https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/vivek-ramaswamy-praises-protester-interrupted-campaign-event-comments-rcna93574
Watch the entire video, before anything else.
As I was watching this, and other similar interactions, I realized something about American politics. There is no way in hell that Trump or Biden would have reacted like this to someone who vehemently disagreed with them. Trump would likely mock the person after they were removed, and Biden wouldn't be able to formulate a coherent response. This isn't a Vivek for POTUS post, although he has all of the attractive characteristics of Trump, with none of the negative aspects of Trump. It's argued that he has no experience and that his lack of experience is a negative, of course the same people who make that argument claimed that Trump's lack of experience was one of the main reasons to elect him. They also argue (now) that Trump's experience is a positive and the reason why we should vote for him. (Contradictory, I know, but...)
The point of this post is that it is possible and worthwhile for political candidates to interact with those who disagree with them while campaigning. Not only that, but to do so with kindness, gentleness, and respect.
Maybe this'll start of trend of politicians not screening out anyone at an event who might disagree with them, and instead take the time to formulate answers to the questions people ask.
26 comments:
A couple of things:
I agree that civility would be a wonderful thing to see take hold in our political engagements. However, it wasn't civil of this woman to barge in and start mouthing off about that which isn't even true. Note that she parroted Dan's favorite lie about "grabbing crotches". She also repeated the leftist favorite about "her body, her choice" when speaking of rape (as if anyone would actually rape this woman) and that the child which might be conceived in her due to rape is only the child of the rapist, and not her too, simply because she didn't consent.
That said, VR did handle it...to some extent...in a way which deflated the emotion of the outburst. But his response was weak nonetheless and avoided the actual truths rejected by the woman. That's not a good way to deal with any opposing view regardless of how it was presented. Civility alone is meaningless if truth is ignored in the process. As we know, truth actually provokes incivility in the modern progressive.
I also wouldn't necessarily disagree with the comment of Trump or Biden and how they might respond to such an outburst. But I wouldn't say it's a guarantee by any means. Biden likely wouldn't have heard it, or, hearing something from the back of the room might receive it as some expression of support ("Let's Go Brandon!")
I'm sure you want to believe the Trump would merely mock her, and while her words are deserving of mockery, her incivility would have provoked it. Trump has been the recipient of more incivility than many would concede, and lately quite a bit. How much is any person required to take without returning fire on occasion? Christ might have said all of it. Then again, there's something to be said for meeting such with righteous indignation.
Of course, Trump being a New Yorker has it in his nature to return fire. He tends to do it in a very entertaining manner. Nonetheless, what a surprise it would be should Trump change tactics when such things arise! It would be a welcome one, that's for sure! That would remove one of the insignificant complaints his opponents have for refusing to vote for him.
I disagree. His response not only defused here allegations, but allowed him to make his points in a way that made her realize that there was some common ground. I do respect your commitment to speaking truth in an incivil manner.
My more important point in this is that Trump and Biden would never face this sort of question in this sort of environment. They would have screened this woman out long before she'd have been in a position to ask. Biden because he is incapable of coming up with a coherent response without a Teleprompter, and Trump because he would have gone off on her and not bothered to respond to her concerns.
The problem with your response, is that the goal of Vivek's campaign is to win elections and expand his voter base. Neither Trump or Biden's approach of excluding those who disagree is going to accomplish those goals.
I don't know if you're aware, but one aspect of being am adult is to be able to exercise self control. To not have incivility be the first response, no matter how incivil someone is. The fact that you act as if Trump's inability or unwillingness to control himself is a positive mystifies me. The problem with Trump is that his "returning fire" is not "on occasion" it's his default.
The Trump is a "New Yorker" and is entertaining when he engages in mockery and incivility is quite the position. What'd Jesus say about turning the other cheek, and forgiving those who persecute us?
Yet you seem to ignore Christ's teachings as it applies to Trump. Your feel so persecuted by his antics that you recently claimed you won't vote for him if he wins the nomination. Did I misunderstand you?
I simply accept all candidates based on what they seek to do more than their personal eccentricities. Those eccentricities of Trump's have only hurt him because others put way, way too much stock in them, as if they're actually significant. I've said it before many times during his first term: Yeah, I'd love that he was Emily Post. He's not. He still gets things done and is worthy of more support than he's gotten from those who insist they're conservatives concerned about what's best for the nation.
BTW, can you think of a time when some average citizen heckled him and he returned fire? I seem to recall one possibility, but can't remember the details other than the crowd was larger, the hecklers were further away and the best response was indeed to have them removed. I would never go to any rally or interview simply to heckle. If I had a chance to speak to the candidate, I would. I would expect to be removed if I caused a disturbance. There's nothing at all wrong with that as it's justified. This wacky woman was blessed to have chosen a guy who responded as VR did, but that doesn't mean Trump or anyone else is wrong to have someone like her removed...with or without disparaging comments.
I don't see how anything I've said about Trump disagrees with Christ's teachings. I certainly don't feel "persecuted" by his boorish behavior. I also have not said anything definitive about my vote in the upcoming general election, because I believe that it is foolish to state definitively how I might vote before primaries have even begun.
As some point, I do to. Unfortunately, what Trump said he sought to do, and what he actually did diverged sharply in several significant cases. Trump's behavior hurts him because is has no sense of how his behavior appears to others. He has no sense of the reality that his behavior causes people not to vote for him, even though they might agree with some of his positions.
The fact that I can't seems to make my point. That Trump doesn't do events small enough to interact with voters and that his campaign screens out anyone who might disagree with him in public. Look, he's already demonstrated that he won't engage in the "normal" primary debate process.
The fact that you base your expectations of others on your perceptions of how you might behave in a certain circumstance, really has no meaning in reality. The fact remains that VR DID allow her to speak, he did allow her to participate in a discussion, and he did leave her agreeing with his position. The fact that you are defending the prevention of disagreement, and packing crowds at town hall events with those the agree with the candidate tell me plenty about how far you'd go to get Trump elected.
I've never said that this was "bad" or good. I'm merely pointing out the reality that it is possible to engage with those who disagree in a civil, respectful, and productive manner. Trump and Biden have chosen not to run their campaign in this manner.
The reality is that VR is the best communicator in the 2024 campaign. He has a command of the facts, history, and his campaign talking points that I see in no one else. He has a willingness to interact with individual voters, especially those who disagree that I haven't seen since (maybe) Truman.
The problem with your strategy is that Trump should be asked hard questions about his failures in office. He should be expected to provide detailed answers explaining how he went wrong and how he will do things right next time. When he had no political track record, he could hide behind vague platitudes and campaign slogans. Now he has a track record and that record has some major failures. The fact that he's hiding from these hard questions, and still pimping the jab, isn't a good look. It's especially a bad look for people who expect honesty, integrity, and consistency from our POTUS.
I'll note that your characterization of the questioner as a "wacky woman" illustrates my point. It's likely that trump would have characterized her in a similar manner, and continued to do so after she had no means to respond. The fact that you believe that characterizing someone as "wacky" and expecting that to be persuasive, or to be so dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you that you see no value in persuading them, tells me quite a bit about what you expect in a president.
There are currently two GOP candidates that I would actively support. They both have faults, but they both have high enough ceilings that I can live with the faults. Beyond that I'd have to see who is on the ballot and then decide how to vote.
AS I'm not engaged with the wacky woman, I can certainly point out she indeed seemed wacky to me, particularly given her uncivil outburst in a forum which didn't...at least at that moment...provide for audience participation. And given her words...the abject falseness of it...there are a host of other words which would seem to you "dismissive" while being abjectly true. Those words could be "liar", "murderer" (for her pro-abort position), "rude" (she certainly was that for interrupting in such a rude manner.
You seem to be suggesting that unvarnished truth is to be avoided if we hope to persuade others to join us in truth. It seems incongruent. Bad behaviors must be exposed as the bad behaviors they are with the words which actually describe just how bad they are in the starkest possible terms.
Think of it this way:
The modern progressives have no problem calling you a racist because you don't subscribe to their marxist beliefs about race. For many, to be called a racist is a horrible thing to avoid at all costs, even to the point of stifling their understanding of reality. Neither of us are among such people, but the point is that the word provokes a reaction. Folks don't like being called negative things and less so when they are accurately applied. So when someone acts in a wacky manner, they should be made to understand they are. How do you do that without using the word "wacky" and should you come up with a way, is it not in reality the same?
When someone refers to me in a negative manner, using negative words and terms, it gets my attention for sure. But I'm far more concerned with why they are doing so rather than whining about my feelings being hurt by it. It begins the discussion in my mind. "Why do you believe that? What do you think I've done to deserve that?" Those who whine do so for two reasons: 1--It's true, and 2--To deflect.
More importantly...and sadly in my opinion...is that you're inflated concern is part of your Trump rejection. Yet again I remind you that I would prefer a president with perfect manners...a true Christian, if possible. What I expect is results. Trump delivered them and as such his record makes him the most worthy of the nomination and ultimately the White House. Should he fail to win the nomination (unlikely at this point, but very possible for a variety of reasons), I would hope who does has a similar record of getting positive results. I can think of only one with such a record at this time.
In that sense, we are similar. There are currently two GOP candidates that would actively support (and have been supporting in discussions here and elsewhere). Clearly they're not the same two you support, but for more logical reasons based on track record...the only criteria for one who cares about the State of the Union.
No, I'm suggesting that Truth doesn't automatically need to be expressed harshly. I'm suggesting that speaking Truth in love, and that gentleness and respect are more effective in communicating and persuading. The problem I see here is that you've jumped to conclusions about the woman that are subjective, not objective, and decided that she should be responded to based on your subjective conclusions.
This have very little to do with hurting feelings. To use your "racist" example, it is highly unlikely that anyone who starts a conversation with me by labeling me a "racist" will be unpersuasive regardless of anything else they say. Likewise, when you start out by subjectively labeling this woman "wacky", you've virtually guaranteed that nothing you say afterward will be persuasive.
My concern is winning. I don't believe that a candidate who is likely to piss off 40% plus of the electorate is a great path to winning. I don't think that a candidate who's strategy in the general election is to win by only mobilizing their rabid base and ignoring anyone else, is a winning formula.
You say you want a president with "perfect manners" which is obviously impossible, yet you choose the candidate that has the worst "manners" of anyone in the GOP field. You say results matter, but RDS has achieved much more consistent results than Trump did. I'll simply note that in 2016 Trump's inexperience was a primary attraction of his candidacy, that his not being a part of "the swamp" was a huge positive. Now in 2024, it's the opposite. That his limited "experience", and significant failures make him the best option, while the "swamp" is more entrenched than it was when he left office.
The problem is that Trump's successes (with the possible exception of his SCOTUS nominees) were limited at best. While his failures are much more damaging in the long term. I focus on his three most significant failures pf policy more than anything else. 1. His failure to pass any immigration "reform" legislation (or even propose any). 2. His dismal failure to even attempt fiscal responsibility (even before COVID). 3. His failure to "drain the swamp" and his failure to "hire the best possible people". In hindsight, I'd also include parts of his response to COVID, although I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass because it was unprecedented. However, beyond his insistence of leaving decisions to the states, the rest of his COVID response looks worse and worse the further out we go.
The fact that he's vulgar, boorish, unprincipled, narcissistic, self centered, and has a casual relationship to the Truth are just extras. I could ignore those to some degree had he not failed in the three areas I mentioned.
I'd also argue that calling his SCOTUS picks a win requires admitting that we've adopted the approach of the left and that we want SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. Which may ultimately be a bad thing.
A couple of other thoughts.
1. My main point remains. The reality is that Trump and Biden are completely unwilling or incapable of having a calm, respectful, rational discussion with anyone who disagrees with them. They also go to great lengths to prevent these kinds of interactions from taking place.
2. The very fact that VR stands out so much for being able to have these sorts of conversations says all too much about the current state of politics.
Ultimately VR is a more cultured, more polished, more attractive, more honest, better communicating, version of Trump prior to the 2016 election. The reality is that he should appeal to Trump's base and to a much broader swath of the electorate. The fact that the Trump Trainers (get out of the way or get crushed) are so anti VR raises significant questions about motivation.
"No, I'm suggesting that Truth doesn't automatically need to be expressed harshly."
Nor am I. I am suggesting there are occasions when that's absolutely required. The more serious the issue...in terms of potential for genuine harm...the more important it is to dispense with the Amy Vanderbilt crap and get the point across.
"I'm suggesting that speaking Truth in love, and that gentleness and respect are more effective in communicating and persuading."
Yeah. It's worked wonders with Dan and the modern progressives in general. The fact is that more often than not, it's absolutely dependent upon who it is one is trying to persuade. I've begun each interaction on the blogs in that manner. Where it involved a lefty, it was entirely impotent in changing anything about their thinking or positions. And when those positions are as dangerous and destructive as so many of them are, I'm not about to be a nice guy while those positions lead to all of that.
We've also seen that the reality of human nature is that the worst people are the least likely to be persuaded by nice talk, nor do they have any respect for those who insist on it regardless of the response. So we begin there, but to remain there regardless leaves too many at risk.
"The problem I see here is that you've jumped to conclusions about the woman that are subjective, not objective,..."
That's a conclusion to which you've unjustly jumped. I simply characterized her by the only data available...her shouting out in a rude and wacky manner from the back of the room spouting that which is nonsensical and false. I regard such behavior as wacky, rude, obnoxious and a few other negative things. Should I suppose she's none of them? Based on what? This is a candidate for public office she's interrupting, not other broads at the feminist meeting. If I see someone help a little old lady cross the street, am I wrong to suppose such an act suggests kindness? If not, then how am I wrong to suppose someone acting like a nutball isn't a nutball? It's not a final judgement. It's a supposition based on the available data.
"...and decided that she should be responded to based on your subjective conclusions."
I've decided nothing except that it would be wise to keep an eye on her. The only obligation I have in such a situation (assuming I was in VR's position) is to remain calm until I'm certain there's no true threat following her rude outburst. There's the rest of the room to consider and she wasn't only rude to VR, but to the whole of those in attendance. Where's her etiquette? If she has concerns to present, she can do so in a mature and respectful manner. She chose immature and rude.
"This have very little to do with hurting feelings. To use your "racist" example, it is highly unlikely that anyone who starts a conversation with me by labeling me a "racist" will be unpersuasive regardless of anything else they say. Likewise, when you start out by subjectively labeling this woman "wacky", you've virtually guaranteed that nothing you say afterward will be persuasive."
The point of hurt feelings is related to people facing the truth of their actions or the lie of the accusation against them. Those who routinely engage in bad behaviors, knowing them as such, do not like being exposed. Those who don't engage don't like being accused. The actual point has to do with using accuracy in describing bad behaviors while providing evidence the accusation is correct. Personally, when those like Dan and his troll refer to me with any of the various routinely used accusations, my feelings aren't hurt because none of the accusations are true and they've provided no evidence to indicate they are in any way.
If someone begins a conversation by making an accusation, they won't be persuasive if they can't back up the accusation. If they don't attempt to back it up, it's not a conversation they're after. This is a far cry from someone calling me a racist when I've provided evidence I am or might be. Such is the case with the woman. She acted in a wacky manner. Thus she is wacky. If I act in a racist manner, I am thus likely a racist. No conversation has been started by me, but one has by this woman who chose to act rudely, yet you expect to be persuaded perhaps because of how she acted? Your position is rather contradictory. SHE is attempting to start a conversation. SHE has accused Republicans of bad behaviors. SHE is forcing herself rudely into a discussion in progress.
"My concern is winning. I don't believe that a candidate who is likely to piss off 40% plus of the electorate is a great path to winning."
Your concern is anyone but Trump. Most all who oppose him do not oppose him for legitimate reasons, including yourself (your three points notwithstanding...I'll get to them later). That he pisses off the people who voted for an empty suit twice and then for an empty head after is a problem with which his manner has no significance. If Trump WAS a perfectly mannered guy, it wouldn't matter in the slightest to those who voted for Obama or Biden and those on the right who rejected Trump either in 2016, 2020 or now are without just reason.
" I don't think that a candidate who's strategy in the general election is to win by only mobilizing their rabid base and ignoring anyone else, is a winning formula."
Who would that be? It ain't Trump, who seeks to highlight how bad things are since he was robbed in 2020 and that he's proven he can improve things as he did when he won in 2016. It's a nonsensical suggesting that he seeks to "only" mobilize his base when he's clearly seeking to expand it. Good gosh! What if his "base" was only three people? Do you really think he'd consider success likely if he couldn't get more than that to vote for him? Jeez!
"You say you want a president with "perfect manners" which is obviously impossible, yet you choose the candidate that has the worst "manners" of anyone in the GOP field."
That's because "perfect manners" is a single criteria for choosing anyone, and I'd argue low on the list given the importance of the position and the state of the union. And frankly, this is akin to saying you're not calling me a racist despite constantly referencing things I say or do as what a racist says or does. The gaggle of candidates have all taken shots at each other and Trump during those nonsensical debates. I see little difference between them and Trump based on how they choose to insult or demean.
"You say results matter, but RDS has achieved much more consistent results than Trump did."
Which is why I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him if he wins the primary. At the same time, you're comparing two executive positions which aren't identical. I'll say this about him...he's taken heat because of his crappy campaign. Some have removed their support. Others pretend his campaign means he'd be a crappy president. I hate that shit. It's crappier than his campaign has been. And it's as nonsensical as most of the opposition to Trump. Just another way they're so very similar.
"I'll simply note that in 2016 Trump's inexperience was a primary attraction of his candidacy, that his not being a part of "the swamp" was a huge positive."
Not accurate. He was attractive because he was an answer to all those who insisted we need a non-politician/business man for the office. This is why VR's lack of political experience is meaningless. One isn't required to be a politician to become a politician. And while experience in the Swamp is helpful in dealing with the Swamp creatures, Trump's already proven much good can be accomplished without that.
"Now in 2024, it's the opposite. That his limited "experience", and significant failures make him the best option, while the "swamp" is more entrenched than it was when he left office."
Also not accurate. His experience is one of more successes than failures, but you're keen on highlighting the failures because you don't like the guy. His supporters don't ignore his failures so much as recognize they don't outweigh his successes. The Swamp isn't more entrenched. It's more exposed and that's because of Trump. Like the rest of us, he's more aware of just how entrenched it is because he's been there.
Gotta go and do something productive. I'll finish later.
"I am suggesting there are occasions when that's absolutely required."
Possibly, but never as a first option, not if persuasion is your goal, and not through ridicule/mockery.
Given the reality that your approach (and Dan's) of harsh language, ridicule, and snark, haven't been particularly effective (nor has Trump's), that speaking the Truth is love might be the better option.
Look, I don't care what your criteria for jumping to a subjective conclusion were, the reality is that you don't have enough information to make the judgement. I also guess that VR, responding as he did was unsuccessful according to your subjective conclusions.
" She chose immature and rude."
Yet VR chose mature, calm and respectful. Are you really suggesting that responding the same way she did is the better choice? But hey, if assuming the worst about everyone who doesn't act as you think they should works for you, go for it.
"Your concern is anyone but Trump."
Thank you for your Dan like attempt to tell me what my "concern" really is. I was quite clear that my concern is winning, what in the world makes you think you know better than I what my concern is?
" Most all who oppose him do not oppose him for legitimate reasons, including yourself"
Damn Dan, that's quite a claim there. Since when do you get to decide what concerns are "legitimate" and what concerns are not "legitimate"?
In the header to your blog you talk about persuading or being persuaded. Do you really think that this Dan like tactic of making these idiotic pronouncements has a chance in hell of persuading anyone?
"That's because "perfect manners" is a single criteria for choosing anyone,"
Really, can you name one person who is suggesting that "perfect manners" are a criteria for selection of a POTUS?
Given the fact that Trump is still pimping for the vax, and still hasn't provided any detailed plans for how he'll not repeat his failures from the first go around, I'm not sure how he expects to expand his base. But hey, if hiding from debates and hostile interviewers is his gig, then best of luck to him. Look, if you want to vote for Trump and idealize him to the point of automatically denigrating anyone else, you do you. If you want to persuade others, you'll need something better than this.
"At the same time, you're comparing two executive positions which aren't identical."
While that is True, it's reasonable to use success in an executive position (especially in a high population, politically diverse state) as an indicator. The reality is that Trump failed massively on the three areas I've mentioned, as well as on infrastructure. RDS hasn't had failures of nearly that relative magnitude.
" He was attractive because he was an answer to all those who insisted we need a non-politician/business man for the office."
In other words, he was attractive because he had no political experience. I've never said that political experience is required, I'm merely pointing out that is Trump's business success was a positive in 2016, then VR's is equally a positive in 2024. But to suggest that Trump's small sample of political experience (especially given his major failures) makes him exponentially better is simply a double standard.
I'm highlighting the failures because adding vast amounts to the national debt instead of balancing the budget is a freaking huge failure. Because continuing the P-BO immigration policies instead of implementing something better was a huge failure. It's absurd that you somehow think that Trump's successes shouldn't be balanced against his failures, and the he shouldn't be held accountable for his failures.
If the swamp is more exposed, it's not because Trump did anything. It's because the internet has given rise to a new breed of investigative journalists who have more access to more information, ,more easily than ever before.
I understand that you're willing to settle for Trump, on the hope that he'll do everything he failed to do in his first term, and do even more wonderful stuff. If that's what you want, that's fine. But for those of us with higher standards, how about allowing us the freedom of conscience to support who we want to?
One final thought. It seems like part of the Only Trump in '24 argument is that he'd be better than Biden. Which is great if your idea of success is being "better" than Biden. What a low bar. The problem we've had in the last few (post P-BO) elections is that both of the candidates on both sides were horrible candidates. The problem isn't Trump, it's the fact that we have shitty candidates on both sides.
I'm back...
"The problem is that Trump's successes (with the possible exception of his SCOTUS nominees) were limited at best."
This is just the "not perfect" argument once again. Can you list how many successes of other presidents were not limited at best, or were there any which were perfectly successful? The argument also fails by suggesting his SCOTUS nominees were an exception. Many would say SCOTUS is still greatly lacking, aside from Thomas and Alito. The greater problem is your focus on his less than successful policies rather than on the aggregate of his presidency being successful and a stark improvement over what came both before and after him.
"1. His failure to pass any immigration "reform" legislation (or even propose any)."
First, he wasn't a part of the legislative branch of the federal government.
Second, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has a vastly different take:
https://www.fairus.org/issue/biden-immigration-border-policy/trump-administration-immigration-accomplishments
His enforcement and implementation of the Remain in Mexico Policy is another significant success which eased the flow of illegals who would otherwise be released into the American wild never to be officially seen or heard from again...until they break another law.
Could Trump have done better regarding illegal immigration or legal immigration reform? Sure. But given how little other presidents have done, who's done better?
"2. His dismal failure to even attempt fiscal responsibility (even before COVID)."
A point of agreement, as has been stated before. He spent too much...as have most every president before him (and certainly after). But his tax and regulatory policies offset some of it as has been true of every other president who lowers tax rates. Not good enough in my opinion, but unlike you, I don't look at his spending in a vacuum.
" 3. His failure to "drain the swamp" and his failure to "hire the best possible people"."
This is more a hindsight criticism than the COVID comments which follow. How many of the people he hired did you know with certainty weren't "the best people" and on what basis? I doubt it's easy to make good on such a promise no matter who you are or who you know. There are so man positions to fill. What's more, the promise consider who's available at the time, as well as who would agree to leave their current position to work in his administration. With that in mind, he may still have hired the best possible, because those were the best available at the time willing to join the team. It's an incredibly weak argument despite my agreement many were clearly not "the best". How about comparing his hires to those of Obama and Biden. They immediately look better.
As to draining the swamp, I don't think one can know what that would entail without first wading into it. But as said earlier, he certainly exposed just how bad the swamp is and that makes it easier for either him or any other more conservative president to identify who the swamp creatures are. And given it's more out in the open who they are, what will you say if a RDS or VR wins, but fails to rid us of those creatures? What excuses would they possibly have which weren't more valid for Trump?
"In hindsight, I'd also include parts of his response to COVID, although I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass because it was unprecedented. However, beyond his insistence of leaving decisions to the states, the rest of his COVID response looks worse and worse the further out we go."
I'm not at all surprised you choose to believe so. But, given the low risk of COVID in the first place, as well as all the effective treatments known to any who care to look, that's really quite an insignificant criticism.
"The fact that he's vulgar, boorish, unprincipled, narcissistic, self centered, and has a casual relationship to the Truth are just extras. I could ignore those to some degree had he not failed in the three areas I mentioned."
I don't ignore any of his shortcomings. I simply put them into a more proper perspective. The most major is that I'm not willing to see the nation suffer because I don't like those shortcomings. He did a good job as president and deserved a second term because of it. That's simply a fact.
But I would challenge you to name a lie he told that has any actual significance. To hedge by saying he has a casual relationship with the Truth is saying he lies in a nicer way. If it matters at all, it has to be because a falsehood caused an actual problem.
As to principles, he has them. They're just not all of those you want to see. I've posted a list (not here, I don't think, but I've posted one somewhere not so long ago) which recounted actions which clearly represent a man with principles most would and should admire. Because he sometimes acts like a turd doesn't mean he's not a good man.
" I'd also argue that calling his SCOTUS picks a win requires admitting that we've adopted the approach of the left and that we want SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. Which may ultimately be a bad thing."
Nonsense. If my president is making SCOTUS picks because he/she believes those picks will rule according to proper understanding of the US Constitution, that's "legislation" we expect from a SCOTUS Justice. It's what they're supposed to be doing. It's not a "right-wing" version of what Dem presidents do. It's what all presidents are supposed to be doing. So no...I won't admit anything so nonsensical since it isn't at all the case.
As to the VR comments, I'll say what I say about RDS opponents: if he's the guy after the primaries, he gets my vote. I don't know how much support from the party he'll get, given he doesn't seem to be getting any now, but I'm still pissed the party didn't go all in behind Trump (not blindly, but because he is the guy at the top and deserves at least the respect to work toward realizing his vision...shared by most all those who voted for him). I do like how he works harder at keeping his focus on the real goal. Too bad that won't be enough.
"Possibly, but never as a first option, not if persuasion is your goal, and not through ridicule/mockery."
You're forgetting context. And do you have any evidence that VR changed the woman's position? Anything at all? Did he even say or do anything to change it? Not that the clip showed.
As to the context, VR was not in a position where he began a dialogue with the woman. He was in one where he responded to an outburst, not a true expectation of dialogue. The woman wanted to force her feelings onto a person and crowd which came together for something else. Indeed, she was like feo often does. So, VR responds...he doesn't begin a conversation and indeed, doesn't even enter into one.
Now, with those facts in mind, his response was great in the sense that he defused the situation. But having the chick thrown out would have done that as well, and fe support the guy or see him a possible choice wouldn't have held that against him, given her rudeness and inappropriate outburst.
This response of VR may have been something for which he'd planned. Not that he had anything to do with the broad's decision to be obnoxious and wacky, but that he already thought about how he would respond should such a thing occur, so as to make himself distinctively unique. A good ploy, whether it reflected the real VR or not. I'm impressed either way. It's not the first time he's been put in that situation, with some other chick, claiming to be "pansexual" or some other similar made-up bullshit, and he responded well then, too. In neither case, though, did he speak perfectly to my way of thinking with regard the issues addressed by the other person. So he got style points, which seems to mean a lot to you, whereas to me, they are secondary to speaking truth.
"Given the reality that your approach (and Dan's) of harsh language, ridicule, and snark, haven't been particularly effective (nor has Trump's), that speaking the Truth is love might be the better option. "
Shame on you for this obvious misrepresentation and the lame attempt to compare me to Dan. I've been dealing with Dan and people like him since at least 2008 (when I started my own blog, but before that as I was only visiting other blogs). As is the case with every new visitor...or for that matter, with every person with whom a new dialogue occurs...I'm totally cool and respectful. And long after I've taken fire do I return fire. Some would say that's not good enough and I wouldn't squawk. I simply choose not to take fire indefinitely because the notion that being nice improves one's chances of persuasion is only true when dealing with nice, reasonable and honest people of character. Those who cling to crap will inevitably fling some of it one's way. If an issue is important to me, I will not accept crap forever in order to appear "nice". I want to get the truth out and to annihilate the lies beyond any hope of perpetuating them.
"Look, I don't care what your criteria for jumping to a subjective conclusion were, the reality is that you don't have enough information to make the judgement."
Call it "subjective" if you like, but I make a judgement based on the only information you presented. The point of that offering was to highlight VR's response...not to suggest anything about the woman. Indeed, I would say that in order to highlight VR's response, it was necessary to present a case of a woman acting badly. So where does the subjectivity come in on my part? By acknowledging the bad behavior of the woman? That's inane! You provided a snippet of time in which a woman acted wacky and based on that snippet, all which can be said with any certainty is that she is wacky. It doesn't require I suppose any additional traits not in evidence. So to the extent that I regard the woman as wacky is based on the limited info YOU provided. If you wanted a more accurate assessment, you'll need to provide more, after which I'll happily alter my opinion should the "more" compel me to do so.
By the way, how much bad behavior do you need to suppose anything about the person being witnessed by you? Are you going to suggest that it doesn't matter how long one acts badly or who badly one acts before having some compulsion toward considering the person negatively? I don't buy it.
" I also guess that VR, responding as he did was unsuccessful according to your subjective conclusions."
What guessing? From what you presented, he did no more than defuse the situation. I wouldn't say that was "unsuccessful" as far as it goes. But you're speaking about persuasion. When did she express any indication her feelings about the issues about which she ranted were in any way altered? There's no way to gauge success on that score.
"Yet VR chose mature, calm and respectful. Are you really suggesting that responding the same way she did is the better choice?"
No. Not even close enough for you to dare suppose so. I'm saying that having her removed is another choice and an understandable one for the sake of those who came to hear him, not some wacky broad shouting from the back of the room. Civility. She displayed none. Removing the uncivil is not itself uncivil. Nor is it disrespectful considering the audience. No one comes to suffer such interruptions. Don't those in the audience count or matter, or should all simply tolerate bad behavior so that the candidate can be promoted as distinctly different from Trump?
"Thank you for your Dan like attempt to tell me what my "concern" really is."
Don't even go there after not only saying you won't vote for him if he wins the primary, but also for constantly suggesting I won't vote for anyone else, despite repeatedly saying I'll vote for the GOP nominee. I'm not at all an "Only Trumper".
"Since when do you get to decide what concerns are "legitimate" and what concerns are not "legitimate"?"
When the concerns you mention matter only in the absence of positive results of his presidency or in spite of them. Again, I don't dismiss his shortcomings. You do little more than focus on them. That's not "winning".
"In the header to your blog you talk about persuading or being persuaded. Do you really think that this Dan like tactic of making these idiotic pronouncements has a chance in hell of persuading anyone?"
You're being far more "Dan-like" than you think you are. I've made no "idiotic" pronouncements, but have simply drawn conclusions from your own words...as I do with Dan. Maybe if you actually speak a bit about what you liked about Trump's presidency my conclusions drawn might be different. That I seek to persuade doesn't mean it's possible, and you're striving to refrain from being persuaded by ignoring that which doesn't serve your position.
While you and others claim you don't demand perfection, your arguments against Trump are little more than dismissing him for his lack of it. I'm well aware of his shortcomings. There's no way to be ignorant of them when even better people can't stop talking about them. Yet, the other half of my header talks about being persuaded. There's nothing in the NeverTrump arguments that's persuasive enough to ignore his positives and overall good track record. That's the basis of my arguments against those like yourself. Note that they're arguments against your opposition more than any argument for Trump.
I just missed tip off. I'll be back
As long as your entire line of complain is predicated on your "not perfect" bullshit and telling me what I think, I see no reason to waste my time responding. I see no value in treating you telling me what I think as anything worthwhile.
I will say that I admire your Dan like tenacity in obsessively trying to move this thread away from the topic of the post, even you making crap up is very Dan like.
"As long as your entire line of complain is predicated on your "not perfect" bullshit and telling me what I think, I see no reason to waste my time responding."
My "entire line of complaint" is not predicated on anything but that which you've said. What you've said about Trump suggests your entire line of complaint against him is predicated on his lack of perfection. For example, your first and third points of your three main complaints are no more than a criticism based on his imperfection in addressing those campaign promises. The greater problem is expecting perfection if he dares make a campaign promise. I have a problem with the notion of "broken promises" if a president fails to perfectly achieve the goal of the promise. If there's no move to achieve the goal, one can say the promise was broken. But the reality of an elected office is the fact few things are accomplished without help from others. Thus, who are the others, who interfered, who failed in holding up their end of the bargain...all these things and more factor into getting things done. Given the massive interference from the Dems and RINOs of the swamp, I find it hard to criticize Trump for all which was not perfectly achieved.
YOU, however, seem happy to have something which justifies your rejection of him regardless of how unlikely anyone you prefer might succeed or not. Your rejection of him, therefore is hard to understand as anything other than the fact that he was not perfect in the fulfilling of his promises. Thus, by your words, I've drawn these conclusions. Feel free someday to tell me why those conclusions are off base.
As to moving the thread from its topic, that wasn't all on me. Why highlight VR's response if not to distinguish him from Biden or Trump AS YOU'VE ACTUALLY DONE? I was more than happy to speak about how I have no problem with hecklers being removed and mocked (as the circumstances may dictate). I wasn't along in moving this discussion off topic. I had help from my host.
I do have to agree...this conversation is going nowhere. I also agree it would be nice if all politicians were absolute sweethearts. That seems unlikely, but more importantly is that it is not a reason to choose where more important criteria aren't met or likely to be.
I will say this: Persuading requires one is open to being persuaded. That's different from insisting one is or isn't, but it's true regardless. Thus, being nice won't mean a damned thing to one who insists upon clinging to a lesser belief.
I will also say that if snark is all one has to offer, persuasion is pretty much guaranteed a lost cause. But honest people can wade through snark and insults if there is evidence-based truth onto which they can latch. I'm not concerned with being insulted, given those who would insult me are already opponents, and where politics and religion is concerned, opponents of questionable character. I'm quite confident in this by virtue of the moral superiority of the politics and religion to which I follow and promote. Yet I remain open, though the bar for persuading me to another position is very high because of how long I've been considering these two areas. Any suggestion I'm stubborn is really a response to my conviction. There's a fine line between stubborn and conviction.
In any case...unless you have reason otherwise, I consider this conversation at an end.
Thanks for confirming that you believe that you best option for persuading me is to tell me what I think and what I've meant in earlier comments. Your continued insistence that I or anyone else expect perfection in politicians is absurd and ridiculous. What I do hope for is a basic level of civility and the ability of candidates to communicate with this who disagree.
Post a Comment