CDZ Does Trump really not know how to defend his ideas instead of attacking the people who oppose them?

[ABikerSailor]

Why? Because we had been hearing from the GOP as to how bad Obama's policies have been over the past 8 years, and one of the things that Trump did during the election was to link Hillary to both Bill and Obama. Hillary wasn't just running against Trump, but she was also running against how people felt about Obama and her husband.

That, combined with the fake news stories (Pizzagate), as well as her emails constantly being called into question is what did it.

Trump only had to run against Hillary.

So tit-for-tat? You're going to do the same for 4-8 years then the RNCers will use your same excuse to do it for another 4-8 years? How many decades to you expect this to last?

What tit for tat are you talking about? I was asked why I though that Hillary lost and stated that she was running against 3 other people, while Trump only had to campaign against one.

 

[Divine Wind]

What tit for tat are you talking about? I was asked why I though that Hillary lost and stated that she was running against 3 other people, while Trump only had to campaign against one.

Trump campaigned against not only the Democratic agenda but also the Republican one.

Don't you remember all the LW jokes about the Republican clown car?

 

[ABikerSailor]

What tit for tat are you talking about? I was asked why I though that Hillary lost and stated that she was running against 3 other people, while Trump only had to campaign against one.

Trump campaigned against not only the Democratic agenda but also the Republican one.

Don't you remember all the LW jokes about the Republican clown car?

Not in the general election. In the general (the one that counts), Trump only had to run against Hillary. Hillary on the other hand had to run against Obama's record, Bill's record, the emails and trumped up Benghazi charges.

 

[Divine Wind]

Not in the general election. In the general (the one that counts), Trump only had to run against Hillary. Hillary on the other hand had to run against Obama's record, Bill's record, the emails and trumped up Benghazi charges.

And Hillary ran against a reality TV star/Billionaire slumlord yet she still lost. Why?

Not because she ran against Obama's record, but because she stood with it. Same for Bill's record, her choice of email servers and her actions as SoS. Sure, I think the RNC overplayed the Benghazi tragedy, especially since I hold the WH more responsible than a paranoid SoS who disconnected herself from a secure communications network, but many of Hillary's problems are of her own making.....or do you think someone forced her to talk about being "dead broke" or under "sniper fire"?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Every leader knows that perception is everything, reality is secondary.

Reality in political stumping is secondary, for the governed, reality is primary. The only thing that may happen is that the situational reality of things isn't necessarily seen or understood by the people who are governed. That said, when the governed cast a vote on something, that something must be enacted and endured, for better or worse.

This is the idea that he is cultivating, that he is an "outsider" who will "just get it done".

Whatever "outsider" cachet he had has come to an end. He's every bit an insider now and he was the instant he won the RNC nomination.

he may change his public persona to fit the times

There's another dimension of deception. This notion of having a public persona. I don't know about you, but I want the President to be the person whom s/he appears to be. Personas belong on the stage and television and movie screens; integrity is what belongs in elected office. An actor may hold elected office, but I don't want them to be acting when they present themselves and their ideas to the American people.

Now it just seems as though you are arguing to argue. Point one is not disputed, point two is all about perception/opinion, and point three is just silliness. Very few people act the same way in the privacy of their own home and in public. People most certainly behave differently in front of a camera. We all have different personas that we use in different situations. One would not behave/interact the same with their work superior as they would with a neighbor's child. So, to say that personas do not belong in politics is either naive, or silly.

It's one thing to go into differing levels of detail in public and in private. It's wholly a different thing to present oneself differently, to affect a different persona. I mean really. Just when do you suppose is a better time to discard part or all of the articulate, thoughtful, soundly rational, assertive and honest persona that is one's true self and adopt some other one? Sure, the followers, prats, plebes and proles of the planet will do that; they need to do it to hide their character, perhaps skill/intellectual, shortcomings. Leaders have no reason to do that.

Might someone shift from using expletives in one situation and not doing so in another? Of course, many people do, but that's a change in vocabulary, not persona. People will bite their tongue, so to speak, in instances, but there again, that's merely showing a degree of decorum, not changing their persona.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's one thing to go into differing levels of detail in public and in private. It's wholly a different thing to present oneself differently, to affect a different persona. I mean really. Just when do you suppose is a better time to discard part or all of the articulate, thoughtful, soundly rational, assertive and honest persona that is one's true self and adopt some other one? Sure, the followers, prats, plebes and proles of the planet will do that; they need to do it to hide their character, perhaps skill/intellectual, shortcomings. Leaders have no reason to do that.

Might someone shift from using expletives in one situation and not doing so in another? Of course, many people do, but that's a change in vocabulary, not persona. People will bite their tongue, so to speak, in instances, but there again, that's merely showing a degree of decorum, not changing their persona.

Ever hear the phrase "Politics is show business for ugly people"?

 

[usmbguest5318]

After reading the first 21 posts I am convinced (again) of one thing. That is that we are a deeply divided and highly partisan country. Trump is no different, sure he lashes out at people instead of defending his position. Who among us doesn't? Why would we expect our leader to do any different? Heck, what other recent "leader" hasn't done the same thing, if a little more eloquently? Cases in point:

• The science is settled. Implying that if you disagree you are a "science denier" and therefore dumb, ignorant, or otherwise unfit to discuss this further.
• Rightwingnutjobs
• Leftards

I mean really, is anyone surprised? You really shouldn't be. When was the last time you had a civil disagreement, on a political topic/issue, with someone and no insults, or personalisation occurred?

Ummmm, on a daily basis, at the local diner and with students. You did mean face to face, didn't you?

If this includes people from a wide variety of political views, that is one special diner. I don't mean people who just disagree, I'm talking about communists discussing economics with capitalists, socialists discussing domestic policy with a libertarian. If that is the case, I would love to know where this mythical unicorn of a diner is, so I know where I need to move to.

Well, you see. That's the thing about living in a city like D.C., NYC, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and others, or if not living in such a place, at least getting out enough to become closely acquainted with people of such persuasions...It happens. It happens on university campuses too. Thinking back on my high school, college grad school and over the course of my career and social life, with no overt effort on my part, I've developed relationships -- ones that endure even now -- with people from around the world....not every country, of course, but certainly a variety of them:

• UK
• Indonesia
• Turkey
• Syria
• France
• Switzerland
• Spain
• Argentina
• Uruguay
• China
• Taiwan
• Japan
• The UAE
• Saudi Arabia
• Ethiopia
• Kenya
• South Africa
• Russia
• Holland
• Libya
• Nigeria
• Ghana
• Canada
• Brazil
• Columbia
• Finland
• Israel
• Norway
• Belgium

It's really not that hard to meet and interact with people having a wide variety of political points of view if one is merely personable. You makes people's acquaintanceship, they invite you to visit them, you return the invitation, you get to know one another, you engage in business dealings, your kids hang with theirs, etc. Over time people talk and share their ideas. People can disagree and still be civil, except on USMB it seems.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Agreed Xelor, the more you interact with people who are different from you, the more you will learn and the better your world view will be.

Me? I'm a country ass white boy from Montana who joined the Navy to see what was outside of my state. Over that time, I've had the opportunity to go and do many things. One of the best times I ever had was when I went and spent the weekend with a friend of mine from the ship. He was black, and lived in a town that was almost 95 percent black. Well, we went out that night to a club, and I was the only white face in the place. Some big dude walked up to me, tapped me on my shoulder, and said "Hey boy, you know where you're at?" I said "yeah, I'm in a bar, shooting pool, drinking beer and meeting new people". He then grinned, shook my hand and we had a couple of beers.

I've found that if you act like a human being and don't display disdain or prejudice towards others, you can have a pretty good time, no matter where you are.

Also spent one evening in Catania Sicily with a whole bunch of Italians. My friend David and I were rollerblading around the park, when a whole group of Italians came up and asked if they could practice their English with us. Well, we were on blades, they were on blades, and we spent the next 6 hours going all over the city, and every time we pulled back into that port, they were in the park that evening waiting for us to show up.

 

[koshergrl]

Whenever someone opposes Donald Trump's proposals, rather than respond by demonstrating the substantive merit of his proposals, Trump attacks the opposer. It was one thing to do that in the theater of campaigning, but as President the man's "best" responses are still that same childish retort.

Why has our society devolved into one of exchanges of attacks rather than exchanges of substance?

Ironic post of the day right there.

United States Department of Education - Wikipedia

 

[OldLady]

After reading the first 21 posts I am convinced (again) of one thing. That is that we are a deeply divided and highly partisan country. Trump is no different, sure he lashes out at people instead of defending his position. Who among us doesn't? Why would we expect our leader to do any different? Heck, what other recent "leader" hasn't done the same thing, if a little more eloquently? Cases in point:

• The science is settled. Implying that if you disagree you are a "science denier" and therefore dumb, ignorant, or otherwise unfit to discuss this further.
• Rightwingnutjobs
• Leftards

I mean really, is anyone surprised? You really shouldn't be. When was the last time you had a civil disagreement, on a political topic/issue, with someone and no insults, or personalisation occurred?

Ummmm, on a daily basis, at the local diner and with students. You did mean face to face, didn't you?

If this includes people from a wide variety of political views, that is one special diner. I don't mean people who just disagree, I'm talking about communists discussing economics with capitalists, socialists discussing domestic policy with a libertarian. If that is the case, I would love to know where this mythical unicorn of a diner is, so I know where I need to move to.

LOL. I'm in rural Maine. No one here would know a socialist from a libertarian, and I think communists are taken into the woods and shot. (That's a joke. I think.) We are pretty special, though, in that however ugly and ignorant our views, we respect each other's right to have a different one. It's not respect for the politician; it's respect for each other's right to have our own idea.

 

[MarathonMike]

That's hilarious. What are the Liberal stock responses when challenged on any issue? "You're a Racist". "You're a Denier". You're a ---phobe". "You're off my friends list".

 

[Divine Wind]

Whenever someone opposes Donald Trump's proposals, rather than respond by demonstrating the substantive merit of his proposals, Trump attacks the opposer. It was one thing to do that in the theater of campaigning, but as President the man's "best" responses are still that same childish retort.

Why has our society devolved into one of exchanges of attacks rather than exchanges of substance?

While I agree, let's not forget what recently happened at Berkeley.

The last episode of Dr. Tyson's "StarTalk" on the Nat'l Geo channel ( StarTalk ) had Bill Maher. I'm not a big fan of Maher ever since he moved to HBO, but he made a great statement about how the Left, and he admitted he's a Liberal, should support the First Amendment like the Right supports the Second. With that, he shot down the protestors at Berkeley and elsewhere for shutting out speakers and denying them their First Amendment rights. It was a good comment.