Orange Man Bad

[Doctor Phibes]

@horace said in Orange Man Bad:

@renauda said in Orange Man Bad:

I believe only Americans themselves will be able answer that question when the time comes. Right now I don't think the country is ready to have that conversation. Not sure when that time will come. Perhaps never.

The left proudly installed the cultural idea that Trump is not worthy of rational discussion. He's a non-starter, full stop. So no, there will never be widespread rational discourse about his pros and cons as a POTUS. But there are pockets of such discussion, and always have been, on the right.

There's been no shortage of bollocks talked on the right. Contrast Mitch McConnel's take on Trump before, during and after.

So where is he being honest and rational? Before? After? Both? Neither?

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Orange Man Bad:

@horace said in Orange Man Bad:

@renauda said in Orange Man Bad:

I believe only Americans themselves will be able answer that question when the time comes. Right now I don't think the country is ready to have that conversation. Not sure when that time will come. Perhaps never.

The left proudly installed the cultural idea that Trump is not worthy of rational discussion. He's a non-starter, full stop. So no, there will never be widespread rational discourse about his pros and cons as a POTUS. But there are pockets of such discussion, and always have been, on the right.

There's been no shortage of bollocks talked on the right. Contrast Mitch McConnel's take on Trump before, during and after.

So where is he being honest and rational? Before? After? Both? Neither?

Any discussion that admits to the existence of tradeoffs and compromises when selecting a single human being as president is more rational than the TDS or never-Trump conversation about Trump. It's right there in the name, "Never". I don't think "Never Trumpers" ever even objected to being called that. TDS never sat well with them, of course, but one doesn't need to try very hard to follow the logic from "Never Trumper" to a derangement of logic and judgment.

[Doctor Phibes]

@horace said in Orange Man Bad:

@doctor-phibes said in Orange Man Bad:

@horace said in Orange Man Bad:

@renauda said in Orange Man Bad:

I believe only Americans themselves will be able answer that question when the time comes. Right now I don't think the country is ready to have that conversation. Not sure when that time will come. Perhaps never.

The left proudly installed the cultural idea that Trump is not worthy of rational discussion. He's a non-starter, full stop. So no, there will never be widespread rational discourse about his pros and cons as a POTUS. But there are pockets of such discussion, and always have been, on the right.

There's been no shortage of bollocks talked on the right. Contrast Mitch McConnel's take on Trump before, during and after.

So where is he being honest and rational? Before? After? Both? Neither?

Any discussion that admits to the existence of tradeoffs and compromises when selecting a single human being as president is more rational than the TDS or never-Trump conversation about Trump. It's right there in the name, "Never". I don't think "Never Trumpers" ever even objected to being called that. TDS never sat well with them, of course, but one doesn't need to try very hard to follow the logic from "Never Trumper" to a derangement of logic and judgment.

You don't have to say 'Never', but you also don't have to pretend that he's somehow transformed from a jackass into a great man. Self-respect is a thing.

[Jolly]

And you still don't get past Orange Man Bad.

[kluurs]

@george-k said in Orange Man Bad:

@doctor-phibes said in Orange Man Bad:

The GOP has principles?

(Insert Groucho Marx quote here:_________________________)

Reminds me of biography I read of Lord Byron. He was reading the paper one day where the gossip columns of the day were decrying his morals. Turning to his housekeeper, he asked her, "what do you think of what they're saying about my morals?"

"First time, I've heard it suggested that you have any," was her reply.

[Doctor Phibes]

Here's a counter question. Is a justifiable way to address serious issues affecting the country such as illegal immigration by pandering to xenophobes and racists?

Does it matter what somebody says, or is policy the only thing that is important?

Is it OK to vote for a bully, a liar and a con-man if he gets things done?

[Jolly]

If you don't have sense enough to weigh what somebody says vs.what they do, you have no business trying to analyze politics.

[Rainman]

Yeah, kinda what Jolly said.
Those terms xenophobe, racist, yadadayadada. There's no sting in those terms, although plenty of people are still pointing fingers any which way.
And, I think millions of people have thought long and hard about it, and if accused of being a racist etc., yawn, -- they have their own pushback for the rage machine usage of terms as inappropriate and a non-argument. Or more sophisticated people like me, where "I know you are but what am I?" works just fine. And causes the rage addicts to turn purple. (of course I've never really tried it, yet).
What's this topic again?

[89th]

@klaus said in Orange Man Bad:

How about his attack on democracy by attempting to destroy trust in the fairness of elections without any substantial evidence? I'd imagine that this would be a GOP principle

This is one part that still boggles my mind. Had Obama tried what Trump did with the “I will never accept the election results!” and months of associated lies, false claims, and incitement, you would’ve seen an absolutely nuclear meltdown from many conservatives on this forum. Yet because it was Trump...

[89th]

@george-k said in Orange Man Bad:

I'm not talking about his reprehensible personality, his erratic behavior, his off-the-cuff remarks, his (yeah @89th , I'm looking at you) lies. What actual policies were bad for the country. What "evil" has he perpetrated?

As I have been known to do I will repeat myself.

I’ve said many times I thought Trump pushed the conservative agenda forward nicely on many fronts (most significantly on the Supreme Court).

Heck, I was considering voting for him as of his Jan 2020 State of the Union speech... however my primary issues with him include his incessant lying and making up facts on the fly (or even using the Bible as a photo-op prop?), but the main issues for me were his handling of Covid early on...major fumbles and poor leadership, and ultimately his absolute cardinal sin of democracy of not accepting his election loss. How any conservative is fine with that is beyond me...an absolute cornerstone of democracy was rejected by Trump.

Anyway...so again, my main issues were his lying, fumbling of the greatest health crisis in a generation, and his anti-democratic handling of his election loss.