Was US politics always like this?

Here's some great coherent trump sectionals from that speech

" You remember, everything was so good. If this guy just, you know he goes to the beach all the time.

(07:03)
Somebody thinks he looks good in a bathing suit; I don’t think so. And he has that little chair that weighs about seven ounces. It’s meant so children can lift it and very old people can lift it. And you know what? He’s not old. He’s incompetent. He’s not old. He’s not old. I know people that are 88, 89, 92. A man named Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot. Bernie Marcus is 95, I think. And he is 100, you talk to him, he’s 100% sharp. This guy, there’s just something missing. And there always has been, by the way. He always had the worst and dumbest foreign policy. There always has been. Under the Trump administration, if you cross our border illegally, we caught you and we brought you back. We took you back from where you came. It was very simple."

"Okay, can you hear me in the back? I wish the cameras would focus on the people here. They never show it. They never take even the sort of friendly ones. Semi, I say semi friendly, the friendly ones. I do a great show with Sean Hannity or Jesse or Janine or Laura or somebody. And we do a great show or a lot of great people. And then they put on commercials that are just horrible and they’re false. I say, “What the hell are you putting commercials on like that?” I do a show. And then they put four commercials on. It is so stupid. And they shouldn’t be doing that. They shouldn’t be doing that. The other side, fake news CNN, which of course has no ratings, although they are doing the debate, they’ll get some ratings for the debate. They’re going to get big ratings. So this is about our border. And it was a song written a long time ago, not about the border. We made a couple of minor changes, but it’s very true, and I think it’s very true, she just said happy birthday. Thank you darling."

"Nobody loves the military more than me. Nobody respects it and nobody’s treated it better. Nobody’s done as much for the military as I have. But he said, “I stood over graves of soldiers” and I said, “These people are suckers and losers.” The dead soldiers from World War I. I said, “This was a made up deal” from a magazine that’s failing financial disaster by a guy that is a horrible radical, left lunatic named Goldberg. "

"And this is one of the reasons why. So this is entitled, “The Snake on her way to work, one morning down the path along the lake, a tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake. His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew, poor thing she cried out. I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you.” ” Take me in oh tender woman. Take me in for heaven’s sake. Take me in oh tender woman sighed the vicious snake.” She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk and laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk. She hurried home from work that night. As soon as she arrived, she found the pretty snake she’d taken in had been revived. “Take me in oh tender woman. Take me in for heaven’s sake. Take me in oh tender woman sighed the vicious snake.”

(30:02)
She clutched him to her bosom. “You’re so beautiful.” She cried. “But if I hadn’t brought you in by now, you truly would’ve died.” She stroked his pretty skin again, and kissed and held him tight. But instead of saying, “Thank you, ma’am,” the snake gave her a vicious bite, bite, vicious bite. Take me an oh tender woman, take me in for heaven’s sake. Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the vicious snake. “I saved you, cried the woman, and you’re so tender and so nice. But you know that if I hadn’t taken in, your skin would not look so good and you would’ve bitten me. But why you bit me? Why did you bite me? Please, please tell me. Why did you bite me? Your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die.”

(31:02)
“Shut up, silly woman said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well, I was a snake before I took you in.” And that’s happening at our border. You see? Because we’re taking in people that are a disaster for our country. So it’s all happening at our border, and we’re taking in people at levels that have never taken, this has never happened before, ever. Never. And we’re not going to let it happen. We’re not going to let them ruin our country. We’re not going to let them destroy our country. So I want to tell you a couple of things, and this is the first time I’ve ever made this. Shut it down."

#27,

Fair enough. To your first point my only defense is I was fighting fire with fire. (This is actually possible with wildfires: it’s called backburning.) But you’re quite right that’s not ideal behavior on my part. I was stooping low. (Albeit still punching down.) ;-) But I’ll try to behave better in future, since I know two wrongs don’t make a right. (They make a left.) :-P

> You seem to be focused on the Democratic and republican supporters, more than Harris and Trump's own rhetorics.

Indeed. And that was a deliberate choice, since the other side is already doing the same thing in every political thread in this forum. (If you don’t believe me, look. See if you can find even one thread that’s exceptional in this regard. For example, people rarely seem to address the points Noflaps makes; instead, they usually attack *him*. Or else, predictably, they continue attacking Trump, rather than his policies.) And yes, that IS relevant here. Why wouldn’t the rest of this forum be relevant to this latest little part of it?

> Never use a different thread as an argument in a current thread

This is a bizarre and arbitrary rule you just made up. I will not abide by it.

> unless you provide references.

I referenced this forum in general, and his own posting history in particular. Just search for “Trump” or “Peterson” here for multiple examples: lichess.org/forum/search?text=user%3Akyanite111 Or search the Off Topic forum for Trump. I guarantee you most results will be of that nature. ;-(

> When he was president, he never spoke clearly, to the point of many news outlets, both American and foreign, had to have someone to decifer his meanings, which at many times, was just a qualified guess.

Or is that just the excuse those “news” outlets made for never quoting him in context, and instead always paraphrasing him, and framing things their own way? (Selah.) How many of his speeches have you actually heard in their entirety?

I read both sides of the news in this country, because I don’t trust the NYT to filter Trump’s speeches for me. (Or much else, honestly. Did you know their Bestseller List didn’t even mention Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, although its sales eclipsed everything they *did* mention combined for at least two years straight? . . . What else have they simply *not* told their readers? And if that’s not gaslighting, what is?) That’s the first mistake most people make, is not listening to the other side in their own words, in full; and instead just believing it when they are *told* that Trump is “incoherent,” by someone in whom they have mistakenly placed their trust.

Heck, the most popular “news” sources in the world today are funded by governments: e.g. NPR in America, the CBC in Canada, and BBC in the UK. What do you expect such outlets have to offer, *except* propaganda? I tell you that’s all they ever serve up. ;-( That’s *what they do*: they are the mouthpieces of government, in countries where the course of government is (at least ostensibly) determined by public opinion. Which translates to a circular claim to legitimacy: “Our rule is legitimized by what you think; now, here’s what to think.” The Divine Right of Kings was actually a more coherent claim to power.

IMO, this entire form of government is a sham and a scam; “our” elections are a mere puppet show, with the Republicans representing the last stable release (~30 years behind on policy, give or take a year), and the Democrats the new alpha version (untested, and full of bugs) of *the same* OS. Which is frankly criminal, and has been from its founding. Or certainly since FDR. Do you know his “special wartime powers” were never relinquished? Instead, this government just keeps on growing. Congress illegally delegates its powers to unelected bureaucrats; and the Democrats give comfy sinecures to their buddies, with worthless titles like Climate Advisor, so they can fly around the country on private jets (like the hypocrites they are), banqueting in a different city each night on the taxpayers’ dime (like the parasites they are). It shall soon be too big for its own good — since a parasite can’t suck its host dry forever — but was already too big for *our* good a century ago. Since then it has drifted in only one direction: perpetually Leftward. (If it ever drifted to the Right, it would get smaller. Selah.)

> The great lie of the American political system today is that it’s symmetrical. There is no symmetry between progressives and conservatives; they have roughly the same relationship Koko the gorilla had with her pet cats.
>
> — Mencius Moldbug

Consider that when this country was founded, there were only a few government agencies. Last I checked there are 429. Most of them were created by Democrats sometime in the last century, and are unaccountable for the way they spend our tax dollars — even though Republican organizations have several times sued them for financial disclosures based on the Freedom of Information Act. :-| This is the “progress” of a cancer of the state we are seeing here; a tumorous growth in government, a bureaucratic bloat. ALL of those agencies should be abolished tomorrow! (But they won’t be.)

> I would disagree.

Yeah, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Some people accuse Dr. Peterson of “rambling,” too, but I just laugh at that. I’ve watched every podcast, and I’ve never had trouble understanding him. That man speaks, off the cuff, more clearly than I can write, with time to edit. If you have trouble understanding him, that’s your own fault. :-P But I digress. Of course I don’t have anything quite as nice to say about Trump. :-/ So, rather than defend him, these days when I contribute to threads like this one, I just focus on dishing back to the other side some of what they’ve been dishing all this time. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ That way I have at least some challenge while I’m using this forum to practice arguing. (I’m a mercenary debater: I’ll play Devil’s advocate with any cause, just for sport. If it’s a hard one to defend, so much the better.)

But also — and perhaps importantly to some of you — I attacked the other side here because I am not actually supporting Trump, at all. For the record, I’m registered as NPP (No Party Preference). I don’t like either party; my life’s work (not yet published) is an attempt to have them both dissolved. Time will tell if I’m successful. In a way, though, the worse this election goes, the better for me. ;-)

#s 28 & 30,

See above for the revelation that I’m not actually defending Trump here. And then reflect that you are both attacking him, again — which is exactly what I said is the only thing you people *ever* do. –_– So, you just made my point for me.

@Noflaps said in #17:
> By the way, I don't consider attempting to paraphrase or summarize him, or quoting some critic who CLAIMS Trump is so planning, to be a helpful, revealing answer.
Of course you don't. You are a full on Trump supporter. No matter how many ironclad evidences Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president would be presented to you, you would still consider them to not be significant enough.

Besides the fact that you omitted pinging me tells me you were hoping I wouldn't reply, your response was only for the gallery.
@pawnedge said in #26:
> You routinely attack persons; that is apparently the only method of argumentation you ever bother with.
(...)
> No, it’s you. You are a hypocrite.
[proceeds to explain that attacking someone by calling them a hypocrite doesn't count]
@pawnedge said in #32:
> I am not actually supporting Trump, at all
I don't support Trump at all. I only ever attack his opponents, and those who criticise him or other far right ideologues. I am registered No Party Preference but on election day I will still slip a Trump ballot in the voting box, even though I don't support him.

To be honest, I'm no professional in politics, as I'm 11 years old. Even though I haven't been following the 2024 US Election run-ups, I think that both presidents are helpless. Joe Biden could be a good president if he was maybe a little bit younger and Trump... I got nothing to say about him, you guys already know the drill

Edit: I also don't support any party.
Edit 2: Trump or Biden, if you are reading this, don't take it personally, there are a lot of people I dislike, it's not just you guys.

@pawnedge, I am confused.

In response to "The person who calls others childish nicknames, is Trump", you said in #26 "No, it's you". Additionally, you also claimed that Trump did not ramble. Now you're perfectly within your rights to claim that, of course it's subjective whether you think someone rambled or not. But to me, this seems like you are indeed defending him!

Furthermore, you claim that I am attacking Trump in my post #28. But this was in response to your claim that Trump did not ramble, because I genuinely believe that he did ramble. What am I meant to do, just sit there and say nothing in response? Or am I meant to say "yes, you're completely right, he didn't ramble"? I merely disagreed with your opinion, and when I voice that disagreement, you label me as attacking Trump, which is according to you is the only thing I ever do. But this is the first political thread I've opened on lichess.

I don't get how I've proved your point in any way. If you are going to claim that he didn't ramble, and if that doesn't constitute defending him, then I am not attacking him when I claim that he did ramble.

In #15, @whereof-thereof , while apparently still writing about Trump, you wrote that ""He has on several instances openly and semi-openly boasted about his plans for ending democracy. "

In #17, just two tells later, in the same thread, I asked "Can you accurately quote any such boasts that can be reliably sourced?"

You write that I failed to "ping" you because I was hoping to receive no reply. No, I actually hoped for a reply, You seemed to be attending to this thread, and my #17 came close behind your #15.

But I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to slip something past you. I respect you and I sincerely wasn't.

Perhaps you can now furnish a sourced quotation of Trump "boasting" of such "plans" to "end democracy" as you believe he has? I'm genuinely curious to see how you formed that idea.

I pay a great deal of attention to the news and have for a long time. I've never seen Trump ever seriously threaten to end democracy. Not once.

I've seen people on television claim that that's his intention. But it has always seemed like political noise and propaganda to me, in the absence of anything like that coming from Trump himself. Frankly, I don't see how he could do it even if he did want to. It just doesn't strike me as remotely plausible.

As for the rest of the discussion in this thread, let me observe that Trump has been accused and impeached (twice, unsuccessfully!) and smeared (pee tapes!) and villainized over and over, for years now. He's actually endured more than any presidential candidate in my lifetime other than dear John Kennedy. Indisputably. Obviously.

They're raided his home, regarding classified documents (which were removed when he was president, with a president's latitude with regard to many things). Consider how much differently his competitor was treated regarding classified documents.

Can any step back, remain calm, and actually ponder that for a minute, without leaping to an angry and distracting reply?

Recently, he was nearly ended. And had to stand back up, bravely, as he always seems to do.

But people complain about his use of humorous, biting nicknames? Oh, my. How awful. Humorous nicknames. What could be worse?

Do the opponents stand up bravely after each use of a humorous nickname to describe them? If so, how brave of them. How do they find the raw courage?

While pondering my obvious but gentle sarcasm, note that Trump DID IN FACT step down peacefully at the end of his term, right on time in January, 2021.

And no amount of denying that or disagreeing with it will amount to ANY proof that he didn't. Because ... he did. You can actually watch a news video of his peaceful departure on YouTube. It's history, not fantasy.

Please note, none of this is intended as a personal attack on anyone here. I have respect for all here, and especially for those who take the trouble to type out a post and share their views, even if they disagree with my own. I can be wrong. But I will need to be persuaded with calm proof. I will never be persuaded by anger or vitriol. Is anybody? Ever?
.

Ah, I got my first horsey of the day. Thank you! How nice.

I wonder if it will be followed by any helpful responses that are filled with specifics and aren't filled with name-calling? I look forward to that and respect my fellow posters, even those who disagree with my views.

@sweetsmurf said in #37:
> The hideous megalomaniac buffoon is talking vengeance, autocracy, hate, and lies, lies, lies...wtf is up with his todies?

Oh boy, 45th is losing control again. The megalomaniac just repeated his claim that Democratic states are passing laws allowing people to execute babies after birth.