The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

Wait. You're a lawyer right? And you logic like that? That's not an exception. It's understandably part of the rule. "He wants what he wants" doesn't include what he really doesn't want such that it should be an exception.

In an environment which fosters a cult-of-personality grafting of individual personal desires onto the Trump persona, I felt it important to point out that Trump doesn't always appear to actually want the things his supporters attribute to him.

What Trump says he wants (and what supporters believe) doesn't necessarily align with what he actually wants.

Probably not an "exception" but then what would you call it? A "lie"? "Politics as usual"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

In an environment which fosters a cult-of-personality grafting of individual personal desires onto the Trump persona, I felt it important to point out that Trump doesn't always appear to actually want the things his supporters attribute to him.

What Trump says he wants (and what supporters believe) doesn't necessarily align with what he actually wants.

Probably not an "exception" but then what would you call it? A "lie"? "Politics as usual"?

In others words, in a less tactful way, he plays a lot of his supporters for suckers.

 

[T.Lex]

Tomato, tomato.

 

[BugI02]

In others words, in a less tactful way, he plays a lot of his supporters for suckers.

13 minutes of latency? You either need faster internet or a better simulation of distinctness

 

[Kutnupe14]

13 minutes of latency? You either need faster internet or a better simulation of distinctness

Say you... 16 minutes later

 

[BugI02]

Touché. If I had some sock puppets, I could probably get posts down to 2 or 3 minutes spacing, eh?

 

[jamil]

Maybe give that post a bit closer of a reading, there padre. The only aspect presented as a certainty rather than opinion is the one ascribing selfish motivation to what Trump does. So if the facts seem to support a conclusion, whether those facts prove it or not, we're good? Given that; I swear, sometimes I wonder just how many sock puppets Kut actually has

Often conclusions drawn are based on some reality. We hope. That looks to be reasonably apparent in the case of T.Lex's post. It's reasonably apparent that Trump's typical way of dealing with things support the premise. Whether the conclusions follow the premise is a matter of logic, but that doesn't prove the premise is correct as far as perception being reality. Being apparent isn't solid proof, so you have a point that "reality" wasn't necessarily proven. But reasonably apparent is probably a premise a lot closer to reality than ideologically derived.

 

[jamil]

*.*

Cite the quote maybe?

 

[jamil]

In an environment which fosters a cult-of-personality grafting of individual personal desires onto the Trump persona, I felt it important to point out that Trump doesn't always appear to actually want the things his supporters attribute to him.

What Trump says he wants (and what supporters believe) doesn't necessarily align with what he actually wants.

Probably not an "exception" but then what would you call it? A "lie"? "Politics as usual"?

There is a suitable word that's more descriptive than "lie": "Pandering"

 

[T.Lex]

There is a suitable word that's more descriptive than "lie": "Pandering"

 

[jamil]

Touché. If I had some sock puppets, I could probably get posts down to 2 or 3 minutes spacing, eh?

It's possible for two parties who disagree on almost everything, to agree on a common truth. That doesn't mean they're in cahoots. You should probably look at the entirety of evidence before making baseless accusations.

"Sock puppets" is just lashing out. We could just discuss things you know. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to be critical of positions held. That's what makes dialog meaningful. It doesn't have to be adversarial. But I'll react in kind.

 

[BugI02]

Cite the quote maybe?

Melissa MacKenzie

https://spectator.org/jonah-goldbergs-answer-to-sean-trende/

 

[BugI02]

It's possible for two parties who disagree on almost everything, to agree on a common truth. That doesn't mean they're in cahoots. You should probably look at the entirety of evidence before making baseless accusations.

"Sock puppets" is just lashing out. We could just discuss things you know. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to be critical of positions held. That's what makes dialog meaningful. It doesn't have to be adversarial. But I'll react in kind.

I suspect no one looks at the 'entirety' of the evidence, because it is unlikely they have it. I would be fine with TLexism (not that I wouldn't push back) if it was parsed more like the scientific method; where the theorist acknowledges it is a theory, driven by his personal interpretation of the data, and he/she states clearly what that interpretation is. I am less amused when people state 'this is what Trump thinks' or 'this is why Trump does something' because it is information they just cannot have access to unless they're orders of magnitude more connected than it would seem

While I don't have encyclopedic recall of all my posts, I would wager it is far more likely that when I post, I post such things as 'Pelosi probably thinks [ ... ]' or 'likely Putin believes [ ... ]' rather than 'Pelosi believes [this]' or '[this] is why Putin did [this]'

Vis a vis the sock puppet thing, I just took your permission to use a conclusion that seems to fit the data and ran with it. Note that I give Kut credit for being the original

 

[Dead Duck]

"Trump wants what Trump wants."........ WRONG!

Trump wants what I want... because that's what we agreed on in his job interview. Everything Trump is doing is because I told him to. Why do you think he keeps hiring chicks all around him?

You're Welcome.

 

[jamil]

Melissa MacKenzie

https://spectator.org/jonah-goldbergs-answer-to-sean-trende/

Thanks. That provided some context for why you might respond to that post with that quote.

As for the article itself, on some points I agree, on some others, not. I don't think your quote is an effective rebuttal or explanation though.


But on a different but related topic, the theme for some of the most ardent Trumpers to blame all criticism of Trump on "never-trumpers" is kinda silly. This isn't directed at you or anyone specifically. I'm applying this to all the people, generally, who do it. I shouldn't have to say this. You don't have to be a never-trumper to disagree with or criticize Trump. It's not indicative of siding with the enemy to say something critical of Trump. You can be an individual thinker and apply personal sensibilities to issues rather than teams. I think actually most people between the fringes tend to do this more than the fringes do. I think if you think one has to toe the line and be on board with everything, that may be an indicator that you're on the fringe.

The people participating in this part of the conversation are mostly not never trumpers. Kut is probably the only one participating in it that you could say is. You can disagree with us on the individual evaluations and perceptions of Trump's performance, but to say that we have them makes us part of this never-trumper thing is ridiculous. I think a lot of the Republican true nevertrumpers are as delusional as anyone one-sided. They've come unhinged. They're ideologues as much as any. I think that article makes the point well enough. But it does so while overstates the Trumpian position too. And that's what ideologues do.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican and disagreeing with some or most of what Trump does. What turns it into something "wrong" is when it's driven by ideology or something other than just wanting to follow some reasoned rather than rationalized principles. There's nothing wrong with being a Republicans and *agreeing* with some or most of what Trump does. People get to decide their own principles and what they want their leaders to do, and they shouldn't be shamed for an honest pursuit of that. But it's a bit different when it starts to turn into the same kind of wrong that never-trumpers do.

 

[BugI02]

"Trump wants what Trump wants."........ WRONG!

Trump wants what I want... because that's what we agreed on in his job interview. Everything Trump is doing is because I told him to. Why do you think he keeps hiring chicks all around him?

You're Welcome.

Well, since Trump grabs ***** and you approve of Trump's hiring of chicks; I'm just gonna' go with 'That's why Dead Duck grabs *****' - because, you know, it seems to fit the 'facts'

 

[ArcadiaGP]

But on a different but related topic, the theme for some of the most ardent Trumpers to blame all criticism of Trump on "never-trumpers" is kinda silly.

Let them have their 'n-word'. They know they're trying to use it as derogatorily as possible, when it's long-since lost all meaning, impact, and necessity.

 

[BugI02]

Thanks. That provided some context for why you might respond to that post with that quote.

As for the article itself, on some points I agree, on some others, not. I don't think your quote is an effective rebuttal or explanation though.


But on a different but related topic, the theme for some of the most ardent Trumpers to blame all criticism of Trump on "never-trumpers" is kinda silly. This isn't directed at you or anyone specifically. I'm applying this to all the people, generally, who do it. I shouldn't have to say this. You don't have to be a never-trumper to disagree with or criticize Trump. It's not indicative of siding with the enemy to say something critical of Trump. You can be an individual thinker and apply personal sensibilities to issues rather than teams. I think actually most people between the fringes tend to do this more than the fringes do. I think if you think one has to toe the line and be on board with everything, that may be an indicator that you're on the fringe.

The people participating in this part of the conversation are mostly not never trumpers. Kut is probably the only one participating in it that you could say is. You can disagree with us on the individual evaluations and perceptions of Trump's performance, but to say that we have them makes us part of this never-trumper thing is ridiculous. I think a lot of the Republican true nevertrumpers are as delusional as anyone one-sided. They've come unhinged. They're ideologues as much as any. I think that article makes the point well enough. But it does so while overstates the Trumpian position too. And that's what ideologues do.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican and disagreeing with some or most of what Trump does. What turns it into something "wrong" is when it's driven by ideology or something other than just wanting to follow some reasoned rather than rationalized principles. There's nothing wrong with being a Republicans and *agreeing* with some or most of what Trump does. People get to decide their own principles and what they want their leaders to do, and they shouldn't be shamed for an honest pursuit of that. But it's a bit different when it starts to turn into the same kind of wrong that never-trumpers do.

With respect to this most recent iteration of this divide; I will say it is much like the perception of bias in the MSM, which is to say statistical. If distortions and mistakes are not ideologically driven in some way, it could be expected that they would occur on a continuum encompassing both progressive and conservative interpretations - perhaps not evenly distributed due to sample size, but still distributed. But when the majority of the suspect interpretations line up with only one part of the spectrum, would you have me still conclude it is random?

 

[BugI02]

Let them have their 'n-word'. They know they're trying to use it as derogatorily as possible, when it's long-since lost all meaning, impact, and necessity.

Ahh, but it does have a meaning. It references those for whom Trump could never do anything that could be seen in a positive light or be in any way redeeming. He could cure cancer and the take would be about how he was adding to runaway population growth, he could turn water into wine and the commentary would be how he was contributing to alcoholism

 

[Dead Duck]

Well, since Trump grabs ***** and you approve of Trump's hiring of chicks; I'm just gonna' go with 'That's why Dead Duck grabs *****' - because, you know, it seems to fit the 'facts'

I am Dead Duck and I approve this message.







***** Although, I count 5 asterisks.
I know what I think you mean them to be but 5 can also be the opposite of what I think you mean them to be.