Trump: The First Year

[pfury]

@zeb1

You are either too young, or didn’t pay attention when GW Bush was President. He was ridiculed constantly by both the mainstream media and Hollywood. Certainly not as bad as Trump but nonetheless it was bad.

Which would make him very justified in being upset about the personal attacks. Such is not the case with Trump, as he’s the resident KING of personal attacks and useless fallacies. Without those 2 things, he never would have even been noticed amongst the slew of other GOP candidates.

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

No, it comes off as crying about it.[/quote]

Well, look at it this way. It can either be mentioned…which you say is “crying about it”, or it can be ignored which would only make matters worse and embolden them to do more.

[quote] Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-wing, but no right-wingers are crying over that? Right-wingers are supposed to love the market - well, solve it in the marketplace.

Oh stop it. You know as well as I that this is how politics works…as I have called it “the game”. We both know that Sean Hannity is Trump’s lackey, just as Rachel Maddow is a shill for the DNC.

We cheer on our own team. You do it, I do it, we all do it. It’s just a matter of which person and to whom one throws their support. I do remember back in the day you strongly supporting GW Bush. Were you not being fair back then?

You know this stuff gets old…

[zeb1]

@pfury

Which would make him very justified in being upset about the personal attacks. Such is not the case with Trump, as he’s the resident KING of personal attacks and useless fallacies. Without those 2 things, he never would have even been noticed amongst the slew of other GOP candidates.

This is all well and good and I agree with most of it. But that’s not what you originally said:

“I think this would carry more weight if the GOP had elected ANYONE other than Trump”

The fact is GW Bush got lambasted regularly. The fact is the modern press have escalated their attacks on GOP candidates all the back to Nixon (prior to Watergate).

[thunderbolt23]

@zeb1

Oh stop it. You know as well as I that this is how politics works…as I have called it “the game”. We both know that Sean Hannity is Trump’s lackey, just as Rachel Maddow is a shill for the DNC.

We cheer on our own team. You do it, I do it, we all do it. It’s just a matter of which person and to whom one throws their support. I do remember back in the day you strongly supporting GW Bush. Were you not being fair back then?

You’re talking about something else entirely - the issue is the fairness (or not) of entertainment media. You’re saying the entertainment media shouldn’t be allowed to cheer on whomever they like - I’m saying, sure they can.

[pfury]

@zeb1

This is all well and good and I agree with most of it. But that’s not what you originally said:

“I think this would carry more weight if the GOP had elected ANYONE other than Trump”

The fact is GW Bush got lambasted regularly. The fact is the modern press have escalated their attacks on GOP candidates all the back to Nixon (prior to Watergate).

I said this would carry more weight because once you become part of the problem, you lose credibility when complaining about it. If GW wanted to air his griefs with the media/hollywood for being “unfair” he’d look very justified, but since Trump’s election, the GOP has shown they’re more than willing to use the same methods.

It doesn’t change that either side using stupid personal attacks and fallacies are abusing it to push concepts on the stupid masses, but it sure as shit takes the wind out of the GOP’s sails for exclusively blaming Dems for it.

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

No, it comes off as crying about it. Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-wing, but no right-wingers are crying over that?

You were talking about no right wingers crying about talk radio leaning right. I then explained to you why that occurs.

[thunderbolt23]

@zeb1

You were talking about no right wingers crying about talk radio leaning right. I then explained to you why that occurs.

My point is shouldn’t you? If late night shows should be more balanced, shouldn’t talk radio too?

[hugh_gilly]

@zeb1

I want to know if you think that the US should allow N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

Can’t let them have them at all. Far to dangerous for Kim Jong Un possess them. People complain about how other Nations can have them but they aren’t rogue states and are all peaceful. Allowing North Korea to continue to develop and test them is a foolish move on behalf of the World.

[therajraj]

@zeb1

That’s not the question that I asked. I want to know if you think that the US should allow N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

And my answer is you can always find a good reason to intervene.

How did intervening in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in Asia turn out?

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

My point is shouldn’t you? If late night shows should be more balanced, shouldn’t talk radio too?

Here you go …again:

You know as well as I that this is how politics works…as I have called it “the game”. We both know that Sean Hannity is Trump’s lackey, just as Rachel Maddow is a shill for the DNC.

We cheer on our own team. You do it, I do it, we all do it. It’s just a matter of which person and to whom one throws their support. I do remember back in the day you strongly supporting GW Bush. Were you not being fair back then?

You know this stuff gets old

[zeb1]

@therajraj

And my answer is you can always find a good reason to intervene.

How did intervening in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in Asia turn out?

This is not the 1960’s, nor is this Vietnam. We are talking about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. Do you think we should let them?

And do you think it would be a better and safer world if we let them develop nuclear weapons?

[thunderbolt23]

@zeb1

My point is shouldn’t you? If late night shows should be more balanced, shouldn’t talk radio too?

Here you go …again:

You know as well as I that this is how politics works…as I have called it “the game”. We both know that Sean Hannity is Trump’s lackey, just as Rachel Maddow is a shill for the DNC.

We cheer on our own team. You do it, I do it, we all do it. It’s just a matter of which person and to whom one throws their support. I do remember back in the day you strongly supporting GW Bush. Were you not being fair back then?

Ok, then we’ve made a circle back to where we were before - the entertainment media gets to cheer on whomever they want, and no one should cry about them doing so under a claim that it’s “unfair” when the cheering happens to be lopsided in favor of a party or person.

[zeb1]

No, no, no, you’ve missed the entire point. That IS what politics is all about. One takes sides because one particular side aligns with one’s beliefs. If tomorrow there were 9 new TV stations all conservative, do you think that I and millions of other conservatives are going to complain?

Conversely I doubt you would hear much complaining from ED if suddenly conservative talk radio disappeared.

This IS politics stop pretending that you are above it all–you are not and you show that daily.

Sheesh!!

[thunderbolt23]

This is always so strange - you seem completely oblivious to the concept of any kind of intellectual or ethical consistency and fairness - call it the Golden Rule, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, the rule of reciprocity, double standards, etc. Why is that?

You can accuse someone of doing something bad, but when you do it, you won’t recognize it as bad (see spewing “Hate” in political discourse). Democratic Presidents do X, it’s awful and ruining the country - but a Republican President does the same, you look the other way with no worries. You never, ever apply - or even pretend to apply - even-handedness. It’s pathological at this point.

When late night talk show hosts bash conservatives almost exclusively, it’s a cause for concern because of the unbalanced effect on political discourse. When talk radio hosts bash liberals almost exclusively, hey, it’s just people cheering on their squad and there’s no reason to be worried about unbalanced effects.

Seriously, it’s a comedy at this point. What explains it? Shouldn’t you at least try to be even-handed on something? Anything?

[therajraj]

@zeb1

@therajraj

And my answer is you can always find a good reason to intervene.

How did intervening in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in Asia turn out?

This is not the 1960’s, nor is this Vietnam. We are talking about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. Do you think we should let them?

And do you think it would be a better and safer world if we let them develop nuclear weapons?

My answer doesn’t change.

What evidence do we have US intervention ever improves the situation? Let another country be the world’s policeman

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

This is always so strange - you seem completely oblivious to the concept of any kind of intellectual or ethical consistency and fairness - call it the Golden Rule, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, the rule of reciprocity, double standards, etc. Why is that?[/quote]

For the same reason that if I were in charge of an Army for example I would not allow the enemy to bomb my arsenal simply because my Army just bombed their arsenal. Politics is like war in that there is a constant fight to gain the hearts and minds of the electorate. And…I know you are aware of this. Do you honestly expect me to applaud a tax hike for example because it benefitted x number of people but harmed even more people? Am I supposed to say good things about such an act? Really?

Democratic Presidents do X, it’s awful and ruining the country - but a Republican President does the same, you look the other way with no worries.

You are actually wrong about that. I will remind you for the 5th time that when GHW Bush raised taxes when he said at the Republican National Convention that he wouldn’t (read my lips no new taxes), I chastised him roundly for it. And still do to this day. Furthermore, I stated right here on T Nation that GW Bush was a poor communicator. That was a fact. Many of his problems were due to the fact that he could not take his message to the people the way that Ronald Reagan did. And to at least some degree the way Donald Trump does. And I have also said many times that President Trump can be overbearing and obnoxious. Now tell me, did you miss all of that?

When late night talk show hosts bash conservatives almost exclusively, it’s a cause for concern because of the unbalanced effect on political discourse.

Says you. I think it’s bad because it may very well create new left wing nuts. And the next time the dems run someone like Lizzie Warren…if there are enough new left wing nuts…she might win.

When talk radio hosts bash liberals almost exclusively, hey, it’s just people cheering on their squad and there’s no reason to be worried about unbalanced effects.

Hopefully, this will create more conservatives and that is what we need to defeat the Bernie Sanders of the world, who by the way represents the absolute worst in American politics. But, on the other hand I know when a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh is playing fast and loose with the facts. Do I like it? No. But, I know that the other side does it too. So…what would you have the conservatives do? Play it straight? That’s not how “the game” is played.

Seriously, it’s a comedy at this point.

No, it’s actually a tragedy that you don’t understand how the game is played. Is it age? Is it the fact that you are actually someone who politically falls right down the middle? I don’t know and I am just a tad curious perhaps you could explain. I know you were pro GW Bush back in the day. And I also know that you attacked many of Clinton’s policy stances. So where do you fall? I’m guessing center right?

[quote] What explains it? Shouldn’t you at least try to be even-handed on something? Anything?

I am actually one of the only people who is actually even-handed. I am partisan and admit it. I know when a conservative talk radio pundit is lying. I am aware that both sides lie. I watch MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow regularly, as I do FOX etc. And I see and read both sides of the argument and I simply agree with the conservative view point.

Now tell me the last time you read something from one of the left wingers on this site that criticizes a democrat?

There are two political sides in the US. One can be for one and against the other…it’s okay to do that, it’s been going on for decades…nothing wrong about it. But, they should be cognizant of the fact that is what they are doing.

[zeb1]

@therajraj

Let another country be the world’s policeman

I think that was tried during the Obama administration (oh no I mentioned Obama, there will be hell to pay-LOL) and it didn’t work. Like it or not the only thing standing between N. Korea developing a nuclear weapon is the good ole’ USA.

[pfury]

@zeb1

I think that was tried during the Obama administration (oh no I mentioned Obama, there will be hell to pay-LOL) and it didn’t work. Like it or not the only thing standing between N. Korea developing a nuclear weapon is the good ole’ USA.

Does another country exist that spent more time, money, and manpower being the world’s police? Serious question.

Edit: during the Obama years that is

[zeb1]

No, but that doesn’t mean that enough time and money were spent. Nor does it mean that there was an intelligent effort being made.

[pfury]

@zeb1

No, but that doesn’t mean that enough time and money were spent. Nor does it mean that there was an intelligent effort being made.

So when someone says we should let another country try being the world police and you said we already tried that, which country were you referring to?