It’s irrational to imply people had no reason to expect Trump would be a manifestly unfit president prior to taking office. The evidence was obvious, experience has borne it out.
One notices that there was no reply to the points made so those stand then.
So whataboutism you are talking here that does not take away what was noticed early?
Those where civil right groups that already had grievances noted by them about Trump trough the years, they had the freedom to notice what a cad the president was before, but regardless of how important the right wing thought those grandstands were (not really as no impeachment vote was made of those items in congress about that issue as they where people with little government power) the point here is that you still want to ignore that the points made before deal with what the current administration in power is doing. Grossly failing in his promises to the American people and lying about them too.
You are still “nutpicking” here.
The only thing you’re trying to win is an insults contest, and as usual you’re getting it wrong. Here’s your own words from your first post in this thread:
Nothing in there polarising at all right? You’re describing Trump’s policies as “crazy, cruel, and delusional bullshit.” You’re describing Trump’s government as “a pirate crew determined to loot wealth” and his presidency as a “crime racket”. No flagrant antipathy there at all is there?
What’s miserable is your feeble attempt to back off from your position by saying in effect that you’ve supported a few of Trump’s actions. But you can’t even pull it off because you’re instantly back to repeating yourself. And, in my opinion, that dreck is the same output as what comes from the majority of Trump haters that make up the American left. I use the word hate with intent. Although my earlier language may have been flowerly, I don’t believe it’s projection to state that you and much of the left hate Trump and that that hatred spills over to your attitudes towards Trump supporters. Guess how people respond to hatred? It’s not by taking up the positions of the haters.
By the way, if you want to decline to debate a point of discussion, simply politely decline or ignore the request. Dismissing the discussion with insults makes you look like a juvenile coward.
Short of declaring war, impeachment should be the most serious decision a legislative body can make. It’s basically overturning the will of the people as expressed in a democratic election because the executive has committed trangressions so antagonistic to democracy there is no other recourse. Predicting that those transgressions would take place is not irrational. Presupposing them, and using those presuppositions as the basis for a call for impeachment is. Likewise, imposing the impeachment process when there’s no chance of removing the president from office and turning the process into partisan grandstanding is demeaning to the legislature. The House of Representatives lowered its own standing when they chose to go forward with impeachment purely on party lines and with no bipartisan agreement of the seriousness of the transgressions. I view pointless self-harm as irrational.
Bravo. You’ve discovered that flagrantly awful actions earn flagrant antipathy. Looking forward to your further obvious insights.
It’s not my job to manage other people’s feelings, especially when it’s based on imaginary offenses.
You complain about insults and then immediately follow it with name-calling? This is precious and hilarious.
You’re calling the ACLU nuts? Okay, but that one’s on you. Or am I doing more nutpicking with the previous sentence?
I’m also discussing 2016 politics and you’re trying to turn it into 2020 politics. I think in November American voters should objectively assess Trump’s performance and judge him on it, and that judgment should see him removed from office via the election. Some voters won’t do that objective assessment. On the left, it’s because they had their minds made up four years ago and they’re aching to avenge their loss. Similarly, on the right, it’s because they had their minds made up four years ago and they’re unwilling to change. The OP is about that unwillingness to change. Earlier in the thread, there was these posts:
My position is that these attitudes are typical of the left. I disagree with them, but that’s not my point. My point is that anyone who supported Trump in 2016, when faced with those attitudes, will simply double-down. In other words, it’s all about tribalism and polarisation in American politics. The polarisation is caused by both sides. But the antipathy of the right towards the left isn’t some evil versus good dichotomy. It’s based on both sides entrenching and antagonising the other.
Was the point of your citing of that Prospect article to refute my point that American politics is polarised? I’m happy to discuss that point so long as it remains in context to the OP. My basic view is that in general, American politics is centre-right and it’s no surprise that Americans support centre-left policies when they’re expressed without political affiliation. I think that Americans generally reject far-left policies, and I think that’s expressed by the Democrats choice of Biden as their presidential candidate instead of Sanders. However, in a discussion of Trump supporters, I’m not sure if it’s useful to discuss centre-right or centre-left positions. I think most of the noise is coming from the far-right and far-left and any reasonableness from the centre is drowned out by the shouting from those two camps.
Let me stop you right there.
First, the expressed will of the people is that 3 million more voted for Hillary Clinton. The reason she isn’t currently president is because our presidential elections are not based on the will of the people. If you want to appeal to the will of the people, never forget that the people unambiguously chose Hillary Clinton in 2016.
As an aside, it baffles me that righties want to appeal to “the will of the people” when they are typically the first ones to dismiss the popular vote count by pointing out that the US is a republic, not a democracy. They depend on this situation to maintain power, so it’s baffling how easily that fact slips their mind when the topic turns to Trump’s impeachment.
Second, if you care to appeal to the will of the people, recall that the House of Representatives is the body of congress that actually does represent the democratic will of the people. In 2018 the people decided that Democrats should control the House rather than Republicans, reflecting that the people rejected Trump and supported his impeachment.
Finally, impeachment does not overturn the result of the election. Had impeachment succeeded, would we hold a new election? No. Would we reinstall Obama until the next election? No. Would Trump’s remaining administration be dismissed and replaced with Hillary Clinton and her administration? None of those things would have happened, ergo impeachment does not overturn the previous election.
In short, it’s completely indefensible and ludicrous to suggest that impeachment overturns the expressed will of the people, and we can put that silly idea to bed.
This seems an insurmountable point of difference. I’ll try anyway:
The Trump Administration IS IN FACT the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our lifetime. It may prove to be the most corrupt in the history of the US. It is in no way reasonable or moral to expect those who recognize this corruption and incompetence to try to be polite or diplomatic about pointing it out to those who refuse to see it.
I get that there are a large number of Trump supporters who disagree with that view. It does not make them right. And it is not in the interest of the country as a (w)hole to cater to their delusional view of reality. Trump & Co. have demonstrated time and time again that they are not fit to shovel shit from one place to another. The fact that every now and then they manage to get something right in no way absolves them, or obligates us to look the other way on the many ways in which he/they have failed in their capacity to govern.
Read it again, it was you who called them irrational. The point was that even if you think so, it was a very silly counter point.
^This. The claim that Trump’s conduct can be explained by supposed adherence to the doctrines of Norman Vincent Peale exists in order to lend Trump a veneer of legitimacy.
In American culture, Peale is generally looked on as a positive figure whose philosophy has been helpful to people; Americans have always gravitated toward optimistic views of life. Associating Trump with that sort of positive view–particularly one connected with Protestant Christianity–is intended to make Trump look better. It’s intended to make him look respectable and even “normal.”
It isn’t working, as the claim is, frankly, not believable. Yes, Trump knew Peale and has claimed to operate according to Peale’s principles. Peale’s own son is skeptical:
Peale’s professed principles include nothing about lying to aggrandize oneself.
The results of Trump lying about things such as his Electoral College or inauguration numbers, are not ‘making manifest things he wishes were true.’ What those lies accomplished was to confirm to many that Trump is untrustworthy. ‘How to be seen as untrustworthy’ is not one of Peale’s teachings.
It’s generally true that those who talk about Trump saying non-factual things because he’s (supposedly) following the teachings of Peale, are using that claim as a way of asserting that Trump’s conduct is admirable. For example, well-known Trump apologist Scott Adams has said:
(my emphasis) Scott Adams On President Trump's Faith In Affirmations, Norman Vincent Peale, "The Power Of Positive Thinking"
Adams, of course, was writing before COVID-19. The pandemic is a fact that does not appear to be particularly “malleable.”
This highlights one logical fallacy behind this defense of Trump’s incessant lying: the idea that fact-free self-aggrandizing claims can bring about solutions to actual problems (such as a lethal virus).
The quoted bit displays another bit of motivated reasoning on Adams’ part: the idea that Trump’s continuing to appear solvent throughout his lifetime, with his record of losing money hand over fist, is attributable to Trump’s supposed adherence to Peale’s teachings. Of course the reality is that Trump was able to lose money for decades because he was bankrolled first by his father, and then by Putin. “Positive thinking” had not one single blessed thing to do with it.
(my emphasis)
I agree with you 100%.
I can understand why Trump’s supporters don’t care about his lying: Because everything is tribal now, and Trump is the leader of their tribe. In this era we no longer approach such things rationally. We pick our tribes first, based on which group we are more comfortable with, and then we use rationalization, selection bias, confirmation bias, and selective morality to justify why we did so. It’s also why no one can change anyone’s mind any more: you can’t use reason to change an opinion that wasn’t formed through reason in the first place.
And yes, both sides do it. Feminists managed to rationalize their way into supporting Bill Cljnton, a serial sexual predator. Small government conservatives rationalized their support for George Bush, a big government moderate (and Democrats rationalized their way into thinking he was the worst human around.) they managed to do the same with Mitt Romney, and are now supporting an old handsy, possibly senile politician who has been accused of sexual assault, forced his female secret service agents to watch him swim naked, and likes to sniff the hair and suck the fingers of strange women. #metoo.
So yes, you are right that Republicans will rationalize support for a leader who doesn’t represent their values so long as he works for their goals. Your mistake is in thinking that the other side is any different.
But don’t blame me: -I- voted for Kodos.
This both sides crap just doesn’t cut it any more. Trump really is different. If you really think he’s just the same, just another politician, then we live in such different realities that there’s no possibility of mutual understanding.
I would like to note here that political polarization doesn’t require two sides to move away from one another. If you have one fairly integrated body politic, and a minority faction emerges and moves away from the other, then you now have de facto polarization even though the majority stayed cohesive and didn’t change that much.
I’m not assigning blame here, though you can probably guess where I stand. I just want to reinforce the point that if we want to explain political tribalism and polarization, it doesn’t require a “both sides” narrative. That narrative typically only serves one of two purposes. The high purpose is for well-intentioned individuals who want to believe every story has two reasonable sides that can be resolved via compromise and discussion. The low purpose is that the splinter faction wants to deflect responsibility by advancing the idea that they are not the only tribal extremists in the room, that the other side is just as extreme.
I’m sure we’re going to do “both sides” for at least the next century, but it deserves some logical treatment when it comes up. If one faction forms a tribe and splinters off from the main body politic, this does not mean “both sides” lost their minds and went tribal.
Obviously Trump is not intelligent. His version of ‘Positive Thinking’ provides the crutch that enables him to simplify a complex world. He doesn’t struggle with logic or noble thoughts. He doesn’t agonize over responsibility being commensurate with authority. What he sees at the moment is all there is. Himself and other. His passel of camp followers well know that their only job is to support his current illusion.
Well, that and attack everyone who dares point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Correct. They have given up trying to defend their position and have resorted to surviving the next 10 minutes without being forced to admit they’ve lost the argument, hoping someone changes the subject.
Let me stop you right there.
The will of the people has been expressed by the people as embodied in the constitution of the United states.
Learn to recognize things you can’t change in your life and stop wasting your energy on them. You personally can’t change the constitution so stop…
time index 22:04 - 24:00
Oh, not true, not all democrats and certainly not all people supported impeachment.
The people voted in the polls basing their decision on false and fabricated information.
Another case of totally wasted energy.
You can either say that presidential elections reflect the will of the electoral college, or the democratic will of the people. It cannot be both.
I don’t have 2 minutes to sit through what’s probably a crap video. How about you invest 2 minutes explaining what you think it says?
To simply respond to the OP, I personally prefer republican/Trump lies more than democrat/Obama lies
https://freedomoutpost.com/1063-documented-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-cronyism-hypocrisy-waste-etc/
To elaborate further I abhor democrats viral path to socialism!
The constitution is the outcome from the democratic will of the people!
Closed minded much?