- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How many assassination attempts needed before Democrats stop fearmongering?

#31

Was there public unrest since late 2023? yes, and very much so much it made a mindset.
predicted on his prediction model, finance and war? as well, next president same name me 1 thing not.

Mounting civil unrest while financial goes down in same line till 2028. That is top then it goes back down.

Astrology, other theorists say same. Some said it long before.

Was there public unrest since late 2023? yes, and very much so much it made a mindset. predicted on his prediction model, finance and war? as well, next president same name me 1 thing not. Mounting civil unrest while financial goes down in same line till 2028. That is top then it goes back down. Astrology, other theorists say same. Some said it long before.
#32

I hope most will notice and ponder it that often, whenever someone attempts to bring up and discuss real world issues, someone else in the media or elsewhere will respond by distracting and then smearing and insulting a candidate personally.

Smearing and insulting a candidate PERSONALLY -- especially when using genuinely silly, frequently and widely repeated talking points -- is NOT talking about the issues. To the contrary, it AVOIDS them. Looks AWAY from them. It suggests to me that the speaker or writer (as opposed to the candidate) has no REAL idea of how to deal with those issues and would prefer to not think about them and to simply distract away from them.

I don't think it helps any nation.

So why does it persist? Well, and sadly, it appears to be cynically successful politically.

Many, many people use whatever they can to confirm their own long-established opinions (often opinions that come from social or other media, peer-pressure, parents or other fondly-remembered mentors), and whenever talking about real issues and hard numbers can't help them to avoid changing their minds, I guess they just have to keep getting personal if they want to continue talking at all about the challenges of the day.

As an example of apparently often-repeated, fearmongering foolishness, by the way, let me suggest that it seems like obvious NONSENSE that Trump likes, or is, "Hitler" or wants to "end democracy." Trump has ALREADY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. And he stepped down (I have to say it YET AGAIN) right ... on ... time. Of course.

Can't we just GROW OUT OF personal smearing and insults? Can't people just stop peddling nonsense or taking nonsense seriously? Most of life isn't high school. Let's discuss real, substantive issues and hope to find solutions. Let's look at hard numbers. Let's not just meet attempts to discuss real issues by responding with how, like, awful a CANDIDATE is (using often repeated insults, exaggeration and smears).

Why? Because some things are ACTUALLY broken and need to be fixed. And this ISN"T an election for prom king.

No candidate in a civilized nation should ever be made to feel unsafe. It might help the political climate if all stick to discussing the issues, and hard numbers, rather than insult and smear.

I hope most will notice and ponder it that often, whenever someone attempts to bring up and discuss real world issues, someone else in the media or elsewhere will respond by distracting and then smearing and insulting a candidate personally. Smearing and insulting a candidate PERSONALLY -- especially when using genuinely silly, frequently and widely repeated talking points -- is NOT talking about the issues. To the contrary, it AVOIDS them. Looks AWAY from them. It suggests to me that the speaker or writer (as opposed to the candidate) has no REAL idea of how to deal with those issues and would prefer to not think about them and to simply distract away from them. I don't think it helps any nation. So why does it persist? Well, and sadly, it appears to be cynically successful politically. Many, many people use whatever they can to confirm their own long-established opinions (often opinions that come from social or other media, peer-pressure, parents or other fondly-remembered mentors), and whenever talking about real issues and hard numbers can't help them to avoid changing their minds, I guess they just have to keep getting personal if they want to continue talking at all about the challenges of the day. As an example of apparently often-repeated, fearmongering foolishness, by the way, let me suggest that it seems like obvious NONSENSE that Trump likes, or is, "Hitler" or wants to "end democracy." Trump has ALREADY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. And he stepped down (I have to say it YET AGAIN) right ... on ... time. Of course. Can't we just GROW OUT OF personal smearing and insults? Can't people just stop peddling nonsense or taking nonsense seriously? Most of life isn't high school. Let's discuss real, substantive issues and hope to find solutions. Let's look at hard numbers. Let's not just meet attempts to discuss real issues by responding with how, like, awful a CANDIDATE is (using often repeated insults, exaggeration and smears). Why? Because some things are ACTUALLY broken and need to be fixed. And this ISN"T an election for prom king. No candidate in a civilized nation should ever be made to feel unsafe. It might help the political climate if all stick to discussing the issues, and hard numbers, rather than insult and smear.
#33

@Noflaps said in #32:

I hope most will notice and ponder it that often, whenever someone attempts to bring up and discuss real world issues, someone else in the media or elsewhere will respond by distracting and then smearing and insulting a candidate personally.

It's why Trump and Vance have started the whole immigrants eating pets thing - to distract from Trump's terrible debate performance where he had no coherent policy positions at all.

Smearing and insulting a candidate PERSONALLY -- especially when using genuinely silly, frequently and widely repeated talking points -- is NOT talking about the issues. To the contrary, it AVOIDS them. Looks AWAY from them. It suggests to me that the speaker or writer (as opposed to the candidate) has no REAL idea of how to deal with those issues and would prefer to not think about them and to simply distract away from them.

This is Trump's entire playbook - repeating things that have been repeatedly proven to be false.

So why does it persist? Well, and sadly, it appears to be cynically successful politically.

Obviously, this is why Trump keeps doing it. The wider GOP's failure to confront it is unfortunately an indication of their voter base.

As an example of apparently often-repeated, fearmongering foolishness, by the way, let me suggest that it seems like obvious NONSENSE that Trump likes, or is, "Hitler" or wants to "end democracy." Trump has ALREADY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. And he stepped down (I have to say it YET AGAIN) right ... on ... time. Of course.

There were institutionalists in his administration in the first 4 years who not only did not carry out unlawful orders but did not advise Trump how to circumvent those laws. His next administration will have no such people, but will instead be staffed by the authors and contributors to Project 2025, who have clearly outlined their plans for changes to government administration.

Trump fomented the violence on January 6th and only stepped down when it became clear that he could not stay, but he did not attend his successor's inauguration or engage in the peaceful transfer of power like any of his predecessors

Frankly, your gaslighting and projection is fundamentally disingenuous and hypocritical. I have a great deal of sympathy for Miss Sassy's owner - she is at least honest in her beliefs even though I disagree with them and when she realised her error after finding her cat in her basement, she went and apologised to her Haitian neighbours. Who are there legally, btw. The faux intellectual types like JD Vance who actually know better but are participating in it for the sake of power are the truly dangerous ones.

As Charlie Sykes has said, a clown with a flamethrower is still extremely dangerous.

@Noflaps said in #32: > I hope most will notice and ponder it that often, whenever someone attempts to bring up and discuss real world issues, someone else in the media or elsewhere will respond by distracting and then smearing and insulting a candidate personally. It's why Trump and Vance have started the whole immigrants eating pets thing - to distract from Trump's terrible debate performance where he had no coherent policy positions at all. > Smearing and insulting a candidate PERSONALLY -- especially when using genuinely silly, frequently and widely repeated talking points -- is NOT talking about the issues. To the contrary, it AVOIDS them. Looks AWAY from them. It suggests to me that the speaker or writer (as opposed to the candidate) has no REAL idea of how to deal with those issues and would prefer to not think about them and to simply distract away from them. This is Trump's entire playbook - repeating things that have been repeatedly proven to be false. > So why does it persist? Well, and sadly, it appears to be cynically successful politically. Obviously, this is why Trump keeps doing it. The wider GOP's failure to confront it is unfortunately an indication of their voter base. > As an example of apparently often-repeated, fearmongering foolishness, by the way, let me suggest that it seems like obvious NONSENSE that Trump likes, or is, "Hitler" or wants to "end democracy." Trump has ALREADY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. And he stepped down (I have to say it YET AGAIN) right ... on ... time. Of course. There were institutionalists in his administration in the first 4 years who not only did not carry out unlawful orders but did not advise Trump how to circumvent those laws. His next administration will have no such people, but will instead be staffed by the authors and contributors to Project 2025, who have clearly outlined their plans for changes to government administration. Trump fomented the violence on January 6th and only stepped down when it became clear that he could not stay, but he did not attend his successor's inauguration or engage in the peaceful transfer of power like any of his predecessors Frankly, your gaslighting and projection is fundamentally disingenuous and hypocritical. I have a great deal of sympathy for Miss Sassy's owner - she is at least honest in her beliefs even though I disagree with them and when she realised her error after finding her cat in her basement, she went and apologised to her Haitian neighbours. Who are there legally, btw. The faux intellectual types like JD Vance who actually know better but are participating in it for the sake of power are the truly dangerous ones. As Charlie Sykes has said, a clown with a flamethrower is still extremely dangerous.
#34

Please read your very own last sentence in #33, @Talezassian. It uses the word "clown" and the word "flamethrower." Is it substantive? Is it addressing issues? Or is it merely personal.

Sudden, unplanned overcrowding in towns and cities with insufficient resources IS A REAL ISSUE Talezassian, WHETHER OR NOT a "pet" disappears.

Don't believe me. LISTEN to some of their mayors, even DEMOCRAT mayors about the challenges REAL cities and towns are REALLY facing.

A candidate that tries to draw attention to that REAL ISSUE is addressing a REAL ISSUE. Shouldn't BOTH candidates address that REAL ISSUE?

But calling a candidate a clown or pretending that a candidate asked for violence or for breaking into anything when he ACTUALLY used the word "PEACEFULLY" in his description of protest is NOT dealing with real issues, is it?

It's just a use of demeaning language, isn't it?

I don't ask or want anybody to believe me reflexively about anything. We are all free to CHECK THE FACTS. In this day and age that's not hard to do. For example, I look to YouTube frequently in order to SEARCH FOR ACTUAL, UNEDITED, RECORDED speech, AS OPPOSED TO cynically edited, "paraphrased," or even invented accounts.

Furthermore, accusing me of "gaslighting" is simply personal, too, isn't it? Does it address or respond to any real, substantive issue with which the nation has to deal?

Or is it merely ironic.

Please read your very own last sentence in #33, @Talezassian. It uses the word "clown" and the word "flamethrower." Is it substantive? Is it addressing issues? Or is it merely personal. Sudden, unplanned overcrowding in towns and cities with insufficient resources IS A REAL ISSUE Talezassian, WHETHER OR NOT a "pet" disappears. Don't believe me. LISTEN to some of their mayors, even DEMOCRAT mayors about the challenges REAL cities and towns are REALLY facing. A candidate that tries to draw attention to that REAL ISSUE is addressing a REAL ISSUE. Shouldn't BOTH candidates address that REAL ISSUE? But calling a candidate a clown or pretending that a candidate asked for violence or for breaking into anything when he ACTUALLY used the word "PEACEFULLY" in his description of protest is NOT dealing with real issues, is it? It's just a use of demeaning language, isn't it? I don't ask or want anybody to believe me reflexively about anything. We are all free to CHECK THE FACTS. In this day and age that's not hard to do. For example, I look to YouTube frequently in order to SEARCH FOR ACTUAL, UNEDITED, RECORDED speech, AS OPPOSED TO cynically edited, "paraphrased," or even invented accounts. Furthermore, accusing me of "gaslighting" is simply personal, too, isn't it? Does it address or respond to any real, substantive issue with which the nation has to deal? Or is it merely ironic.
#36

I doubt that, @justme23 . His political opponents will always have a tailwind. It's too easy to distract from real issues with emotional rhetoric and repetition or with promises of unaffordable freebies or vague declarations of joy. I wouldn't have believed that as a kid. But history and experience can reveal much that we are not born knowing.

I doubt that, @justme23 . His political opponents will always have a tailwind. It's too easy to distract from real issues with emotional rhetoric and repetition or with promises of unaffordable freebies or vague declarations of joy. I wouldn't have believed that as a kid. But history and experience can reveal much that we are not born knowing.
#37

By the way, real discussion involves words. I favor real discussion, with an open mind. So, I won't often be reacting to those with whom I disagree with emojis rather than words. Why do that, when words are available? I suppose it IS much easier and doesn't require much reflection.

I will, of course, continue sometimes to use thumbs ups or even hearts in support of what I feel to be clear thinking, excellent writing, genuine wit, memorable insight, or a charming humanity or humility, even if the writer is not one with whom I politically agree.

By the way, real discussion involves words. I favor real discussion, with an open mind. So, I won't often be reacting to those with whom I disagree with emojis rather than words. Why do that, when words are available? I suppose it IS much easier and doesn't require much reflection. I will, of course, continue sometimes to use thumbs ups or even hearts in support of what I feel to be clear thinking, excellent writing, genuine wit, memorable insight, or a charming humanity or humility, even if the writer is not one with whom I politically agree.
#39

Responses relying upon our own words, not links, is most helpful, I believe. Carefully coming to grips, ourselves, with what actually needs to be said and fairly can be said is, in my experience, at least, a helpful learning experience.

And not necessarily just for the reader.

Responses relying upon our own words, not links, is most helpful, I believe. Carefully coming to grips, ourselves, with what actually needs to be said and fairly can be said is, in my experience, at least, a helpful learning experience. And not necessarily just for the reader.
#40

And I disagree, an article cannot possibly be better because it is filtered through a person. Let someone read the article and make up his own mind.

A silly extreme extrapolation: let something be filtered through all mankind, that would be the ultimate truth, no?

And I disagree, an article cannot possibly be better because it is filtered through a person. Let someone read the article and make up his own mind. A silly extreme extrapolation: let something be filtered through all mankind, that would be the ultimate truth, no?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.