What bothers me... (Page 1/3)
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 07, 12:01 PM
The "congratulations" from the Obamas, Biden, etc., are so incredibly fake, and forced. Politics are rough, and people can be unkind to each other. But what's happened over the past 9 years from Democrats seems incredibly psychotic compared to say... the way Trump behaved during the Primary in 2016. He creates names for people, calls out their faults, etc. But it wasn't evil.

In the past 9 years, Democrats have:

1 - Raided his home with FBI agents from land, air, and sea... in truly dramatic fashion.
2 - Conducted numerous drawn-out investigations that were precipitated on completely and knowingly false information.
3 - Illegally wire-tapped him, his family, and his aides.
4 - Used the full power of every agency against him, to prevent his rise from power.
5 - Called him a NAZI, racist, and convinced 1/3rd of the population (including many here), that he would bring about the end of the world and was literally worse than Hitler


I'm not even scratching the surface. What I've seen the "Obama regime" do (which includes Biden), is unlike anything we've seen in modern history... or at least my lifetime. And now that they've lost, they're calling for peace?


Serious question for people... am I as a person supposed to turn the other cheek on all of this? Clearly, I have no power over any of this, but should I personally be like... "yeah... time for healing." Or am I not justified in wanting the complete and utter destruction of my political opponents in the same way they did to Trump for the past 9 years?

Don't be upset, anyone... that I'd like to see multiple people brought up on charges, and a complete washing of all the agencies to purge them of left-leaning ideology.
NewDustin NOV 07, 02:55 PM
I think the perspective you're seeing these through has a lot to do with how you're feeling about them. Rather than one-sided malice, I see general politicking. I know very much that folks on the left feel attacked and unfairly targeted to an unprecedented extent as well; I think you are right to say this is unlike anything we've seen in modern history, but it seems intellectually dishonest to ignore the role Trump has played in that. It's hard to argue that Trump is innocent of rhetoric, when he is almost certainly the most guilty of "this will bring about WWIII" or "get ready for a great recession." If you include "communist" and "socialist" with "Nazi," I think you'll find he's also more guilty than most there as well. I think I'm being pretty fair there.

In order for the political division over marginal differences to continue to snowball, the rhetoric has to be met with the kind of anger you're talking about here. Why would you want to feed in to the same kind of thing you found so damaging when it was used against a candidate you supported? Where is your regard for the system at large at that point? Even if it were as one-sided as you're portraying it here (and it certainly is not), what actual benefit would you get by engaging in something you very clearly think undermines the entire system? Is it simply the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to them back? If so, that would indicate a lost sense of perspective and end goal to me.

I'm also concerned by the idea that you have "political opponents." Who are they? I feel like we've had a considerable amount of back-and-forth, much of it contentious, but I would never consider myself your opponent. I think that's an abstraction of people that you're using to target anger at, and that's a dangerous thing. I don't want to make assumptions about your life, but it seems unreasonable to characterize anyone that way.

Anyway man, though this isn't my ideal outcome I'm excited that we'll get to see some of what we're discussed here play out. I sincerely hope you are right about most of what we've talked about around the election and what the outcomes of a Trump victory will entail. I want to dig through things with you all critically and openly, but I think some rubbing it in after an election this contentious is probably called for
maryjane NOV 07, 05:51 PM

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-07-2024).]

maryjane NOV 07, 06:07 PM
I think it is somewhat important to remember, what national elections are.
A vote is not a Valentine... You're not pledging your undying love to the candidate.
It's a chess move for the world you want your kids/grandkids to be able to live in.

You don't have to love or even like the person behind the policies.
blackrams NOV 07, 11:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Serious question for people... am I as a person supposed to turn the other cheek on all of this? Clearly, I have no power over any of this, but should I personally be like... "yeah... time for healing." Or am I not justified in wanting the complete and utter destruction of my political opponents in the same way they did to Trump for the past 9 years?



All I'm going to say is, take VP Harris's advice. Continue to fight for what you believe in. We have the power of our votes and the ability to support or not support certain people, that includes celebrities and corporations who go against our values with the money we spend and the power of the voting booth. I will always fight for the things I consider important. I don't buy products from certain companies and I always exercise my right to vote. We're all responsible for the decisions we make and the results of those decisions. In most cases, we have little recourse but, when it comes to politicians, we have a lot of say at the voting booth. Follow your own heart.

I'd give RayB the same advice. I just wish he'd open his eyes. That cult he's always talking about has definitely gone viral and spread like a pandemic.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-07-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 08, 07:52 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:







I really miss this guy. Makes me want to re-watch all the Mail Call shows...
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 08, 08:11 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

I think the perspective you're seeing these through has a lot to do with how you're feeling about them. Rather than one-sided malice, I see general politicking. I know very much that folks on the left feel attacked and unfairly targeted to an unprecedented extent as well; I think you are right to say this is unlike anything we've seen in modern history, but it seems intellectually dishonest to ignore the role Trump has played in that. It's hard to argue that Trump is innocent of rhetoric, when he is almost certainly the most guilty of "this will bring about WWIII" or "get ready for a great recession." If you include "communist" and "socialist" with "Nazi," I think you'll find he's also more guilty than most there as well. I think I'm being pretty fair there.

In order for the political division over marginal differences to continue to snowball, the rhetoric has to be met with the kind of anger you're talking about here. Why would you want to feed in to the same kind of thing you found so damaging when it was used against a candidate you supported? Where is your regard for the system at large at that point? Even if it were as one-sided as you're portraying it here (and it certainly is not), what actual benefit would you get by engaging in something you very clearly think undermines the entire system? Is it simply the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to them back? If so, that would indicate a lost sense of perspective and end goal to me.

I'm also concerned by the idea that you have "political opponents." Who are they? I feel like we've had a considerable amount of back-and-forth, much of it contentious, but I would never consider myself your opponent. I think that's an abstraction of people that you're using to target anger at, and that's a dangerous thing. I don't want to make assumptions about your life, but it seems unreasonable to characterize anyone that way.

Anyway man, though this isn't my ideal outcome I'm excited that we'll get to see some of what we're discussed here play out. I sincerely hope you are right about most of what we've talked about around the election and what the outcomes of a Trump victory will entail. I want to dig through things with you all critically and openly, but I think some rubbing it in after an election this contentious is probably called for




When I said "political opponents," I was talking about politicians on the left, not voters.

I disagree that it's "equally bad" on both sides. Trump came in, with typical harsh New York language... as all New Yorkers. It was a personality that was both grating for some, and exciting for others.


Let me put into perspective what Trump's personality did for politics. Prior to Trump, if you said something that even remotely went against the cultural narrative... the left required you to apologize, and even resign... even for the most innocent of comments. Trump came in and said "Mexico wasn't sending their best..." and this sent white women and left-leaning white men in a spin. Most white people assume that Hispanic and Latino means Mexican. They have no idea that physically, a Peruvian is COMPLETELY different from a Venezuelan, and is completely different from a Dominican. Like... these countries have physically unique aspects, just as Asians do (those from Thailand, versus those from Japan, etc.). But the left was up and arms... it was unbelievable to them. So they asked him to apologize for the things he said... they were ready to have Trump concede and disappear because of his comments.

Instead, Trump gave a care-free hand wave that suggested... "I don't care about your feelings," and then flat-out said he would not apologize. This was unheard of... before Trump... every politician fell into the apology tour, and most of them resigned. They even did it to their own, like Al Franken. Trump's responses to situations like this, are steeped in a little bit or arrogance, but they were the right response. A Ronald Reagan would have addressed it a bit more formal, but the response would have been the same. The left did not like being disregarded. This is where it ends...


Interestingly... the "Trump said the stock market would crash" seems to be making the rounds again in all the message forums, because all of my left-leaning friends brought that up as "one of his lies." But, as I've addressed with them, and will state it here too... he was totally correct. The stock market completely crashed when Biden took office.

Copy-pasting my response that I gave to one of my left-leaning friends that pulled that out (since it's making the rounds):


---

It did man… it did. The DJIA dropped from a high of 37 thousand down to 28 thousand. And that was after a record recovery from COVID. The drop in 2021 was as a result of all of the policies that Biden immediately implemented, like canceling all oil drilling, banning fracking, blah blah… all the regulatory changes he made.




From a left-friendly website:

Biden’s stock market record so far is the second worst since Jimmy Carter
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11...ket-biden/index.html

All of these things Biden did immediately led to increased inflation… the cost of everything went up, because the cost of energy to transport it went up. The stock market has “recovered,” (since this article) but these are inflationary gains. We talked about this this a few years ago… how the best place to be to beat inflation is the stock market, and assets (not cash), because the stock market will always reflect inflationary gains.


--- break ---


Trump had two assassination attempts on his life... two of them. Not only did the rhetoric from the left NOT stop at either point, it increased. What you call "politicking" now has Reddit r/SuicideWatch blowing up with people from the left either outright committing suicide, or almost at the point of it. There are people in tears, deathly afraid that they're going to be put into concentration camps or that Trump will send assassination squads against trans people. None of which is even remotely true... but this is the rhetoric from the left... and now that the left has lost, you think we should just ignore all of what just went on?
NewDustin NOV 08, 12:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I disagree that it's "equally bad" on both sides. Trump came in, with typical harsh New York language... as all New Yorkers. It was a personality that was both grating for some, and exciting for others.


There's a lot to unpack there, but I do want to address your last point first:

You seemed to take issue with 'racist' and 'nazi' above...are you saying that 'Marxist,' 'communist,' 'socialist,' and 'comrade' are better? Is that the New York language? Would 'racist' count as tough New York language if it was used by other New Yorkers? If not, why does Trump get special consideration here?

The end of the world talk is the same thing. Trump has accused opponents of leading us towards WWIII in social media posts, speeches, interviews, rallies regularly. Just as regularly is talk about opponents taking us into a depression "far worse than the great depression", "destroying our economy like we've never seen," or having China run our county. I don't know for a fact he's the most guilty of this kind of rhetoric, but he is at the very least a significant source of it.

I'm not giving the Democrats a pass, or arguing that their rhetoric against Trump was much better. Harris smugly laughing at Trump should be burned into the zeitgeist as failure in it's purest sense. But Trump's rhetoric is how he motivates his base. That 'tough talk' is what most folks want to hear from him: They respond very well to him mispronouncing Kamala Harris' name, telling them she's a communist here to gender swap their kids in secret, and that he'll stop her from starting WWIII and and simultaneously kicking off the Even Greater Depression, or from letting the government send Haitians BBQ sauce people's pet rabbits.

Trump wins with rhetoric...I don't think that's a controversial thing to say. Being grumpy at the Democrats for their much less vociferous and effective use of the same tool seems to lack perspective. Hell, if I was a Trump faithful I'd be over the friggin' moon that's what the Democrats tried again, and I'd be crossing my fingers and toes that "over the top **** talking against MAGA" was gonna be their plan for 2028. JD can probably learn the craft better than them by then.
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 08, 12:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

There's a lot to unpack there, but I do want to address your last point first:

You seemed to take issue with 'racist' and 'nazi' above...are you saying that 'Marxist,' 'communist,' 'socialist,' and 'comrade' are better? Is that the New York language? Would 'racist' count as tough New York language if it was used by other New Yorkers? If not, why does Trump get special consideration here?

The end of the world talk is the same thing. Trump has accused opponents of leading us towards WWIII in social media posts, speeches, interviews, rallies regularly. Just as regularly is talk about opponents taking us into a depression "far worse than the great depression", "destroying our economy like we've never seen," or having China run our county. I don't know for a fact he's the most guilty of this kind of rhetoric, but he is at the very least a significant source of it.

I'm not giving the Democrats a pass, or arguing that their rhetoric against Trump was much better. Harris smugly laughing at Trump should be burned into the zeitgeist as failure in it's purest sense. But Trump's rhetoric is how he motivates his base. That 'tough talk' is what most folks want to hear from him: They respond very well to him mispronouncing Kamala Harris' name, telling them she's a communist here to gender swap their kids in secret, and that he'll stop her from starting WWIII and and simultaneously kicking off the Even Greater Depression, or from letting the government send Haitians BBQ sauce people's pet rabbits.

Trump wins with rhetoric...I don't think that's a controversial thing to say. Being grumpy at the Democrats for their much less vociferous and effective use of the same tool seems to lack perspective. Hell, if I was a Trump faithful I'd be over the friggin' moon that's what the Democrats tried again, and I'd be crossing my fingers and toes that "over the top **** talking against MAGA" was gonna be their plan for 2028. JD can probably learn the craft better than them by then.




New Dustin... being called a Marxist and a Communist is not a negative for many on the left. Many on the left actually believe this is a badge of honor. A good number of my daughter's friends (only girls, oddly enough) are self-proclaimed Communists. Matter of fact, the Federal Government no longer considers "Support for Communism" as a disqualifying factor for gaining a TS/SCI clearance, EVEN WITH a Full Scope Polygraph with the CIA and NSA. This is a Biden administration decision.

The equivalency you're trying to make here is completely outlandish. An intelligence agency would absolutely never hire someone who was a self-proclaimed NAZI sympathizer... yet someone who believes we need Communism in the United States is completely acceptable.


And for the record, I have no idea how to pronounce Kamala Harris's name. I hear some people say kAmala, while I hear other people say KaMALA... I don't particularly care. It's a non-standard name, and it shouldn't be considered racist or insulting that the American population don't know how to pronounce it the way it's apparently supposed to be pronounced.


I'll repeat it again... there were two assassination attempts on Trump, including a litany of things the Democrats have done that are completely outrageous... from warrant-less wiretapping, to raiding his home with FBI agents from the air, land, and sea, to using the full force of the DOJ to attempt to imprison him.

That you think Trump calling people communist is even remotely equivalent is completely insane and delusional. I again ask... why should I not want the total destruction of my adversaries... versus turning the other cheek.
NewDustin NOV 08, 01:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

New Dustin... being called a Marxist and a Communist is not a negative for many on the left. Many on the left actually believe this is a badge of honor. A good number of my daughter's friends (only girls, oddly enough) are self-proclaimed Communists. Matter of fact, the Federal Government no longer considers "Support for Communism" as a disqualifying factor for gaining a TS/SCI clearance, EVEN WITH a Full Scope Polygraph with the CIA and NSA. This is a Biden administration decision.

The equivalency you're trying to make here is completely outlandish. An intelligence agency would absolutely never hire someone who was a self-proclaimed NAZI sympathizer... yet someone who believes we need Communism in the United States is completely acceptable.


And for the record, I have no idea how to pronounce Kamala Harris's name. I hear some people say kAmala, while I hear other people say KaMALA... I don't particularly care. It's a non-standard name, and it shouldn't be considered racist or insulting that the American population don't know how to pronounce it the way it's apparently supposed to be pronounced.


I'll repeat it again... there were two assassination attempts on Trump, including a litany of things the Democrats have done that are completely outrageous... from warrant-less wiretapping, to raiding his home with FBI agents from the air, land, and sea, to using the full force of the DOJ to attempt to imprison him.

That you think Trump calling people communist is even remotely equivalent is completely insane and delusional. I again ask... why should I not want the total destruction of my adversaries... versus turning the other cheek.


What about "traitor," "enemy of the people" or "fascist"? You can move those goalposts as far as you want, these will forever be easy kicks to make. I'm not making an equivalency, I'm saying Trump does it more and better and it is a huge boon to his base that he does. You still being jazzed on the KamAla thing is a good example of that.

The other points you made have similar concessions to the truth and rationality in order to stoke anger. The Democrats had nothing to do with the assassination attempts against Donald Trump, the raid was avoidable and came about from the same scrutiny all other Presidents have gotten...it's all shades of the truth. You don't need that.

There's a false equivalency in what you're saying as you try to talk yourself into this more extreme stance as well: There are other options that are not "turn the other cheek" or a tantrum-esque "DESTROY MY ENEMIES" response. I would suggest looking at productive policy moving forward as a much better third option, since that's kind of the point of all of this. Or maybe see what we can do to resolve some of the divisive issues rather than purposefully making them worse to make ourselves feel better. I kinda feel like there's LOTS of better options there. But given how much power the party you support now has...petulance seems a very strange response.