Donald Trump is not the monster his critics make him out to be.
That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.
Most of the criticisms leveled at him – or that you yourself may have even leveled at him if you’re a critic – are based on a caricature. Not on the man himself though, nor on his actual policies or rhetoric. This is verifiable for anyone who wants to look through transcripts of his speeches or listen to them in videos to see what he’s actually said, and to anyone willing to go to his website and actually read his policies. The following, a comment I left on Linda’s post about Trump…
Is a slightly edited response to one of the criticisms I’m describing…
“But how do we fight fear? By being brave and standing together. Not building walls and hiding within them, never letting anyone else in.”
~Linda G. Hill
This, to me, is where the flaw in her reasoning starts to show.
First crack in logic being in the question of how we fight fear.
We fight it by taking stock as best we can and identifying it’s source. How we deal with a given instance or source of it depends on the source and should be judged on a case by case basis imo, but the point is, if they’re legitimate fears than “standing by and showing how brave we are”… well, that’s not really doing anything, is it. It doesn’t deal with the root of those fears, doesn’t do anything to resolve the problems we have with terrorist organizations or radicalization… does nothing at all… except, perhaps, makes us feel good about ourselves.
Second, “building walls and hiding within them, never letting anyone in” is a gross over-statement and dramatization meant to cast the suggestions he’s made as more over the top than they really are. The measures, particularly those related to border closure and/or temporary moratorium on Muslim foreigners (seeing as how we can’t really vet anyone in a way that will reveal they’re radicals or extremists), which represents the “taking stock” portion I mentioned when I was talking about how one deals with a given problem. Next would be to revamp our vetting system, and target and attack ISIS with a clear, definitive timetable (which we completely lack, at present).
That second part, in applying proper goal setting and defining an achievable objective in our efforts against ISIS, will have a huge impact on whether or not it’s safe enough to remove such a moratorium if it were put in place. Make a schedule, keep the schedule, and once you’re in the “mopping up” stages with them, the risk of widespread, heavily motivated radical Islamic terrorism probably drops drastically. One of the biggest reasons it’s gained so much traction in the first place is because ISIS holds territory. That’s their legitimacy. If we take that from them in a timely manner, set an actual objective and then attain it, there’ll be a lot less of a threat in general.
All of that is to say, she’s misrepresenting what Trump has said and what he wants to do. To herself most of all perhaps because… I don’t think she put it that way to dupe or deceive anyone on purpose, but it’s not true to what he’s said, at all. Controlling our borders is not hiding. Restricting travel to the States by a body of people known to contain such a high percentage of radicals is not hiding. And none of the measures or ideas put forward by Donald Trump have been defined as indefinite, nor have the criteria for ending them once in place been all that vague. There are pretty clear bench marks to meet, and once met, the measures would be removed.
To assume otherwise is to blindly speculate based on unfounded (illegitimate) fears, and to me I look at her perspective as the exact kind of running and hiding she’s speaking out against. When it comes to Donald Trump, especially given the lack of factual basis for her positions, where is your inclination to stand tall and be brave that she espoused? Where’s her inclination to take the risk on him like she thinks we ought to do with our borders? Particularly since the fears of terrorism are realistic and justified (by her own admission) and the fears of Trump (as she described them) are, at least as I would describe them, speculative and irrational.
“When he claims he will torture and kill the families of terrorists, and when he talks about waterboarding, he sanctions the very same methods of terror that the terrorists are using: violence to get a point across.”
~Linda G. Hill
Has it occurred to her that he’s not trying to make America into a personification of what she asserts him to be, but that he’s using the simple, effective age old tactic of intimidating an enemy? They’re the ones who use violence (and nothing but) to get they’re point across, and using scare tactics to make them think twice about taking a shot at us isn’t a half bad idea.
And the notion she puts in there about two negatives not making a positive might work with electricity, but I can tell you this much: if a guy wants to rip your eye out and he knows there’ll be virtually no consequences for doing so, do you think he’s going to rip your eye out? Probably.
If, however, that same guy wants to do that same thing, but he knows you’ll rip his eye out in retaliation, will he still rip your eye out? Maybe, but it’s a lot less likely. It’s “an eye for an eye” logic, sure, but here’s the thing: it works. The same logic was at work in preventing the Cold War from becoming a nuclear holocaust. The Russians didn’t blow us into oblivion because they thought we would do the same to them, and vice versa. An eye for an eye keeps the peace. so long as it’s clear to whoever you’re dealing with that you can indeed take theirs if they take yours.
“They are saying we need to look beyond the color of our skin and our religious beliefs, and stand together regardless of our nationalities. The alternative is to fear those who are different, and build walls to keep them out.”
~Linda G. Hill
Nobody, especially not Trump, is saying to judge based on skin color (or even religion). His policies and ideas have had the protection of American Muslims in mind just as much as the protection and security of any other American. They would keep Americans of the Muslim faith just as safe from radicalized foreigners as they would the rest of Americans. Think about that.
What All Of This Boils Down To Is…
If you want your criticisms to hit home, be sure that they’re criticisms of the actual thing you’re talking about, not a dramatized, cartoonish, or demonized version of the thing, because…
When people look for themselves at that thing you’re describing as such a monster and only see a man, or worse, see a good man, they’re going to scratch their heads at your criticisms and wonder where the hell you came up with them. They’re criticisms of a fiction rather than a reality.
The subject of your criticisms will remain untouched because…
Once people see the reality for themselves, the validity of your criticisms is shattered.
(Note to Linda: I’m not trying to bash you or single you out or anything, I’ll remove your name from the quotations if it bothers you at all, I just thought the comment I left would be good for illustrating a point I wanted to make so I re-purposed it for a post. No hard feelings I hope 😉 .)
Empire of Sludge 
Hey Jack. Just wanted to let you know I read your comments on my blog yesterday, and now I see this. I’m out of town this weekend with limited access to the internet, which is why I haven’t replied. You make some good points… Which is all I have time to say at the moment. Will respond in more detail when I have a chance. Thanks for your interest in my post. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No hurry 😉 , and I’m glad you see it as interest. The way I addressed some of your points… well, I could see it maybe rubbing you the wrong way, but that isn’t my intention and I was hoping that wouldn’t overshadow the fact that me saying anything at all in response, even in disagreement, isn’t a sign of dislike, but of interest in what you said 🙂 . I thought about disassociated my post from yours too, except that I would’ve had to rewrite the whole comment into a stand alone, completely reframe how I put it. Plus… this way it credits you as the catalyst for the thoughts I ended up writing out on this, which I thought worked out alright. Especially since there are probably plenty of people who would read your post, then mine, and still agree more with you. And plenty more who, even if they agree more with me on this particular subject, still ought to go check out the rest of your blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate that, Jack. It takes a lot to irk me or rub me the wrong way, so no worries. Debate is a good thing, as long as it’s kept in perspective. I thank you for your concern in this matter. 🙂
LikeLike
[…] was a post just like this published right after I posted Criticizing a Caricature saying basically the same thing I just said, but I wanted to add a little so I copy/pasted it, […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Linda G. Hill and commented:
On my recent blog post on Donald Trump, ( https://lindaghill.com/2016/03/22/trump/ ) I’ve had a counterpoint made in response by the dear Mr. Jack Sutter. I have to admit that since I wrote it, I’ve heard Mr. Trump speak on the issues of allowing people in to the country by way of more rigorous screening, and I agree, it’s something that needs to be handled. However.
Donald Trump has proven himself to be a Narcissist of epic proportions. Anyone who has known a Narcissist and been manipulated by one, can attest to the fact that they are both untrustworthy and dangerous. Therefore, one must conclude that what Mr. Trump says now, may or may not be what he would carry out as president. For anyone who has not known a Narcissist personally, I urge you to research Narcissistic Personality Disorder, both for the sake of identifying Mr. Trump and for the event that you might meet one in person.
Jack points out that my statement about not building walls, and instead standing together and being brave means we are doing nothing. I’d like to clarify as best I can. By standing together as a society, we can best find ways to protect ourselves. In the spirit of finding an example, consider this on a smaller scale. If we box ourselves up inside our own four walls with our family, and listen only to the radio to discover what is going on outside, we learn only what the radio tells us. However, if we go out and talk to real people, with real diversity, we learn so much more. We find that we have things in common. Things that the radio doesn’t tell us about because they WANT us to be fearful. It’s their way of controlling us. Once we get out, we can plan to live side-by-side, and do what is best for our communities, and only then can we find the best way to defend ourselves if necessary, using the strength we have in numbers.
When Jack talks about Cold War tactics in his post, he makes a very good point again. Except we have to come back to Mr. Trump’s untrustworthiness. Yes, he might be “just saying” he’ll wipe out the families of terrorists, but he might not. And if he does, then what? You can bet the terrorists will double their efforts.
Again, Jack makes a good point about putting a timetable on taking out the terrorists. But if it’s to be done, it has to be done right, no matter who does it.
And finally, Jack says that Mr. Trump is protecting American Muslims. I counter with this: he’s talking about sending every immigrant back to where they came from, and making them reapply for citizenship. Sending them back to war-torn countries is hardly protecting them.
My main concern is that Donald Trump is a pathological Narcissist. Look it up. He’s the poster boy. If he’s a caricature at all, it’s of himself.
Please visit Jack Sutter’s post to comment, and please keep it civil. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t mean to be a pain, but again I see a few flaws in reasoning here. The first being with the position that he suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Accepting that at face value for the moment, it contradicts your previous concerns. Either he has this disorder and is not to be trusted, in which case all of your previous arguments and concerns fall apart, or he *is* to be trusted and implementing the policies you take issue with is what makes him something to be concerned about. Before, it was that his policy ideas were concerning, even disturbing. Now that I’ve addressed that aspect of it, they’re no longer the concern, from this new stand point… *he* himself is now the concern.
Then, again, I think it’s another case of criticizing a caricature rather than the man himself. You say he’s a narcissist, and must mean it in the extreme (narcissistic personality *disorder*, but I say that’s more speculative fretting. You’re taking a justified opinion (that he has an ego) and taking it to an unfounded extreme. See, there’s a huge difference between having an ego or being a bit of a narcissist (describing a personality characteristic, but not necessarily (or even usually) a disorder) and having a narcissistic personality disorder. I mean to be fair, you can call me a narcissist and I won’t say you’re wrong. I am. And I have an ego too. None of that makes me untrustworthy.
So in short, in lieu of the position you took on this before you’ve replaced it with an all encompassing criticism that, from your point of view, makes everything about him questionable. But I don’t see the evidence to support your assertion. Some people are a little egotistical, successful people even more so, and in many cases rightfully so.
After all, look at what someone like him has accomplished (in terms of name recognition and branding alone, never mind the actual projects that branding has been built on). That does not, in and of itself, meet the criteria of a personality disorder, and if he did meet those criteria… to me, the degree to which he’s succeeded at things throughout his life, the long term life span his business empire has had so far and will presumably continue to have, all by itself that brings your assertion into question. What person with that full on disorder could build or maintain a business, or a brand name, or anything else to the magnitude he has if he were really that narcissistic, that selfish, or that manipulative?
Further…
“I urge you to research Narcissistic Personality Disorder, both for the sake of identifying Mr. Trump and for the event that you might meet one in person.”
This is a position I’ve encountered before, in fact it was a very popular line of argument against Trump in the early days, the first few months, but it’s largely disappeared, and in my opinion it’s done so because there’s no basis for it. It doesn’t hold up. Partially because of the reasons I’ve already pointed, but also, even if you disregard all of that you’re still stuck with this: most of the people who have tried to slap that label, that disorder, on him are not doctors. They’re not psychiatrists. So while I can’t say definitively that he doesn’t meet the criteria, neither can anyone definitively say he does. Not even doctors, actually, because any good doctor worth his or her salt would know better than to think they can blindly make a diagnosis of that kind from afar. They don’t really know the person they’re trying to diagnose and cannot, unless they work with said person as a patient, make that determination honestly. Then, in addition to that, even if we *do* look at it from afar like we’re doing for this discussion, I can make a pretty good case that he doesn’t, hopefully as illustrated above, but I can clarify and elaborate further too, if needed.
” If we box ourselves up inside our own four walls with our family, and listen only to the radio to discover what is going on outside, we learn only what the radio tells us. ”
This mistake here is that, again, it’s taken to extremes. Extremes that simply don’t apply, because having a wall on the border (for example) is not the same as staying in our houses, isolated, listening only to the radio. It’s like having a door, with a lock, one that intruders, burglars, vagrants, or whatever else can’t just walk right on through. That doesn’t mean you can’t leave your house or that other people can’t come in. It just means it’s *your* house, and you get to have a say in who enters your home, and in how many people walk through that door. If you’ve listened to Trump, he’s specified that he wants people coming in (and wants people here able to travel abroad), but that we need them to do so legally. Apparently if they don’t have to, there are millions of people who won’t, hence the wall. They can still come in, but we’ve got to know about them, they have to tell us who they are, do the paper work, and come across it the right way, with our awareness and permission. Right now, our border doesn’t allow for that; there’s no accountability, no stopping anyone who wants to come in, even if we might not want them here. Right now people can come across the border at will, from wherever they want to in the world, and we won’t know about it unless they want us too. Just look at how much drugs the cartels send over through there. In addition to all of that…
“Once we get out, we can plan to live side-by-side, and do what is best for our communities, and only then can we find the best way to defend ourselves if necessary, using the strength we have in numbers.”
This kind of thinking doesn’t work for me. I get that community is important, being a part of it, knowing who’s in it, etc. but I’m also an individualist. American ideals are built on the strength (and rights) of the individual, not on strength in numbers. Unity is important, sure, especially in the context of facing outside threats (or even in how we present ourselves to our allies, as a united front), but what about self reliance or personal responsibility or having the right to defend yourself on your own terms? That goes back to the house metaphor too; are you going to let your neighbors democratically decide who you’re going to let into your house, or why, or how many people are allowed in it at any one time, or should that be up to you? I say you. If it’s your house it’s your call.
Point being, we have every right to determine who comes into our country, along with how many people come in at any given time. And we have a right to know who they are so we can reject the ones we don’t want. An example: if someone is a convicted murdered recently released (or escaped) from prison, do you want them in our house? No? Well what you’re saying is that’s to bad, because that’s not compassionate, but what I’m saying is that’s not okay, I don’t want the murderer living in my house. And if you don’t at the very least do the kind of thing Trump is advocating, you don’t get a say.
I think we *should* have a say, personally.
“When Jack talks about Cold War tactics in his post, he makes a very good point again. Except we have to come back to Mr. Trump’s untrustworthiness. Yes, he might be “just saying” he’ll wipe out the families of terrorists, but he might not. And if he does, then what? You can bet the terrorists will double their efforts.”
This is addressed in my position on your (speculative) diagnosis of a narcissistic personality disorder. His untrustworthiness is a speculative assumption about him. Very little, if anything, to truly back that up. I can think of a few angles you could try to argue that from, but it would be grasping at straws, which I can illustrate if you do indeed try to further explain your reasoning in asserting that he has that disorder.
“Again, Jack makes a good point about putting a timetable on taking out the terrorists. But if it’s to be done, it has to be done right, no matter who does it.”
You didn’t define what you consider to be “done right”, but… very true. But who, exactly, is more likely to do it right than him? That’s really at the crux of it too in a lot of ways; even if I say, for the sake of argument, that half of what you’re saying is true, the alternatives are all worse. If you give me a specific candidate you think could do better, I can give you specifics on why they almost definitely wouldn’t, and I can thoroughly explain my reasoning and point out supporting evidence (mostly their own track record so far throughout their careers) that supports my reasoning. Hillary Clinton, Bernie, Cruz… pick any one you like and I’m pretty confident I can explain how they are less likely to do this (or much of anything else) “right”, if would, in fact, do it at all. They all fall short of Trump in both trustworthiness and competence as far as I can tell.
“And finally, Jack says that Mr. Trump is protecting American Muslims. I counter with this: he’s talking about sending every immigrant back to where they came from, and making them reapply for citizenship. Sending them back to war-torn countries is hardly protecting them.”
That is not an effective counter, for this reason: he’s talking about sending every *illegal* immigrant back to their country of origin, not *every* immigrant. And specifically regarding the Syrian refugees, he would not be sending them back to a war zone. Carson picked it up later and talked about it as if he said it first, but Trump was the first one to suggest a safe zone be constructed in or near their country. I’m guessing the Syrian’s here would be sent (and protected) there, rather than into the middle of a war zone. And with that, we wouldn’t need to be bringing them here in the first place, they’d already have somewhere to go. It would cost us a bit, but the argument is it would be more cost effective and more safe to do that instead of bringing them here. A number of the refugees who have been interviewed would actually prefer that too, instead of being transplanted into a new country with different weather and different cultures that many of them don’t want anything to do with anyways.
All in All…
I can’t help but see this as another example of criticizing a caricature, from start to finish.
LikeLike
I’m not going to try to explain my points any further – there is obviously no convincing you that my example holds up that “staying in” is detrimental, nor is it of any use to talk about border policies. You have the upper hand in that you have read much more about them, obviously, than I.
On the point of narcissism however… You, my dear, may have an ego, but you are not a narcissist in anywhere near Donald Trump’s scope. The fact that you care not to insult me precludes you from being the psychopath that Mr. Trump is. And you’re right, a psychiatrist would have to meet with him to make an official diagnosis Where I disagree with you though, is that an “official” diagnosis needs to be made.
I give you this: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/donald_trump_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder_an_interview_with_sam_vaknin.html an expert opinion by an author who has spent many years studying Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and has written THE textbook on what NPD is. In the article, he specifies on each point why he strongly believes Donald Trump is a textbook psychopathic narcissist. I want to point out that many of the most successful businessmen in the world are narcissists in the extreme. Being successful does not exempt one, by any stretch of the imagination.
I’ve known two psychopathic narcissists in my life. I can recognize one on my own, every bit as much as I can spot someone with Down Syndrome or diagnose a cold. The article, and the man who wrote the textbook on NPD are not wrong.
On your question of who would be a better president, I have no idea. I’m Canadian, and have no say in the matter, so I have not studied the issues. All I know is that Donald Trump is dangerous, to the world but especially to you. If Trump becomes president, I hope you are right. Because if I’m right, your country will be unrecognizable in four years, and not in a good way.
Please read the linked article. If you still don’t believe me, then we have nothing more to discuss, as neither of us is going to change the other’s mind. However, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. It’s been an interesting debate, one way or another. 🙂
One thing I would like to ask you is, is there one particular candidate you wouldn’t want to see become president? Just curious.
LikeLike
“You have the upper hand in that you have read much more about them, obviously, than I.”
Sure, I guess, but couldn’t that also mean that (if we assume I know more about it than you do), you just might be *wrong in your assessment of him, and in the assertions you’ve leveled at him? Because if you’re being intellectually honest, you have to be open to that possibility. It might not seem like I am because I’m confident in my opinions and reasoning, and I’ve based them on real evidence that supports them well, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be wrong. I always try to allow for the possibility, even if it doesn’t seem like it on the face of a given discussion. I could be totally wrong about Trump, but the thing of it is, not a single thing you said has convinced me I am because it doesn’t hold up.
To properly explain that, let me explain the dynamics of our back and forth. You wrote a critical post about Donald Trump. I challenged just about everything in it, and I did so with accurate facts about him, his policies, and his positions. Your response was to reblog it with another slew of assertions, which I once again addressed with what he’s actually said, done, with whether or not he’s been consistent, and with whether or not his positions and assertions match up with reality, with the facts, with statistics, with the crime rates, and so on. At that point you’re position basically boiled down to this: “well no matter what you say, he’s a narcissist and can’t be trusted”. Which, btw, I already addressed pretty handily. You have little to no evidence to support that claim, especially if you’re claiming he actually has Narcissistic personality disorder. When pressed, all you could give me in support of it was “well he’s a narcissist because I know ’em when I see ’em.” That is not a real argument, and in fact could be looked at in a way that brings your assertion even more into question than it is by itself. You mentioned having dealt with two such people in your life. You also clearly have a predisposition of dislike towards Trump. Given that, it’s entirely possible that your projecting a bs label onto him because you don’t like him and, in a pinch, you can fall back on it and no one can convince you otherwise because you apparently know them when you see them, and that’s supposed to be enough evidence for me
“You, my dear, may have an ego, but you are not a narcissist in anywhere near Donald Trump’s scope. The fact that you care not to insult me precludes you from being the psychopath that Mr. Trump is.”
On this point, you have no idea just how sorely you’re mistaken. You obviously don’t know the kind of guy you’re talking to if you really think I’m that different than Trump. The biggest difference between me and him is his stature in the world versus mine. He’s a lot more successful than I am, and a bit more grandiose (though not by much, at least not in terms of outlook, dreams, or ambition). You seem thrown off of that reality by the fact that I haven’t been flinging insults, so let me explain *why* I haven’t: I went to *your* site, commented on *your* post, and when I posted my response here I specifically referenced you. You haven’t insulted me or been rude, so the lack of insults has continued throughout. It was simply a matter of etiquette and lack of provocation though. That, and maybe I just happen to gravitate towards a more civil style of conversation; or, arguably, I don’t attract as many insults (to respond to in kind) as Trump himself does.
I can tell you this though: if you were a reporter or a talk show host, and you had said about me on national tv what you said about Trump in your post, I would have gladly, casually, negligently let the insults fly back at you. And frankly, if you were in the national spotlight and threw all of those criticisms out into the world where *he* could see it, I would argue his response would be justified. Because given the inaccuracies and unfairness of your criticisms, it’s nothing short of insulting to him. If you smeared me with a bunch of inaccurate criticisms and baseless labels, I’d be more than happy to insult you. And conversely, if I had been the one to insult you in my initial comment, I would completely understand if you insulted me back. It’s called fair play.
That’s what the vast majority of Trump’s tendency to insult people comes from: fair play. If they don’t like getting insulted by him, maybe they ought to think about not talking shit, mocking, misrepresenting, or smearing him in the medium they communicate to people through, be it television, newspaper, a news site, or whatever else. People can whine all they want to about him insulting people, but the bottom line is the vast majority of them can avoid being insulted by not insulting, mocking, or attempting to sabotage him. Generally speaking, he’s not the one who starts it.
As for your article, there was one that was almost identical to it months ago, and that I ripped to shreds from top to bottom a number of times, point by point, in facebook conversations. Maybe I’ll do the same to this one and post it here so I won’t have to do it again. I’d give relevant quotes from the FB discussions but digging through the activity log (especially that far back) would be a major pain in the ass. Better to go at it fresh I think, if I decided to go at it again at all. Whatever I do with it though, it’s worth saying that I can make a case just as strong against him having NPD as that guy did *for* him having it. The only difference (and frankly an irrelevant one) is that he has credentials in psychiatry. Booyah for him, but that doesn’t automatically make him right about everything he happens to right or say, does it. His credentials by themselves mean nothing if his position and opinions can’t truly stand on their own, and/or if they can be effectively countered.
They can too, I just don’t know if I want to spend more time on this to prove it. You’re not going to change your mind, obviously, and I’m flat out bored with this particular conversation anyways. And I hate saying that because a lot of people use it as a cop out, but I think I’ve made a pretty solid case and given it a fair go in our conversation. In this case (for both of us) call it good isn’t so much a cop out as it is a reasonable agreement to disagree. Especially since I kind of already addressed the shakiness of alleging Trump’s NPD in the way I addressed it *before* you included the link to that article. Bottom line…
“The article, and the man who wrote the textbook on NPD are not wrong.”
He could be. He could be shaping an opinion around biases and blind conjecture like you have, and his level of education and occupation would only be serving to prop up a position that by itself doesn’t hold up. Maybe you should at the very least give that possibility a fair shake, fair consideration, because it’s *very* possible.
“I’m Canadian, and have no say in the matter, so I have not studied the issues. ”
Then why do you seem to insist that your position on the subject at hand is at all informed? And if it isn’t informed… why are you touting your opinion and denouncing Trump in the first place? Shouldn’t you, maybe, make sure your opinions are *informed* opinions before you go around broadcasting them to the world as if they’re based on solid evidence?
“One thing I would like to ask you is, is there one particular candidate you wouldn’t want to see become president?”
Not really. Just about everyone with the exception of Sanders and Trump are straight up scum. Hillary Clinton is a proven liar, and no one that supports her is ever to name one (let alone three) accomplishments of hers in her capacity as either Senator *or* Secretary of State, so she’s proven as an ineffective leader and public official too. She’s probably the scumiest of them, 2nd only to Cruz, who ran one of the most dishonest campaigns I could have imagined; the nice thing is, he’s no longer a factor. Bernie is the only other one worth mentioning, and you’ll note I only said he wasn’t scum. He seems like a stand up guy, more or less, fairly honesty, but his ideology is horribly flawed. I’ve written two or three lengthy posts on *how* it’s flawed, along with two or three other posts from further back that relate well to why supporting him (or anyone who shares his ideas) is insane; I didn’t use that particular word, that I can recall, but, with clear and reasoned explanations of *how* it’s flawed and *why* it doesn’t work when implemented, that was basically the gist of it.
“It’s been an interesting debate, one way or another.”
On that at least, we’re in agreement 😉 , and very much appreciate the civility. I just want to point out one more time though: the only reason I have remained civil is because you have. If you had resorted to insulting me for not agreeing with you, and/or had not even tried to counter any of the points I raised, I would not have been nearly as polite. And I think if you were able to contact Trump the same way you can contact me (or vice versa) and voiced your concerned in a civil manner, he too would probably be more polite than *you would expect. That much has been clearly evidenced with the way he responds to interviewers, even antagonistic ones; generally, as long as they’re civil, so is he.
LikeLike
I was beginning to think you’d forgotten about me. 😉
I’m of the mind that insulting anyone I speak to on the internet for expressing their opinion is hypocritical. Therefore, I would never hurl insults in a debate. I’d like to read any further posts you write on the subject of the candidates, though I might not comment. Again, I think we’ve said all that needed to be said.
It’s been a slice. Cheers, Jack. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I agree, I’d never insult anyone for having a different opinion. I would insult them for expressing that opinion in a needlessly rude or deliberately dishonest way though. Which is no different than what Trump does. Anyhow, yeah, I meant to reply sooner but I got caught up with a few family things offline that ate up more of my time than I wanted them to. Haha, sorry about that.
LikeLike
No problem. It’s been crazy around here too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“All of that is to say, she’s misrepresenting what Trump has said and what he wants to do.”
Actually, if we’re being completely fair here, I don’t think anyone can say what Trump wants to do. He’s said a lot of things to get votes, and he’s had to walk back some statements (like his statement about abortion in Wisconsin). Others he’s doubled down on (like the wall he wants to have Mexico pay for). In addition, he’s been unnecessarily catty about white supremacists liking him. At the very least, it shows they have a place in his big tent (as long as they’re quiet).
My point is that with a candidate like Trump, taking him at his word is fair game. He’s made a lot of big statements that he hasn’t fleshed out, and it’s his job to be clear on those things. If he’s wanting to benefit from his statements, then he should also be willing to bear the costs of those statements. Linda expresses concern at his rhetoric, and until he becomes clear on what he means, her position isn’t contrary to everything he’s saying and doing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How many things can you name that he’s remotely inconsistent on? His statement about abortion is a bad example, because it was one of his few actual gaffs, and the mistake, arguably, was in clarifying. His first answer was in response to a hypothetical “if abortion were illegal, should the women be penalized”, to which he said yes. I don’t get what the big outrage was though, and here’s why: *If*, I repeat *if*, abortion were made illegal, that would (at least in this hypothetical) make it a crime. Right? So if it were a crime, and somebody did it, should they get punished? To me the answer’s kind of an obvious “yes”. That doesn’t really say anything about his position on abortion though, nor does my perspective on his answer say anything about mine (I’m pro-choice, by the way, and he’s not).
“Others he’s doubled down on (like the wall he wants to have Mexico pay for). ”
In point of fact, this has almost invariably been the case. He states a position or releases a policy idea, is challenged on it, and despite the criticisms (and, of course, the smears and spin on most news outlets), sticks by it when challenged. Which, btw, implies a consistency you just tried to say he doesn’t have. Can’t have it both ways man; either he’s to consistent for his own good, or he’s not consistent at all. Not both though.
“In addition, he’s been unnecessarily catty about white supremacists liking him. At the very least, it shows they have a place in his big tent (as long as they’re quiet).”
Unless you’re planning on going out and executing the few true white supremacists left in America, they’re going to have a place in *somebodies* tent no matter who is elected. The difference is, when he’s told about it he disavows. How often though has Clinton, for example, disavowed the KKK? Did she say anything in response to the *current* head of the KKK endorsing her a month or two ago? I don’t think so. Trump, in contrast, denounces them when it’s brought to his attention, and other than that he leaves them where they belong, in a a position of almost total irrelevance to modern society.
“My point is that with a candidate like Trump, taking him at his word is fair game. He’s made a lot of big statements that he hasn’t fleshed out, and it’s his job to be clear on those things. ”
He’s fleshed out most of them. I’ll grant he has a chaotic approach, sometimes does it piece meal over two or three days of separate interviews, but most of the time it’s really not even *that* spread out. If you have anything specific in mind, I can probably tell you what the meat of it is.
“If he’s wanting to benefit from his statements, then he should also be willing to bear the costs of those statements. Linda expresses concern at his rhetoric, and until he becomes clear on what he means, her position isn’t contrary to everything he’s saying and doing.”
All due respect to Linda, the concerns she expresses are vague, and when I pin down specifics I think I’ve pretty clearly outlined the flaws in reasoning and/or the flaws in the information those concerns are based on. Her position, the way I see it, is very much at odds with everything he’s saying and doing, so on that point I think we’ll just have to disagree. This whole post, and my response to her subsequent reblog & comment, are an attempt to clearly illustrate exactly that. In other words…
“…I don’t think anyone can say what Trump wants to do.”
I’m pretty sure I can 🙂 .
LikeLike
The point of my comment is that Trump is making some really big promises, and some of them look really ugly. His statements that I’ve read from his website concerning his policies on immigration and Muslims are highly discriminatory (I was reading his policy statements on immigration, and his news release on 12/7/15 concerning Muslims, to name a couple).
Unless you’re prepared to argue his own campaign website is getting what he’s saying wrong, my comment still stands.
Personally, I get that his direct manner is a reason why a lot of people want to vote for him. Some of what he’s promising is outside his control, and that’s why I have my doubts. He wouldn’t be the first person that made big promises and didn’t deliver on them just to get to the Oval Office.
Additionally, I’m not suggesting that any other mainstream candidate is inherently better. My critique here is limited to Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The point of my comment is that Trump is making some really big promises, and some of them look really ugly. His statements that I’ve read from his website concerning his policies on immigration and Muslims are highly discriminatory (I was reading his policy statements on immigration, and his news release on 12/7/15 concerning Muslims, to name a couple).”
I welcome you to give me specific quotes that indicate discrimination. You’re keeping it just vague enough to state your opinion as if it were credible. I don’t mean to be a dick, I really don’t, but… what were the exact words you took issue with in, for example, his immigration policy. I’ve read that too, and I don’t recall anything remotely discriminatory.
“Unless you’re prepared to argue his own campaign website is getting what he’s saying wrong, my comment still stands.”
I’m prepared to argue you’re misrepresenting (or misunderstood) what you read there. Get specific, *truly* specific, and one of two things is going to happen: you’ll confirm you have a basis for your opinion, or you’ll confirm you don’t. Let’s see which one 🙂 .
“Personally, I get that his direct manner is a reason why a lot of people want to vote for him. Some of what he’s promising is outside his control, and that’s why I have my doubts. He wouldn’t be the first person that made big promises and didn’t deliver on them just to get to the Oval Office.”
That he wouldn’t be the first to say things just to get elected is a fair statement, but the vast majority of his positions and proposed policies would be in his direct or nearly direct control, and everything else, he can influence and try to affect change in. The one area I think he’ll do that in, and fail, will be in trying to loosen the international laws on torture.
That’s just not likely to happen, and not important enough to waste leverage on when there are far more important things that take priority. I personally get the sense that where most politicians would use the “oh, well I tried but it’s just not in my control” cop out, he would at least genuinely try. His brand is built on doing what he says he’ll do. Just my opinion though, and an admittedly speculative one in this case. I’ll concede that there’s a possibility you’re right. But then, this is one place where the “well, then who’s better?” question comes in.
“Additionally, I’m not suggesting that any other mainstream candidate is inherently better. My critique here is limited to Trump.”
Your critique may be strictly limited to Trump here, and that’s understandable, but the problem with that is, he does not exist, nor is he running for President, in a vacuum.
LikeLike
“For many years, Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries). They have even published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States.”
Okay, take this statement as an example, used to justify building a wall and obtaining money from Mexico to do it (“1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.” and “Make Mexico Pay For The Wall” (emphasis omitted)). It suggests that Mexico has a policy of illegal immigration to decrease crime and poverty in its borders. The weak support of “publishing pamphlets” links to a 2005 NY Times article which explained the dangers of crossing the border illegally to its citizens. However, the ministry that published it was quoted as saying, “Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, however, said its intent in publishing the [‘]Guide for the Mexican Migrant[‘] was to warn migrants of the dangers they might face if they choose to slip illegally into the United States.”
Consider this other quote:
“In recent weeks, the headlines have been covered with cases of criminals who crossed our border illegally only to go on to commit horrific crimes against Americans. Most recently, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, with a long arrest record, is charged with breaking into a 64 year-old woman’s home, crushing her skull and eye sockets with a hammer, raping her, and murdering her.”
This is pure fear-mongering. It parades the worst example of criminals that get into our country illegally. Also, it implies that since headlines are covered with news reports like this, this kind of example is pervasive throughout the country.
Now, I get that the statements he’s making have colorable arguments for why a person can say they’re valid. Certainly not every illegal immigrant that comes into our country is law-abiding. There are a lot of people in this country who are afraid of criminals coming here illegally from Mexico.
The thing is, he’s singling Mexican illegals out to justify a border wall aimed directly at illegals coming from one country. While he specifically mentions them, he doesn’t specifically mention illegal aliens who are criminals from other countries. They might be referenced in his statistics he mentions later on in his enforcement policies, but no other country of origin is highlighted like Mexico.
Thus, he’s discriminating against Mexicans.
LikeLike
“Okay, take this statement as an example, used to justify building a wall and obtaining money from Mexico to do it (“1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.” and “Make Mexico Pay For The Wall” (emphasis omitted)).It suggests that Mexico has a policy of illegal immigration to decrease crime and poverty in its borders. The weak support of “publishing pamphlets” links to a 2005 NY Times article which explained the dangers of crossing the border illegally to its citizens. However, the ministry that published it was quoted as saying, “Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, however, said its intent in publishing the [‘]Guide for the Mexican Migrant[‘] was to warn migrants of the dangers they might face if they choose to slip illegally into the United States.””
The part you quoted was simply stating facts. Concerning the pamphlets, when confronted about them what would you expect the foreign ministry to say? I kind of doubt they would admit it if they had given them to folks so they knew what they were in for if and when they decided they wanted to cross. So… not discriminatory. Slightly disputable, apparently, but that goes both ways. And that was just an example to drive home the point. The facts still remain that the Mexican government does nothing to curb people, particularly the poorer citizens and the criminals, that drugs are still pouring in through our southern border, and so on and so forth. So… yeah.
“This is pure fear-mongering. It parades the worst example of criminals that get into our country illegally. Also, it implies that since headlines are covered with news reports like this, this kind of example is pervasive throughout the country.”
Again, a statement of fact. It’s not discriminatory at all. And yes, it uses some horrific examples to drive the point home, but guess what: those are *not* the worst examples. And in point of fact, it *is* pervasive. Don’t rely on Trump’s policy papers to provide proof of it, but look into the statistics of crimes tied to (committed by) undocumented immigrants. Check out Texas’ crime rate in relation to that, that’s a good place to start. Check my state too: CA. It kind of sucks here, and in no small part because of the issues Trump has raised. And though he’s only touched on it, I can attest to the regular gang problems we have here in this city (Santa Maria), and that almost all of those gangs consist of undocumented immigrants. That’s not a discriminatory statement either, just a statement of fact. Or to put it another way: it is *not* fear mongering, it’s raising public awareness. And about time imho.
“The thing is, he’s singling Mexican illegals out to justify a border wall aimed directly at illegals coming from one country.”
Not exactly; he’s singling Mexicans out because they make up a large bulk of the current population of illegal immigrants here. They make up a significant portion of that population, and what’s more, even people from other places come in regularly through the southern border. There are *plenty* of reasons a wall is a great idea, and while he’s specified Mexican nationals (illegal immigrants from Mexico) a number of times, every single thing he’s said about like that, he’s also said about illegal immigration a a whole. If people want to come in, they need to come in legally. That means from Mexico too, fyi.
“While he specifically mentions them, he doesn’t specifically mention illegal aliens who are criminals from other countries. They might be referenced in his statistics he mentions later on in his enforcement policies, but no other country of origin is highlighted like Mexico.”
Again, I point to the fact that illegal immigrants from Mexico make up a large portion of our illegal immigrant population in the States. If illegal immigrants from China represented a bigger part of that population he’s be talking about them too. And whether he specifies other countries of origin every time he talks about it or not, it all applies to *all* illegal immigrants. Insert “country of origin” and what he’s saying applies.
And you know… I have to ask, given that if I or most other Americans waltz into Mexico illegally, I and they will get their asses thrown in jail, are you also of the opinion that Mexico discriminates against Americans? Or does that sound as silly to you as your position (that Trump is discriminating against Mexicans because of his policies) sounds to me? What about our trade deficit with that country, in their favor? Is that discriminatory against us? Or is that simply them looking out for themselves? What about that wall they built on their southern border? Was that discriminatory against the people south to them? Personally, I don’t think so.
Having said all of that, I appreciate you actually taking the trouble to quote directly and give specifics, and (though I’m not sure it shows through well enough in the manner my comment is written) I do appreciate you commenting 😀 .
LikeLike
“Donald Trump is not the monster his critics make him out to be. That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.” No, it is not a fact since the monster his critics are making him out to be are based on their conjecture as to how he will behave once he is in the White House. You are claiming that he will not do those things, but you have no more of crystal ball than they do, so your claim he is not that monster is as much conjecture as their claims.
In Trump’s tax plan he originally released he called for a tax cut for everyone. As soon as he won Indiana and became the presumptive nominee, he claimed he was open to taxing the rich. So he has already just on this front (and tax code policies are a big deal no matter what ideological fence one sits upon) he has already shifted. He stood there a few months ago, now he stands here at the moment. Where will he stand in September? Once he takes the oath of the office? Since he has shifted, you nor anybody else can say as a matter of FACT where he will stand on the tax issue.
I don’t have time to deal with the fallacies running up and down through your post, but here is one: “but that he’s using the simple, effective age old tactic of intimidating an enemy? They’re the ones who use violence (and nothing but) to get they’re point across, and using scare tactics to make them think twice about taking a shot at us isn’t a half bad idea.” Let’s just say he is just kidding about throwing the Geneva Convention to the trash heap and that he would go far beyond water boarding, just how long before such an intimidation tactic becomes a hollow threat…at some point you have make good on your words. Yeah they might think twice, but if they have to think three times and there is no evidence he has the “guts” like Putin to actually do it, all he will have done is provide a recruiting tool for the likes of ISIS who can point to that and say: “That is what they want to do to all Muslims,” which will carry even more weight since he has banned the entry of all foreign Muslims into this country (most of whom are not radical).
LikeLike
“No, it is not a fact since the monster his critics are making him out to be are based on their conjecture as to how he will behave once he is in the White House. You are claiming that he will not do those things, but you have no more of crystal ball than they do, so your claim he is not that monster is as much conjecture as their claims.”
That’s exactly my point though: it’s all conjecture, imagined up and largely baseless. This post and my subsequent responses to comments pretty clearly *illustrate* the the vast majority of criticisms levels against him are just that: baseless conjecture. Blind speculation. See, you say it as if the people who make a habit of criticizing him actually have some evidence to point to for those speculative conjectures, but they usually don’t, and when they do (as I’ve tried to illustrate) those specifics are either inaccurate or completely fictional. In contrast to that, at every step in my responses, I’ve clearly pointed out the flaws in logic, the inaccuracies, and so on. I haven’t really been given direct responses to the fact that I completely dismantled Linda’s initial arguments against him, because her two options were to concede and admit she was mistaken, or to shift to a new argument in the hopes that it would eclipse the ones that showed her position had no basis in reality. I’ll respond to the bit she added last too, about the supposed narcissism. You can check back in in a few days here if you want to read that too.
Bottom line, their conjecture lacks evidence or intellectual honesty. Mine, I think I’ve shown pretty clearly, doesn’t lack either. I don’t have a crystal ball either, but I’m not claiming I do either, and I’ve got specifics, supporting evidence, and can clearly explain the reasoning behind my position and conjectures. The critics, by and large, simply haven’t been able to do any of that.
“In Trump’s tax plan he originally released he called for a tax cut for everyone. As soon as he won Indiana and became the presumptive nominee, he claimed he was open to taxing the rich. So he has already just on this front (and tax code policies are a big deal no matter what ideological fence one sits upon) he has already shifted.”
He’s said he was open to taxing the rich from the beginning; the part you left out, the *key* part, is that he’s only talking about doing so in specific contexts, such as with Wall Street players making money off of speculation (and other questionable practices that aren’t really taxed *at all*, but that a number of people have argued *ought to be* taxed). The tax cut for everyone still applies. So no, he has not already shifted.
“Since he has shifted, you nor anybody else can say as a matter of FACT where he will stand on the tax issue.”
Unless you’re talking about something I didn’t hear about yet, which is unlikely, but as far as I know he hasn’t changed his position on that issues at all. The shift you claim happened, didn’t happen. So unless you have something to add, some detail that *does* actually contradict what he’s said before, I can say without a doubt that (thus far) my conjecture and my reasoning is based on reality, on evidence, and on actual facts.
“I don’t have time to deal with the fallacies running up and down through your post”
Then don’t comment. Or at the very least, leave the bullshit claim of fallacies in my post out of it, until such time as you’re willing to back it up with direct quotes and examples. The one example you included doesn’t count for much, that’s for sure, and I’ll go ahead and explain why…
“…here is one: “but that he’s using the simple, effective age old tactic of intimidating an enemy? They’re the ones who use violence (and nothing but) to get they’re point across, and using scare tactics to make them think twice about taking a shot at us isn’t a half bad idea.” Let’s just say he is just kidding about throwing the Geneva Convention to the trash heap and that he would go far beyond water boarding, just how long before such an intimidation tactic becomes a hollow threat…at some point you have make good on your words. Yeah they might think twice, but if they have to think three times and there is no evidence he has the “guts” like Putin to actually do it, all he will have done is provide a recruiting tool for the likes of ISIS who can point to that and say: “That is what they want to do to all Muslims,” which will carry even more weight since he has banned the entry of all foreign Muslims into this country (most of whom are not radical).”
I don’t think he’s kidding, I just don’t think he’ll be able to sway enough of the international community into agreeing with him that those laws should be loosened. It’s not a truly empty threat if he actually wants to do it. I think that’s one of the very few areas I don’t think he’ll be able to do what he wants to. That’s international law, so he can’t just change it on a whim, unilaterally, and the other countries who have agreed to these laws are who he’s going to have to pressure and lobby to try getting any of it changed.
Now, this might appear to be flawed reasoning if you *assume* a few things: that he won’t genuinely try to get the laws loosened, that our military won’t be actively picking apart ISIS while he’s trying, and that we should give a shit what they’re using (or not using) in their recruitment repertoire. We already *are* what they hate, so what they might think of us is kind of a non-issue at this point. They’re going to use America and Americans as part of what they’re fighting against no matter what we do or don’t do, say or don’t say. So restraining ourselves, or altering our behavior in any way based on what they might do with it, is kind of ludicrous imo. And you fail to account for the flip side. Let’s say they use it as a recruiting tool; you don’t think some people might be turned off to the idea of joining if it means they might be captured and ‘interrogated’ like that? It goes both ways.
All of that’s to say, there might be some minor flaws in the *way I’ve presented my perspective, I’m not perfect after all, but I’m confident my *reasoning* is sound. And as for the Muslim ban, you yourself just (perhaps accidentally) misrepresented it. You seem to be implying it won’t have an end, that it isn’t specifically designated as a temporary measure for specific reasons, namely that our vetting system is shit right now, and that even if it wasn’t the Syrian refugees may or may not be Syrians, and may or may not have pre-existing ties to terrorism/terrorist organizations, and we have no way of checking it even with a top of the line vetting system because there’s no real paper work or identification requirements for them, and no database (from their region, either from their government or from our people) to compare any of that to even if there *was more scrutiny and more of an actual vetting process. If you want to see any more of what I’ve got to say on the Temporary Moratorium Trump proposed, read my replies to Linda here. She brought it up too. I addressed it when she did, corrected the inaccuracies her criticisms were based on, and clarified the reasons and criteria for doing such a thing in the first place as part of all that.
LikeLike
you know, what just erased what i wrote (fifteen minutes of my life i won’t get back)…go ahead vote for someone willing to scrap the Geneva Conventions. If you can’t understand how heinous that is…well, there’s no helping you and those who think like you do. I walked away from political blogging because it just isn’t worth the mental agitation i endure dealing with faux intellectual garbage from the likes of people like you calling for torture and killing of terrorists families. Hell, let’s just drop a nuke on them. People like you disgust me. End of rant.
LikeLike
“you know, what just erased what i wrote (fifteen minutes of my life i won’t get back)…”
Sorry to hear that 😦 . It happens to me sometimes to and it’s definitely irritating when it does.
“go ahead vote for someone willing to scrap the Geneva Conventions. If you can’t understand how heinous that is…well, there’s no helping you and those who think like you do.”
I understand his reasoning and (if you knew anything about my outlook beyond this one post) disagree with loosening those laws. I’m simply not concerned though, because (as I explained) I think it’s one of the few things he would want to do that he probably won’t be able to pull off. I personally don’t know that loosening those laws is a good idea, and wouldn’t really want that to happen. I’m not worried about that single, solitary aspect of Trump’s positions though, because I have a realistic outlook on whether or not doing so is even possible. Maybe it is, and if he pulls it off we’ll probably have to fix it and reverse what he did. That alone is not nearly enough to dissuade me from voting for him though, certainly not compared to all the very likely upsides there would be in having him as our President. I just want you to understand though, the image of me you’re putting together in your mind’s eye seems way off from my actual opinions & outlook.
“I walked away from political blogging because it just isn’t worth the mental agitation i endure dealing with faux intellectual garbage from the likes of people like you calling for torture and killing of terrorists families. Hell, let’s just drop a nuke on them. People like you disgust me. End of rant.”
That’s okay man, what you’re doing right here in this comment is the kind of thing that disgusts me, so the feeling is mutual. The difference is, mine is (again) based on reality: you’re insulting me as a substitute for any actual criticisms or arguments. They would probably falter too, but they’re still better than lazily insulting me. See, Trump insulting people doesn’t bother me because he doesn’t do it instead of doing more important or worthwhile things, he does it in addition to those things. You, in contrast, did it instead.
I really do wonder what you mean by “faux intellectual garbage”… is that just a blanket label you slap onto arguments you don’t like but can’t manage to effectively crticize or counter? ‘Cause that’s sure how it seems to me. I think if I were to use the term ” faux intellectual garbage”, I’d apply it to that last comment from you, becauase there was absolutely nothing intellectual about it. *shrugs*
In any case, have a nice day, and thanks for commenting 🙂 .
LikeLike
i would say I can effectively criticize and counter based on comments from both conservative and liberal (and whatever other political categories or labels one wants throw out there). The point of my comment was that I don’t want to spend my time doing so. And yes you are correct that I just made an insult and walked away, and I do so for a number of reasons, but a key one is as you say you believe that your notions are based on reality whereas I come from the philosophy that none of know really what is reality given that are immersed in the prison house of language. There is no point (in my arrogant opinion) in discussing things with someone who believes that they can see the world objectively. We only know what is in our mind and nothing less, which is not say we shouldn’t act, to try to endeavor to make the world a better place. We just need to acknowledge, in the end, we can’t tell fact from fiction. Once we all can agree it is “our fiction versus their fiction” than we can actually make some progress.
LikeLike
“The point of my comment was that I don’t want to spend my time doing so.”
And yet you had enough time to go out of your way and leave a snide, silly little comment? If you didn’t want to spend your time offering *actual* criticism you could have just mozied off. Instead you opted to comment anyways, with an insult in place of actual criticism? All well and fine, but if you thought you were going to stop by just to fire off an insult without getting called out for it, you came to the wrong site.
If you thought I was going to take it lying down, you thought wrong.
“There is no point (in my arrogant opinion) in discussing things with someone who believes that they can see the world objectively.”
In point of fact I don’t believe that I can see the world in a *completely objective light. I do, however, believe there’s an objective reality, and some subjective perspectives of it are more *accurate* than others. So we diverge completely in that the way I see it, there *is* a point to discussion, there *is* value in it, in edging ever closer to a more accurate understanding.
That difference of opinion between us only exists if I take you at your word though. I don’t, because you’re full of shit. If *you* really thought discussion was pointless, why comment at all? For some ambiguous, undefined “reasons”? That’s a cop out and you damn well know it 😉 .
“Once we all can agree it is “our fiction versus their fiction” than we can actually make some progress.”
Some fictions are more true to reality than others; that said, this is a point we pretty much agree on. The only problem you seem to have run into is in assuming I don’t know that. For me, I don’t spell it out because it goes without saying (and because, as I already said, some subjective understandings are more objectively accurate than others, & that it is indeed possible to be either correct or *incorrect* about something, & the reason you won’t or can’t make any comments in support of your outlook beyond your insults and high and mighty talk of philosophy is because maybe you’ll come up short in a real debate; you might lose, so you opt out of playing at all).
In summation, this, your latest comment, is just one big fat cop out, a completely ineffective attempt at rationalizing your rudeness.
LikeLike
[…] Criticizing a Caricature, both parts, just isn’t the kind of thing I enjoy very much, and what’s the point of this if not to have some fucking fun? Small doses are fine, but read part 1 and 2 and you’ll see, those weren’t exactly small. They were also kind of a substitute for doing my own thing, too reactionary for my tastes. The first was built on a response to someone elses post, the second, on a response to their 1st subsequent comment. If I wanted to I could translate the rest of the exchange into two or three more posts, but I’d rather just leave the comments as comments. […]
LikeLike
[…] he seemed to have a good reason for it, for wanting to insult me, but sadly, it was another case of criticizing a caricature. First a caricature of Trump, then of me, (deliberately?) taking what I said the wrong way and […]
LikeLike
[…] politicians on both sides of the aisle, D’s & R’s, have attacked relentlessly, often without any basis in reality or factual, accurate information. Only one person on either side paid his own way through the primaries, only […]
LikeLike