- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How many assassination attempts needed before Democrats stop fearmongering?

#51

@InkyDarkBird, it is not Noflaps who wants to CLING to talking about "pets" and AVOID talking about the underlying serious problems being caused when the populations of towns and cities are suddenly increased BEYOND THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE to deal with their needs, because the expansion was not planned.

The PROBLEM is not whether or not pets are being eaten, or whether or not one believes correctly or incorrectly that they are. In fact, even though I love dogs, whether or not pets are disappearing is a relatively small issue compared to the real issues besetting towns and cities.

The REAL PROBLEMS are felt by towns and cities trying to cope with overburdened schools, hospitals, housing and safety nets.

Some no doubt may NOT wish to talk about those -- to IGNORE those real problems -- or why they're happening (and they are) -- and instead wish to repeat, over and over, words to the effect that:

"ooh, Trump talked about Pets being eaten."

Trump being misled by a report of disappearing pets (which is NOT REMOTELY equivalent to deliberately "lying" about anything) causes NO real problems.

But overburdened schools, hospitals, housing and safety nets CAN cause REAL problems. Obviously.

Politicians whose mistakes led to those real problems no doubt would much rather talk about dogs and mistakes about dogs. I prefer to worry about real (and unnecessary) problems caused by mistaken policy.

During the debate, Trump had to listen to the same old nonsense directed against him -- some claims about him that have long been debunked by reference to his ACTUAL WORDS. Oddly, I don't recall anybody diligently "fact checking" those debunked claims about Trump.

But you're concerned because Trump may have been wrong by listening to and then referring to some report about pets? Seriously? That's the real problem?

Trump wasn't attacking "Haitians" per se. His concern obviously had NOTHING to do with race or national origin. Skin color and origin have NOTHING to do with whether or not people need to eat, find jobs, find housing, find medial care and education for their kids. Those are REAL needs that have to be adequately funded and planned for, WITHOUT REGARD for whether they're from Haiti or from Kansas.

He was concerned about the possibility that people might be crowded into areas which lacked the jobs and resources needed to handle a sudden, unexpected increase in population. And why wouldn't ANY rational adult think about such challenges?

All should listen to some real mayors -- including some Democrats -- if anybody thinks such concerns are just fantasies or hot air right now.

@InkyDarkBird, it is not Noflaps who wants to CLING to talking about "pets" and AVOID talking about the underlying serious problems being caused when the populations of towns and cities are suddenly increased BEYOND THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE to deal with their needs, because the expansion was not planned. The PROBLEM is not whether or not pets are being eaten, or whether or not one believes correctly or incorrectly that they are. In fact, even though I love dogs, whether or not pets are disappearing is a relatively small issue compared to the real issues besetting towns and cities. The REAL PROBLEMS are felt by towns and cities trying to cope with overburdened schools, hospitals, housing and safety nets. Some no doubt may NOT wish to talk about those -- to IGNORE those real problems -- or why they're happening (and they are) -- and instead wish to repeat, over and over, words to the effect that: "ooh, Trump talked about Pets being eaten." Trump being misled by a report of disappearing pets (which is NOT REMOTELY equivalent to deliberately "lying" about anything) causes NO real problems. But overburdened schools, hospitals, housing and safety nets CAN cause REAL problems. Obviously. Politicians whose mistakes led to those real problems no doubt would much rather talk about dogs and mistakes about dogs. I prefer to worry about real (and unnecessary) problems caused by mistaken policy. During the debate, Trump had to listen to the same old nonsense directed against him -- some claims about him that have long been debunked by reference to his ACTUAL WORDS. Oddly, I don't recall anybody diligently "fact checking" those debunked claims about Trump. But you're concerned because Trump may have been wrong by listening to and then referring to some report about pets? Seriously? That's the real problem? Trump wasn't attacking "Haitians" per se. His concern obviously had NOTHING to do with race or national origin. Skin color and origin have NOTHING to do with whether or not people need to eat, find jobs, find housing, find medial care and education for their kids. Those are REAL needs that have to be adequately funded and planned for, WITHOUT REGARD for whether they're from Haiti or from Kansas. He was concerned about the possibility that people might be crowded into areas which lacked the jobs and resources needed to handle a sudden, unexpected increase in population. And why wouldn't ANY rational adult think about such challenges? All should listen to some real mayors -- including some Democrats -- if anybody thinks such concerns are just fantasies or hot air right now.
#52

By coincidence, about a minute ago, I just saw yet ANOTHER politician dodge a direct question about an apparent and utterly unrelated flip-flop by saying, approximately, "Well, but Trump is talking about people eating pets."

I give up. It's a soundbite world now. The unimportant is blown out of proportion so that politicians can distract from their own policy mistakes or from questions asking them to explain why they suddenly (and conveniently) changed their own long held positions.

I'm afraid a lot of people have no idea how much they're being played -- and think it's OTHERS who are being fooled. I've never seen times like these before.

Anybody who WANTS to be played should just never, ever look beyond their own favored and traditional news sources. A lack of diversity in news sources will, in my opinion, increase the chances of being played quite a bit.

By coincidence, about a minute ago, I just saw yet ANOTHER politician dodge a direct question about an apparent and utterly unrelated flip-flop by saying, approximately, "Well, but Trump is talking about people eating pets." I give up. It's a soundbite world now. The unimportant is blown out of proportion so that politicians can distract from their own policy mistakes or from questions asking them to explain why they suddenly (and conveniently) changed their own long held positions. I'm afraid a lot of people have no idea how much they're being played -- and think it's OTHERS who are being fooled. I've never seen times like these before. Anybody who WANTS to be played should just never, ever look beyond their own favored and traditional news sources. A lack of diversity in news sources will, in my opinion, increase the chances of being played quite a bit.
#53

"Weaver notes finally that, "The effective men of the world are not cheerful forgetters but painful rememberers," and he wonders "whether there is not some element of suicidal impulse in the mood" that inclines men to spurn knowledge of their past.
This observation by Weaver is pivotal. Were memory of history as acute today in America as with other peoples at other times, we would not now be marching blindly to our destruction."

KH ".....unburdened by what has been...."

"Weaver notes finally that, "The effective men of the world are not cheerful forgetters but painful rememberers," and he wonders "whether there is not some element of suicidal impulse in the mood" that inclines men to spurn knowledge of their past. This observation by Weaver is pivotal. Were memory of history as acute today in America as with other peoples at other times, we would not now be marching blindly to our destruction." KH ".....unburdened by what has been...."
#54

Thanks for the clever insight and illustrative quotation, @VeniceLover.

It is never a surprise when a politician would like to be "unburdened" by their own past policy mistakes. It's been odd to watch an incumbent try be viewed as a challenger. "Turn the page" is an odd thing for an incumbent to say, is it not?

But a lot of people seem to be nodding along, comfortably. You, in contrast, based upon your preceding post, seem very unlikely to be fooled.

Thanks for the clever insight and illustrative quotation, @VeniceLover. It is never a surprise when a politician would like to be "unburdened" by their own past policy mistakes. It's been odd to watch an incumbent try be viewed as a challenger. "Turn the page" is an odd thing for an incumbent to say, is it not? But a lot of people seem to be nodding along, comfortably. You, in contrast, based upon your preceding post, seem very unlikely to be fooled.
#55

@Noflaps said in #51:

Trump being misled by a report of disappearing pets (which is NOT REMOTELY equivalent to deliberately "lying" about anything) causes NO real problems.
Bomb threats aren't real problems?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-vance-haitian-immigrants-springfield-ohio-threats-d74b7ff56f9a45d9389d8ebee4af1652
https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-sends-ohio-state-highway-patrol-to-provide-added-security-in-springfield-city-school-district
And when directly confronted about the bomb threats, he repeats the claim of illegal immigration, when the Haitian migrants are legal immigrants.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ay0godsbg8E

Trump wasn't attacking "Haitians" per se. His concern obviously had NOTHING to do with race or national origin. Skin color and origin have NOTHING to do with whether or not people need to eat, find jobs, find housing, find medial care and education for their kids. Those are REAL needs that have to be adequately funded and planned for, WITHOUT REGARD for whether they're from Haiti or from Kansas.
Yes he was? He deliberately singled out legal Haitian immigrants as being illegal and pet-eaters.

He was concerned about the possibility that people might be crowded into areas which lacked the jobs and resources needed to handle a sudden, unexpected increase in population. And why wouldn't ANY rational adult think about such challenges?
This is still dodging the point of the eating pets and just assuming that Trump was talking about immigration issues as a whole, rather than specifically talking about a racist lie of eating pets.

Whether he was concerned about immigration or the economy or not, the way he addressed it was racist, xenophobic, and factually wrong.

@Noflaps said in #51: > Trump being misled by a report of disappearing pets (which is NOT REMOTELY equivalent to deliberately "lying" about anything) causes NO real problems. Bomb threats aren't real problems? https://apnews.com/article/trump-vance-haitian-immigrants-springfield-ohio-threats-d74b7ff56f9a45d9389d8ebee4af1652 https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-sends-ohio-state-highway-patrol-to-provide-added-security-in-springfield-city-school-district And when directly confronted about the bomb threats, he repeats the claim of illegal immigration, when the Haitian migrants are legal immigrants. https://youtube.com/watch?v=ay0godsbg8E > Trump wasn't attacking "Haitians" per se. His concern obviously had NOTHING to do with race or national origin. Skin color and origin have NOTHING to do with whether or not people need to eat, find jobs, find housing, find medial care and education for their kids. Those are REAL needs that have to be adequately funded and planned for, WITHOUT REGARD for whether they're from Haiti or from Kansas. Yes he was? He deliberately singled out legal Haitian immigrants as being illegal and pet-eaters. > He was concerned about the possibility that people might be crowded into areas which lacked the jobs and resources needed to handle a sudden, unexpected increase in population. And why wouldn't ANY rational adult think about such challenges? This is still dodging the point of the eating pets and just assuming that Trump was talking about immigration issues as a whole, rather than specifically talking about a racist lie of eating pets. Whether he was concerned about immigration or the economy or not, the way he addressed it was racist, xenophobic, and factually wrong.
#56

@Noflaps said in #49:

Flip-flopping just before an election to makes a candidate look more moderate, so as to carry a crucial swing state that would be destroyed by adherence to the candidate's traditional, long held view, doesn't strike me as admirable.

It strikes me as cynical.

But many might fall for it, no doubt, because few wish to admit to themselves that they've been making a mistake.

Cry for the future if they do fall for cynical flip-flops. We can't afford mistake after mistake after mistake, indefinitely.

What's the point of representative democracy if we don't allow our representees to adjust their position based on our feedback?

@Noflaps said in #49: > Flip-flopping just before an election to makes a candidate look more moderate, so as to carry a crucial swing state that would be destroyed by adherence to the candidate's traditional, long held view, doesn't strike me as admirable. > > It strikes me as cynical. > > But many might fall for it, no doubt, because few wish to admit to themselves that they've been making a mistake. > > Cry for the future if they do fall for cynical flip-flops. We can't afford mistake after mistake after mistake, indefinitely. What's the point of representative democracy if we don't allow our representees to adjust their position based on our feedback?
#57

It would be more than slightly interesting if Trump started talking like an egghead, who's up for betting the future of the USA and the free world on the response?

It would be more than slightly interesting if Trump started talking like an egghead, who's up for betting the future of the USA and the free world on the response?
#58

Suddenly just-before-the-election major, complete reversals from long-standing firmly voiced policy aren't convenient "flip flops" for political advantage, but are instead judicious mind changes?

Oh, please. How long is the newfound opinion going to last before it's changed? It might be a bit reassuring if she'd plausibly explain her apparent sudden, surprising conversion to favoring continued fracking. But I've seen no such attempt at explanation, and that's probably not surprising, since there don't seem to have been many helpful press conferences, have there.....

In any event, have you also ACTUALLY researched how the existing local towns people in the area are expressing their feelings at local government meetings lately? Have you seen any actual video of that on whatever news sources you follow? Do you think THEY are happy with the current situation? I hope you'd agree they matter, too.

I'm curious: do you think the average Teamster will be voting for her? The news about that has seemed rather suprising, lately. Have you seen it?

We seem to be working too hard to avoid thinking about the REAL underlying and unnecessary difficulties in the country by diverting with worries about "what Trump said." Trump wouldn't have to say ANYTHING if there weren't real underlying difficulties in the country right now that need to be addressed with sound policy.

Incidentally, @InkyDarkBird , I watched Trump' response to the reporter on YouTube. He mostly talked about JD Vance, and in response to a question he briefly mentioned the migrants but didn't mention "pet eating" at all. Is your version of that response to the reporter somehow different? (I don't know, I don't click on links here -- I went to YouTube to find the video myself, independently).

I wish people would think about what's really happening before they vote, and not get sidetracked by distractions. Democracy is doing fine. But I'm not so sure that common sense is still as common as one might hope.

Suddenly just-before-the-election major, complete reversals from long-standing firmly voiced policy aren't convenient "flip flops" for political advantage, but are instead judicious mind changes? Oh, please. How long is the newfound opinion going to last before it's changed? It might be a bit reassuring if she'd plausibly explain her apparent sudden, surprising conversion to favoring continued fracking. But I've seen no such attempt at explanation, and that's probably not surprising, since there don't seem to have been many helpful press conferences, have there..... In any event, have you also ACTUALLY researched how the existing local towns people in the area are expressing their feelings at local government meetings lately? Have you seen any actual video of that on whatever news sources you follow? Do you think THEY are happy with the current situation? I hope you'd agree they matter, too. I'm curious: do you think the average Teamster will be voting for her? The news about that has seemed rather suprising, lately. Have you seen it? We seem to be working too hard to avoid thinking about the REAL underlying and unnecessary difficulties in the country by diverting with worries about "what Trump said." Trump wouldn't have to say ANYTHING if there weren't real underlying difficulties in the country right now that need to be addressed with sound policy. Incidentally, @InkyDarkBird , I watched Trump' response to the reporter on YouTube. He mostly talked about JD Vance, and in response to a question he briefly mentioned the migrants but didn't mention "pet eating" at all. Is your version of that response to the reporter somehow different? (I don't know, I don't click on links here -- I went to YouTube to find the video myself, independently). I wish people would think about what's really happening before they vote, and not get sidetracked by distractions. Democracy is doing fine. But I'm not so sure that common sense is still as common as one might hope.
#59

um bruuhhhh
why are we talking about this

um bruuhhhh why are we talking about this
#60

@Noflaps said in #58:

Suddenly just-before-the-election major, complete reversals from long-standing firmly voiced policy aren't convenient "flip flops" for political advantage, but are instead judicious mind changes?

Oh, please. How long is the newfound opinion going to last before it's changed? It might be a bit reassuring if she'd plausibly explain her apparent sudden, surprising conversion to favoring continued fracking. But I've seen no such attempt at explanation, and that's probably not surprising, since there don't seem to have been many helpful press conferences, have there.....

In any event, have you also ACTUALLY researched how the existing local towns people in the area are expressing their feelings at local government meetings lately? Have you seen any actual video of that on whatever news sources you follow? Do you think THEY are happy with the current situation? I hope you'd agree they matter, too.

I'm curious: do you think the average Teamster will be voting for her? The news about that has seemed rather suprising, lately. Have you seen it?

We seem to be working too hard to avoid thinking about the REAL underlying and unnecessary difficulties in the country by diverting with worries about "what Trump said." Trump wouldn't have to say ANYTHING if there weren't real underlying difficulties in the country right now that need to be addressed with sound policy.

Incidentally, @InkyDarkBird , I watched Trump' response to the reporter on YouTube. He mostly talked about JD Vance, and in response to a question he briefly mentioned the migrants but didn't mention "pet eating" at all. Is your version of that response to the reporter somehow different? (I don't know, I don't click on links here -- I went to YouTube to find the video myself, independently).

I wish people would think about what's really happening before they vote, and not get sidetracked by distractions. Democracy is doing fine. But I'm not so sure that common sense is still as common as one might hope.

No offense, but I think you really need to simplify your articles :)

@Noflaps said in #58: > Suddenly just-before-the-election major, complete reversals from long-standing firmly voiced policy aren't convenient "flip flops" for political advantage, but are instead judicious mind changes? > > Oh, please. How long is the newfound opinion going to last before it's changed? It might be a bit reassuring if she'd plausibly explain her apparent sudden, surprising conversion to favoring continued fracking. But I've seen no such attempt at explanation, and that's probably not surprising, since there don't seem to have been many helpful press conferences, have there..... > > In any event, have you also ACTUALLY researched how the existing local towns people in the area are expressing their feelings at local government meetings lately? Have you seen any actual video of that on whatever news sources you follow? Do you think THEY are happy with the current situation? I hope you'd agree they matter, too. > > I'm curious: do you think the average Teamster will be voting for her? The news about that has seemed rather suprising, lately. Have you seen it? > > We seem to be working too hard to avoid thinking about the REAL underlying and unnecessary difficulties in the country by diverting with worries about "what Trump said." Trump wouldn't have to say ANYTHING if there weren't real underlying difficulties in the country right now that need to be addressed with sound policy. > > Incidentally, @InkyDarkBird , I watched Trump' response to the reporter on YouTube. He mostly talked about JD Vance, and in response to a question he briefly mentioned the migrants but didn't mention "pet eating" at all. Is your version of that response to the reporter somehow different? (I don't know, I don't click on links here -- I went to YouTube to find the video myself, independently). > > I wish people would think about what's really happening before they vote, and not get sidetracked by distractions. Democracy is doing fine. But I'm not so sure that common sense is still as common as one might hope. No offense, but I think you really need to simplify your articles :)

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