walk on water, etc."

Is that "news"... Even if it is unlikely the man can deliver on his claims?

News: "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events."

John said...

By the way, I am pretty sure he can "just do that"... Though it likely would be thrown out by the courts...

So by your saying "he just can't do that", would that be an example of Jerry's Liberal bias?

Sean said...

"By the way, I am pretty sure he can "just do that"... Though it likely would be thrown out by the courts..."

Can he sign an EO? Sure. Will it end birthright citizenship? No. You can't amend the Constitution by executive order.

jerrye92002 said...

But the EO can be tested in the courts, and the Constitution interpreted in a way different than the biased news outlets report. "most legal scholars — and even leaders of the president's own party — are skeptical." Skeptical is not the same as "you can't do that." It's like saying 97% of climate scientists agree, the DATA is wrong!

As for "fake news," if it is reported (correctly) that a man claimed such (preferably by direct and accurate quote), it would be factual news. If it turns out the man said something different, like "my neighbor is the new Messiah, or the new Messiah will come" then the news is fake-- not factual-- and probably intended to discredit somebody or some thing.

John said...

Jerry,
So again, based on your perception...

NPR Story Biased or accurate?

jerrye92002 said...

Headline: "14th Amendment On Citizenship Cannot Be Overwritten By Executive Order"

Clearly biased. This is a declarative statement on which there is yet some doubt. Stating it this way is calling Trump a liar [on this subject] and that is a clear exhibition of bias. How can it NOT be so read?

Anonymous said...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This text is quite clear. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is also clear in its meaning, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from promulgating their misinterpretation of it.

Moose

Anonymous said...

Let's hope that every citizen can show proof of naturalization for at least one of their parents' ancestors or proof of residence in the colonies on July 4, 1776. If not, it might be time to find a good genealogist. If your ancestors weren't legal citizens, neither are you.

In Related News

Moose

Anonymous said...

This is the related news I intended to link to.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

So, the "right to vote" is inviolable and may not be constrained to those of legal age, or residency, or lack of felony conviction? You are talking nonsense.

Recent man on the street, in Harlem: 95% of those surveyed said they already had a photo ID, and most of the rest said they knew where to get one if they needed to. And if I must point it out, these were all "po' blak folk."

Other studies, before and after photo ID, find no difference. And I notice, as an election judge, many folks simply offer their DL when checking in. We have to tell them it isn't required. Unless they want to register same day, and then it is mandatory.

John said...

Jerry,
Your confirmation Bias is showing BIG TIME... The headline is actually:

"FACT CHECK: 14th Amendment On Citizenship Cannot Be Overwritten By Executive Order"

Do you misread everything due to your bias?

Do you even stop to wonder?

John said...

Jerry,
And where did you misread this?

"So, the "right to vote" is inviolable and may not be constrained to those of legal age, or residency, or lack of felony conviction? "

Here is some info on Felony Disenfranchisement

jerrye92002 said...

On voting, I read that from Moose. Or at least that's the reductio ad absurdum reading.

Your quote of the headline is exactly the same as mine! How did I misread if I read exactly what you did? It clearly says "cannot" does it not? And isn't the reality that it CAN? It might not hold up in court, but that's a different issue.

John said...

There is a huge difference...

The words Fact Check mean that they are going to evaluate a statement or topic in the following article. As they did.

Technically they are fact checking Ryan's statement.

"You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan said Tuesday "

John said...

Maybe Reductio ad absurdum reading is your challenge...

Instead of reading and considering his words... Your mind restructures them into something that supports your preconceived notions...

Remember:
"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true.

Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices."

John said...

Remember my favorite phrases...

1. Seek to Understand
2. Seek to be Understood...

jerrye92002 said...

You are like my church, entertaining "seekers." How about actually FINDING something that is plainly in your path?

AH! Yes, they are quoting Ryan, not their own opinion. The problem with that excuse is that Paul Ryan is not quoted until the 13th paragraph of a 14-paragraph item. In the first 12 paragraphs they go on at great length, in their own voice, to say exactly the same thing as the headline.

John said...

That is because it is the "Fact"...

Few people think Trump can do as he claimed, including me.

Only folks like your self would consider his claim credible.

jerrye92002 said...

Credible? He said he CAN do it, and he can, though it may not stand up in court. To say he CANNOT is completely incorrect. And to say he SHOULD not or MAY not, that is a completely different argument.

"Only folks like me" believe that words mean what they mean and not what they mean in some wildly biased interpretation.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carroll

Anonymous said...

“People like you” use the word ‘baby’ when you mean ‘embryo’ or ‘fetus’.

Don’t lecture us about language.

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
Don't you get tired of Donald promising you things that he can not deliver on?

- ACA is still law
- Immigrants are still crossing the borders
- North Korea still has Nuclear weapons

Now I can admit that he has kept some. But I am a fan of under promise and over deliver... The opposite of Trumps world view.
Status of Trump Promises

Final, you did not like it when Obama took "extreme" executive actions. And yet it is okay if your Emperor Trump does

jerrye92002 said...

Sort of depends on the action taken, does it not? Is there a moral equivalency between Good and Evil? See Star Trek: "The Savage Curtain"

John said...

The Savage Curtain

The idea that you see the 2 Presidents as Good and Evil says more about your perceptions than it does about them...

Remember crux of our current problem...
- Tribe Liberal members view TC members as Evil
- Tribe Conservative members view TL members as Evil

I actually liked some of the things Obama did and Trump has done...

They are just men with all our flaws... Not Angels or Devils...

Anonymous said...

We see what conservatives desire: a Biblical battle between good and evil. They’re not interested in good governance of a diverse people.

Moose

Anonymous said...

No John, TL sees TC, the tribe that hates government, as being terrible at governing (surprise!), and their terrible governance of course leads to disastrous outcomes for the people they purport to govern.

Moose

John said...

Those are definitely Tribe Liberal beliefs...

I would argue that Republicans love good government. One that protects property rights, maintains law & order, keeps us safe, provides infrastructure, etc.


However your idea of good government is just very different.

I think you envision a primary role of government to be that of taking from the successful & responsible to give to the unsuccessful & irresponsible.

That would be a "not good" government from the view of many of us.

jerrye92002 said...

"- Tribe Liberal members view TC members as Evil
- Tribe Conservative members view TL members as Evil"

Absolutely untrue. The first part is right-- conservatives are either evil or stupid, or both, according to liberals.

But Liberals are not evil, they're just not thinking, is the conservative view. Doing intense research right now, and seems to bear out that proposition.

jerrye92002 said...

And of course the old adage "You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not first reason himself into" would seem self-evident truth.

Anonymous said...

“I think you envision a primary role of government to be that of taking from the successful & responsible to give to the unsuccessful & irresponsible.”

I think you think way too much of yourself and your thoughts about what other people believe. You get it wrong every time, yet you double down on the idiocy.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, you may be right, but on the other hand it may just be the truth, expressed badly or in terms you find offensive.