I've noticed something recently that is interesting, and probably bipartisan. Although I'm currently seeing if from the left.
It's that they are reflexively overreacting to almost everything Trump is doing and looking to the courts for salvation.
What I'm not seeing is an acknowledgement that they totally blew the 2024 election. That their going all in on Biden, then throwing him under the bus and going all in on Harris, might have been part of the reason why Trump won.
Maybe replacing an old white guy with dementia with a "black" woman who'd never gotten a significant number of votes on a national election and who sucks at communicating was a bad strategy. Maybe continuing the practice of rigging primaries in favor of the anointed one is a bad idea.
Maybe, just maybe, y'all bear some responsibility for the situation you find yourselves in. Maybe losing elections does have consequences, and maybe that is just how things work.
14 comments:
While all that is true, it can't be ignored the fact that most all our problems are caused by Democrat policies, Democrats had no solutions for the problems they caused and their core beliefs are anathema to American principles. Moreover, the entirety of became more apparent to even many of their own voters, who chose Trump instead.
I'm not sure that it is accurate to suggest that every single problem in the (even recent) history has been caused 100% by the DFL. I'd certainly argue that massive deficit spending/growth in the national debt, is a bipartisan problem.
In the case of this post, it does seem hard to believe that the DFL is so blind to their role in the election of trump.
Call it shorthand for "Dems and RINOs", but one would be hard pressed to find true conservative policies being the cause of problems. Instead, one is more likely to link a problem to one who merely identifies as a conservative, but the policy enacted actually isn't.
So, you've modified your original position ("most all our problems are caused by Democrat policies"), to ("most all our problems are caused by Democrat policies and Republican"). That's quite the shift.
If the failure of the "Democrat policies and Republicans) have led us to the wonders of Trump 2.0, doesn't that mean that everything worked out for the best?
Really Craig? You're going to do this again? I think you're just yanking my chain. My position isn't modified. It's clarified. Big freakin' difference. There are many in the GOP about whom many regard as Dems in GOP clothing. Do I have to freakin' spell out everything, or can we just for once stick to the overriding point? I wouldn't have thought my comment was so cryptic as to lead anyone into confusion about the difference between what one calls one's self versus behaviors which belie that self-identification. I've explained it to a lefty on FB just last week:
Between the two major parties, the GOP is the conservative of the two. But within the GOP are too many who aren't really conservative. With this in mind, I generally choose to speak of conservatives and lefties versus the GOP and the Dems. Thus, as RINOs are so often rightly regarded as Dems in disguise, my original statement stands as strongly as it did when first submitted.
As to your last question, it most certainly did. Why we were required to endure the suffering of bad leftist policies is another question, but I'd prefer folks reject their partisan attachments long enough to actually study and consider proposals and their likely consequences and support whichever party can be proven to provide the better path. We're now on it, and as rocky as it still is while being so much better than the last four years could hope to promise, we're already seeing way too many ignoring the actions themselves and simply stepping up their hatred of the Bad Orange Man.
If you say so. Clarified, modified, distinction without much difference. Perhaps had you been more clear in your original statement, it would have helped.
FWIW, I've seen multiple people who made the argument that a second Trump perm in 2020 would have likely been a continuation of the first in terms of the things Trump has acknowledged he didn't do well (mainly accepting the status quo in terms of appointees, and allowing Fauci free reign). I think that there is some Truth to that, and I think that Trump losing and having to listen to the (mostly justified) expressions of dissatisfaction with his term, led to what we have now. A much more focused and effective executive, and much more outside of the beltway collection of advisors. You may be the exception, but many people have to experience lower lows before they change.
I'm curious, Craig, and hope you will think this is close enough to topical to answer this question:
IF the Felon has courts, including the SCOTUS, rule against him on any of his Constitutional abuses, and the con king refuses to submit to judicial rulings (what experts would call a Constitutional crisis), will you THEN say, No more! This cannot stand! And otherwise actively fight against the wanna be tyrant and his useless acolyte?
I think I know Marshal's answer, but am curious about yours.
Humbly submitted...
Dan
"If you say so."
I do say so. Why wouldn't I, since it IS so?
" Clarified, modified, distinction without much difference."
A world of difference between what I said and what you chose to believe I meant. Worse is that you've often made comments along the lines of "what 'seems' to be isn't a compelling argument". Here, you imposed what "seemed" to be true about my position as fact. Indeed, you could have been more gracious and said, "It seems you've modified your original position" when I didn't modify it at all. You just chose to accuse me of having done so. Why you play this game is beyond me.
"Perhaps had you been more clear in your original statement, it would have helped."
Sure. I can cop to a failure in being as clear as I need to be in a manner which takes into account the unique manner in which each differs from another in comprehending meaning from the words of another. But between the two of us, I'm taken aback by your penchant for choosing to assume the worst. In the meantime, in the future I will seek out a more sensitive and precise scale upon which I can weigh my words before expressing myself to avoid this kind of confusion.
As to the rest, we can speculate all we like about how things might have been different had Trump not had his rightful, well-earned consecutive term denied him, but it's a moot point now. He would have heard the same expressions of dissatisfaction regardless, and I don't know why he'd need a four year layoff to consider it all and make his adjustments. But whatever. I think its strange that more people aren't changed by experiencing better times. JD Vance was one such person who did. Seemed really obvious to me, too, compared with the Obama years. Now, we see there are still a helluva lot of people who need even more pain than that which was the Biden years in order to snap out of their Trump-hatred. It would be nice if they could take a breath and STFU for a while.
No, it's completely and totally off of the topic of this post.
However, because I'm not like you and don't delete anything off topic, I'll respond.
1. The problem with your "question" is that it ignores the separation of powers established in the constitution. The chief executive controls the executive branch. The judicial branch does not have the authority to unilaterally order the executive branch to do things.
2. If SCOTUS did rule that something was unconstitutional, I'd expect any president to abide by that ruling.
3. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe that some of what Trump is doing is expressly intended to litigate issues that have not been litigated or not been litigated recently. This tactic carries with it the possibility that the courts will not find in the way Trump would prefer.
4. As to your hypothetical bullshit, who knows? However, I would ask you this question. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, will you accept that ruling for what it is and stop bitching? Or is this one of those situations where you'll excoriate Trump if he doesn't do something, and excoriate SCOTUS if you don't like their ruling?
5. FYI, one judge issuing a temporary restraining order has little or no bearing on the actual merits of any particular case.
6. Again, I see no reason to speculate on hypothetical future events. I prefer to live in the real world as much as possible and find that unequivocally committing to something unknowable is generally a bad practice. In this case, you are piling assumption on top of assumption with no real basis for your assumptions. Again, if Trump "wins" in the courts I can only assume that you'll cheer for him and support his initiatives.
7. Legislating via the judiciary and one co-equal branch of government dictating to another are both things that I find problematic.
You doing anything "humbly" is so far from the character you reveal in your blogging and commenting that I cannot help wondering if you even know what the word means.
OK, as long as you say so.
Well, I can see where my expressing something that does not "seem" to be a "compelling argument" and my literally taking your words at their plain meaning could be confusing.
It's interesting how upset you get when I point out inconsistencies in what you say. You quickly retreat to "I do say so. Why wouldn't I, since it IS so?" as if grounding reality in what you say is somehow supposed to be a compelling argument. You clearly made a specific claim, then you clearly modified that claim to a (somewhat) different claim. I guess, I can't see why you can't graciously acknowledge what happened rather than expecting something of me that you won't do yourself.
The reality is that I treat everyone pretty much the same. I'm sorry if that bothers you. I'm sorry of pointing out inconsistencies or other things I find problematic/disagree with angers you so.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking the words you use, and the sentences you choose to form them into at face value. I'm assuming that you say what you intend to say, and taking your words in that way.
Yeah, I understand that if everyone who disagrees with Trump or you (legitimate of not) would just STFU and let Trump do whatever he wants free from any pesky criticism.
Dan,
I've indulged you in your pathetic attempt to make a "point" based on piling assumption on assumption. I've responded with more seriousness than your comment deserved.
If you want to make an on topic comment, you are more than welcome. If you continue to make off topic comments, I will post them (because I don't play your childish games of deleting comments), but they will be ignored. If you want to make yourself look like an idiot by continuing to abuse my hospitality and the respect I showed you by responding to your off topic post, that's your choice. I'm done indulging your idiocy.
Mostly it's your tone. I express myself. You infer what was not intended and I then clarify my intention. From there you go on to disparage, as if I'm equivocating, rather than clarifying.
"It's interesting how upset you get when I point out inconsistencies in what you say."
That's not it at all. It's your tone after I clarify myself after you suggest the inconsistency...which by itself isn't at all a problem for me, as I've conceded I might not be a clear as I thought I was. Your subsequent response suggests some intention on my part to dance away from my position (as if I need to do so, when if it's solid if not clear). Clarifying is not altering a position. It's an attempt to make it better understood. Indeed, in this specific situation, my clarification changes nothing, given my history. I've often stated I'm conservative, rather than Republican. I've also, especially recently, stated I regard all of leftism as being merely differing degrees of the same leftism, making it moot whether it's some more moderate leftist or an extremist communist. Furthermore, I've also expressed displeasure with the GOP, and the existence in the ranks of "Dems in sheep's clothing" is part of the problem. In light of these facts, and given the additional fact of how long we've been associated on the blogs, excuse me if I'm offended by such responses to my comments as you've expressed here. I've provided nothing which rationalizes them in any way, and as such I find them surprising.
So again, it's not that you point out inconsistencies. It's how you respond to my attempts to clarify myself. You respond in a distinctly smarmy manner which is uncalled for. Sorry if my pointing that out is problematic for you.
"I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking the words you use, and the sentences you choose to form them into at face value. I'm assuming that you say what you intend to say, and taking your words in that way."
Ironically, your clarification confuses. But again, it's not about taking me the wrong way. It's your disparagement of my attempts to clarify. My point is not altered by my clarification, anymore than focusing binoculars or microscopes for a clearer view alter what is being observed. Modifying a position is NOT the same as clarifying it. Indeed, it's a distinction with a distinct difference.
"Yeah, I understand that if everyone who disagrees with Trump or you (legitimate of not) would just STFU and let Trump do whatever he wants free from any pesky criticism."
This routinely expressed opinion is also an assumption of that which is not in evidence. The irony here is the suggestion that a criticism of Trump can't be criticized.
I'm not inferring anything. If you say "A,B,C", I read "A,B,C". When you say "A,B,C" then clarify that you mean "A,B,C,D,E, and F", then I point out the difference between the two.
I apologize if you write something and mean something else, and I take what you write at face value.
I do apologize for what might seem to be a confusing use of "assume". My bad.
In the first use, I'm reiterating that I am taking your words as written at face value and applying the plain meaning to what you write. In the second, I'm pointing out a more general assumption. That assumption being that you chose to write certain words in a certain way to communicate something. I'm simply concluding that you said what you intended to say in the manner you intended to say it. In other words, I'm not inferring anything, nor am I reading anything into your words. When you "clarify" by introducing things into your "clarification" that significantly expand your initial comment, then simply offer "I do say so. Why wouldn't I, since it IS so?" as some sort of justification, of course it comes off strangely.
Given the fact that I cannot think of one instance where I've criticized something Trump has done or proposed which you agreed with, I'm not sure what to say. If you've got an example where you have simply agreed with a criticism of Trump without offering excuses or equivocation, I'd be happy to see it.
You were very clear that you judge presidents based on the good things they've done, balanced against the bad things. Refresh my memory, what Trump's bad things in your opinion?
I'm not going to suggest that you "save your soul" or something idiotic, but maybe don't assume that I'm going to guess at whatever you really mean to say but don't actually say.
I so wanted to end that last comment with...
"Where am I mistaken?"
or
"Do you agree?"
But I didn't.
Warning, sarcasm above.
Post a Comment