|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that 
That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence.
|
On March 05 2018 13:16 micronesia wrote:
Wulfey_LA you play into their hands and galvanize their base by acting the way you are. I have more sympathy for your position than the position of those who say "Trump isn't great but if Hillary were elected it would be a disaster a trillion times worse" but I think you are more capable of reining in your behavior and not giving your political opposition so much low-hanging fruit to grab on to.
I consciously choose florid language and exaggerations. Oh I could play the ever rational and restrained liberal who always sticks to empiricism and never make generalizations. Over the years I have found that this reaches no one. Consider for example President Donald Trump. He was a master of the quip and insane generalization over Twitter. In 140 characters he could tell 140 lies, but every one found just the right person to hear it. Or consider the writings of Scott Adams and the like (yes, I read their stuff). I do think the Trumpkins are onto something about emotional communication and the importance of making your writings have emotional punch. I could restrain myself and attempt to deny trumpkins the ability to say '... but but but tuquoque so things are equivalent if you ignore magnitude and substance'. But I don't think that would actually change their behavior in the slightest. We would still get tuquoque nonsense. It might be weaker, but to get that weaker tuquoque response we sacrificed vivid language and emotional appeals. Also consider that post Trump, can you possibly take tuquoque responses seriously anymore? Do you get why I keep bringing up the old Constitutional Conservative nonsense from the Obama era? I am trying to make the point that their tuquoque responses are farcical in light of what they swallowed to vote for and continue to defend Trump. None of the basic tuquoque stuff applies to Righties at all. They flatly don't care that all of their alleged values don't apply to them. Think back to all the concerns about CORRUPTION from Hillary. We have Jared Kushner shopping loans using the power of his ~office~. And then actually getting those loans. Do you hear anything from Congress? Nothing! In sum:
(1) emotional communication is important
(2) tuquoque responses don't apply to the speaker, so ignore them
|
Many liberals have come to the realization that it is not about changing minds, but about passionate opposition. There is no magic set of word or data that is going to change the mind of an invested conservative. Few Republicans called out Trump for asserting that Obama was not a citizen. And they did it because it benefited them to undermine our sitting president’s legitimacy. The only discussion to be had is a recount of their faux outrage at Obama’s transgressions. Because now they say Trump is effective as his family fleeces the nation. And sometimes that discussion is less than polite.
|
On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence.
Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice.
|
On March 05 2018 13:31 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:16 micronesia wrote:
Wulfey_LA you play into their hands and galvanize their base by acting the way you are. I have more sympathy for your position than the position of those who say "Trump isn't great but if Hillary were elected it would be a disaster a trillion times worse" but I think you are more capable of reining in your behavior and not giving your political opposition so much low-hanging fruit to grab on to. I consciously choose florid language and exaggerations. Oh I could play the ever rational and restrained liberal who always sticks to empiricism and never make generalizations. Over the years I have found that this reaches no one. Consider for example President Donald Trump. He was a master of the quip and insane generalization over Twitter. In 140 characters he could tell 140 lies, but every one found just the right person to hear it. Or consider the writings of Scott Adams and the like (yes, I read their stuff). I do think the Trumpkins are onto something about emotional communication and the importance of making your writings have emotional punch. I could restrain myself and attempt to deny trumpkins the ability to say '... but but but tuquoque so things are equivalent if you ignore magnitude and substance'. But I don't think that would actually change their behavior in the slightest. We would still get tuquoque nonsense. It might be weaker, but to get that weaker tuquoque response we sacrificed vivid language and emotional appeals. Also consider that post Trump, can you possibly take tuquoque responses seriously anymore? Do you get why I keep bringing up the old Constitutional Conservative nonsense from the Obama era? I am trying to make the point that their tuquoque responses are farcical in light of what they swallowed to vote for and continue to defend Trump. None of the basic tuquoque stuff applies to Righties at all. They flatly don't care that all of their alleged values don't apply to them. Think back to all the concerns about CORRUPTION from Hillary. We have Jared Kushner shopping loans using the power of his ~office~. And then actually getting those loans. Do you hear anything from Congress? Nothing! In sum: (1) emotional communication is important (2) tuquoque responses don't apply to the speaker, so ignore them
1. Get mad at Trump.
2. Become like Trump.
3. Rationalize why becoming Trump is the only rational thing to do.
You I kinda get. The quoted paragraph is a sufficiently lengthy descent down the rationalization pipe to see the main steps. What I'm wondering is if micronesia will complete the logical progression from "I'm not totally clear who "they" and "them" are in that video" to "examples of 'they' and 'them' are right under my nose in the forum. You can even call every member on the right without exception crying weak victims, not a shred of integrity, and not a shred of manliness in a moderated forum without so much as a warning. I really wonder how long you can hold your nose at these elements within your side calling the NRA terrorists and saying there's no good reason to own an AR-15. At some point it must bother you more than somebody thinking Trump was far and away the better candidate in the general.
|
On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice.
Interestingly it was during his first campaign, which you say wasn't as bad, that the tea party etc backlash began. Regardless the notion that there's an equivalence b/w Obama and Trump on divisiveness is absurd on its face. Deporting all illegals, banning all Muslims, and registering Muslims, not to mention the daily Twitter rhetoric, just doesn't have anything in the same league with it. You can allude to a theory of history that will be discerned in the future but that doesn't really cover up the absurdity that we've seen since mid 2015. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is at a higher order of magnitude than Obama or anyone else.
|
One huge problem neoliberals have with trying to match Trump at being Trump is that he (and Republicans in general to a lesser degree) are so much better at it.
They also handicap themselves by subscribing to some of the worst parts of Conservative/Republican arguments, particularly around economics.
Neoliberals problem isn't that they aren't spreading enough propaganda or them being too rational, it's that their whole pitch is "Have you seen the other guys?!?" which is a trash pitch.
|
5930 Posts
There’s certainly an argument to be made that Trump is less divisive, especially on the international stage, because just about everyone agrees that the man is a loving moron. I’m not sure thats really the argument Danglars is making however.
Obama managed to maintain a degree of respectability and support with the wider population while continuing and starting many negative foriegn policy decisions. With Trump, the world expects the US to behave in bad faith so we aren’t remotely surprised that he wants to start a stupid trade war nor do we any reason to openly support the Trump/the US.
|
On March 05 2018 14:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice. Interestingly it was during his first campaign, which you say wasn't as bad, that the tea party etc backlash began. Regardless the notion that there's an equivalence b/w Obama and Trump on divisiveness is absurd on its face. Deporting all illegals, banning all Muslims, and registering Muslims, not to mention the daily Twitter rhetoric, just doesn't have anything in the same league with it. You can allude to a theory of history that will be discerned in the future but that doesn't really cover up the absurdity that we've seen since mid 2015. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is at a higher order of magnitude than Obama or anyone else.
Nah. The country and particularly the left in this country are still star struck by his presidency. That's why we'll have to wait until at least two more decades for a shot at an accurate comparison, and my bet is on after they're dead and gone. Then you can see the Demographic Destiny vs White Identity Politics in context.
You did give me a good laugh countering identity politics with the rise of the tea party. Is it really that long ago to remember why the tea party came into existence? Or did everyone buy the astroturf conspiracy theory? The entire treasonous Russian collusion story makes me think a bunch of you just want a Slate or Vox article to swallow some nice sounding nonsense whole.
|
'Particularly the left' is so broadly generalising that it's actually meaningless. I've seen numerous critiques of his presidency from left-wing people, and often ones much more nuanced and far less paranoid than those given by 'the right'.
|
On March 05 2018 13:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 11:55 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 09:30 micronesia wrote:
I'm not totally clear who "they" and "them" are in that video. Either it's specifically referring to democrats, specifically referring to liberals, or being intentionally vague. The video is obviously trying to be divisive and rile up their base. What action do they actually want their base to take, though? ...Other than join the NRA, as though the NRA is going to save people from allegedly unfair accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia. It seems to be calling on the police to do something as well... but I'm not clear what.
It's also cute how the video sets up ahead of time that whenever folks get outraged, they are wrong to get outraged, even before it happens and we know why it happened. It's kinda the right wing propaganda version of certain left-wing attitudes you can see here: On February 27 2018 06:29 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Every last righty is a crying weak victim through and through. Not a shred of integrity or maniless in the entire lot. Zero exceptions It basically takes a shred of truth and turns it into reactionary outrage. It ranges from pretty close to the mark (CNN townhall moderation, the victims being paraded around shows accusing everybody but the sheriff of murder and complicity, comedy show narratives) to pretty exaggerated (the Berkeley insanity is more characteristic of the left wing fringe and particularly young, vocal liberals ... and it's California's impotence and cowardice--not the country's--that allowed the anti-free-speed crowd to shout down invited speakers until university administrators woke the hell up). I get some of the reason behind it, but it's clearly overhyped. Find me a Righty + Trumpkin that is also not a crybaby victim being oppressed. EDIT: you can't use #NeverTrump. They aren't a part of the tribe anymore. Here is a favorite example of internet tough-guy anti-sjws getting butthurt and victimized by black media. https://www.dailywire.com/news/27287/review-black-panther-very-good-movie-its-also-ben-shapiro
I'm far from a Shapiro fan, but I don't see what you seem to be seeing in that review. Can you expound on your point?
On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice.
How is it 'poetic justice' when you righties embraced birtherism and tried to portray him as a secret Muslim communist trying to bring Sharia Law and/or communism to the US?
It seems extremely two-faced to claim that the left created Trump when it was right-wing media losing their absolute shit over every tiny thing Obama did or didn't do and creating conspiracy theories whole cloth that made this whole fake news thing such a powerful force in the first place. You spent a good half of Obama's presidency trying to portray it not only as illegitimate, but Obama as a literal enemy of the people and all but a terrorist in sheep's clothing.
Blaming the left for your own side's hysteria is an... interesting mindset.
As for the Russia scandal, it seems to me things would have been rather more restrained had Trump turned around and said 'yeah sure let's do this' instead of flatly denying it, disagreeing with his own administration who point blank stated the Russian were involved, and doing everything possible to stymie the investigation proper. People wouldn't think Trump was guilty if he didn't keep acting so guilty, and wasn't surrounded by people who either are guilty or look even guiltier than him.
|
On March 05 2018 14:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 14:26 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice. Interestingly it was during his first campaign, which you say wasn't as bad, that the tea party etc backlash began. Regardless the notion that there's an equivalence b/w Obama and Trump on divisiveness is absurd on its face. Deporting all illegals, banning all Muslims, and registering Muslims, not to mention the daily Twitter rhetoric, just doesn't have anything in the same league with it. You can allude to a theory of history that will be discerned in the future but that doesn't really cover up the absurdity that we've seen since mid 2015. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is at a higher order of magnitude than Obama or anyone else. Nah. The country and particularly the left in this country are still star struck by his presidency. That's why we'll have to wait until at least two more decades for a shot at an accurate comparison, and my bet is on after they're dead and gone. Then you can see the Demographic Destiny vs White Identity Politics in context.
When polled, experts from both Democratic and Republican sides agreed that Trump is one of the worst presidents we've ever had, while Obama is definitely in the top half of best presidents. Republicans said Obama was ranked 16th while Democrats ranked him at 6th, which is of course a disparity between the rankings of Obama, but there was absolutely no equivocation over which president- Obama or Trump- was far, far, far better. Trump was ranked 40th by Republican experts and 44th by Democratic experts, so it's a little inconsistent to say that everyone is only temporarily starstruck by Obama (and presumably anti-starstruck by Trump). Obama was far from perfect, but with an overall ranking of 8th on the list, compared to Trump's ranking of dead last, it's really not even a comparison.
https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf
|
On March 05 2018 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
One huge problem neoliberals have with trying to match Trump at being Trump is that he (and Republicans in general to a lesser degree) are so much better at it.
They also handicap themselves by subscribing to some of the worst parts of Conservative/Republican arguments, particularly around economics.
Neoliberals problem isn't that they aren't spreading enough propaganda or them being too rational, it's that their whole pitch is "Have you seen the other guys?!?" which is a trash pitch.
Very much this.
I'm reminded of John Oliver's coal piece, which I enjoyed very much. The overall message was the liberal one, your industry is dying and it sucks but we can't do much for you; of course you can't do 20 minutes on that and you're not going to reach anyone with it, so you add some leftwing rhetoric of class warfare and you tell them that their bosses are reprehensible and that the other guys are just concerned with helping their bosses. Which is powerful because it's true, clearly, but at the end of the day you're still asking people to stop following the side that pretends to be on their side and join the side that clearly says that it's not on their side. It's a hard pitch.
|
On March 05 2018 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 14:39 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 14:26 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice. Interestingly it was during his first campaign, which you say wasn't as bad, that the tea party etc backlash began. Regardless the notion that there's an equivalence b/w Obama and Trump on divisiveness is absurd on its face. Deporting all illegals, banning all Muslims, and registering Muslims, not to mention the daily Twitter rhetoric, just doesn't have anything in the same league with it. You can allude to a theory of history that will be discerned in the future but that doesn't really cover up the absurdity that we've seen since mid 2015. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is at a higher order of magnitude than Obama or anyone else. Nah. The country and particularly the left in this country are still star struck by his presidency. That's why we'll have to wait until at least two more decades for a shot at an accurate comparison, and my bet is on after they're dead and gone. Then you can see the Demographic Destiny vs White Identity Politics in context. When polled, experts from both Democratic and Republican sides agreed that Trump is one of the worst presidents we've ever had, while Obama is definitely in the top half of best presidents. Republicans said Obama was ranked 16th while Democrats ranked him at 6th, which is of course a disparity between the rankings of Obama, but there was absolutely no equivocation over which president- Obama or Trump- was far, far, far better. Trump was ranked 40th by Republican experts and 44th by Democratic experts, so it's a little inconsistent to say that everyone is only temporarily starstruck by Obama (and presumably anti-starstruck by Trump). Obama was far from perfect, but with an overall ranking of 8th on the list, compared to Trump's ranking of dead last, it's really not even a comparison. https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf
I can't *ugh* believe I'm about to do this, but in defense of Trump we're one year into a (probable) 8 year Presidential term. If at the end of those 8 years the economy is in the best position its been in for 50 years, say, that rank will skyrocket, and historians will find SOME way to spin his awfulness in positive terms.
|
On March 05 2018 20:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
One huge problem neoliberals have with trying to match Trump at being Trump is that he (and Republicans in general to a lesser degree) are so much better at it.
They also handicap themselves by subscribing to some of the worst parts of Conservative/Republican arguments, particularly around economics.
Neoliberals problem isn't that they aren't spreading enough propaganda or them being too rational, it's that their whole pitch is "Have you seen the other guys?!?" which is a trash pitch. Very much this. I'm reminded of John Oliver's coal piece, which I enjoyed very much. The overall message was the liberal one, your industry is dying and it sucks but we can't do much for you; of course you can't do 20 minutes on that and you're not going to reach anyone with it, so you add some leftwing rhetoric of class warfare and you tell them that their bosses are reprehensible and that the other guys are just concerned with helping their bosses. Which is powerful because it's true, clearly, but at the end of the day you're still asking people to stop following the side that pretends to be on their side and join the side that clearly says that it's not on their side. It's a hard pitch.
Well, the truth is hard. Their "side" no longer exists. Coal is dead. It's extremely disingenuous for politicians to pretend that they can revive the coal industry. What Democrats (nominally) want to do, is intensify retraining programs (and perhaps incentivize industries that aren't dead to move to coal country). But if someone else is yelling that you can keep being a coal miner, and *you* are proud to be a coal miner, I can understand you want to believe the lie. Even if it is very obviously a lie.
|
On March 05 2018 21:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2018 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 05 2018 14:39 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 14:26 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:44 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 05 2018 13:18 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2018 13:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Does anyone remember who DIVISIVE Obama was? I remember hearing that on a day by day basis from Serious, Concerned, Constitutional Conservatives. All of it was bullshit. No amount of tan suits or condemning police violence by President Obama is even remotely close to the day by day diviseness coming from the kulturkampf right (NRA / Trump / FOX / Breitbart). He definitely wove the divisive path in with erudition. Trump's just out and about on twitter and in speeches trumpeting it out. The left is doing their best to deserve it, I must say. It's still uncalled for and all that That’s an excellent equivalence between the divisiveness of Trump and Obama. And even if you want to call it some sort of nuanced equivalence, you don’t overcome the core problem with the equivalence. Both men will have to be dead before historians will piece together Obama's half-covert identity politics and overall divisive strategy and rate it against Trump's more overt approach. His first campaign effort was more hopey changey, I'll give you that. The way his party and himself personally ended up from 2012 to 2016 make Trump his perfect successor. I call that poetic justice. Interestingly it was during his first campaign, which you say wasn't as bad, that the tea party etc backlash began. Regardless the notion that there's an equivalence b/w Obama and Trump on divisiveness is absurd on its face. Deporting all illegals, banning all Muslims, and registering Muslims, not to mention the daily Twitter rhetoric, just doesn't have anything in the same league with it. You can allude to a theory of history that will be discerned in the future but that doesn't really cover up the absurdity that we've seen since mid 2015. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is at a higher order of magnitude than Obama or anyone else. Nah. The country and particularly the left in this country are still star struck by his presidency. That's why we'll have to wait until at least two more decades for a shot at an accurate comparison, and my bet is on after they're dead and gone. Then you can see the Demographic Destiny vs White Identity Politics in context. When polled, experts from both Democratic and Republican sides agreed that Trump is one of the worst presidents we've ever had, while Obama is definitely in the top half of best presidents. Republicans said Obama was ranked 16th while Democrats ranked him at 6th, which is of course a disparity between the rankings of Obama, but there was absolutely no equivocation over which president- Obama or Trump- was far, far, far better. Trump was ranked 40th by Republican experts and 44th by Democratic experts, so it's a little inconsistent to say that everyone is only temporarily starstruck by Obama (and presumably anti-starstruck by Trump). Obama was far from perfect, but with an overall ranking of 8th on the list, compared to Trump's ranking of dead last, it's really not even a comparison. https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf I can't *ugh* believe I'm about to do this, but in defense of Trump we're one year into a (probable) 8 year Presidential term. If at the end of those 8 years the economy is in the best position its been in for 50 years, say, that rank will skyrocket, and historians will find SOME way to spin his awfulness in positive terms.
I agree. For example, Obama improved from 18th place to 8th place over the past 4 years, although almost all the presidents only changed ~1-3 spots. I don't see Trump jumping from 44th to 30th, for example, let alone getting anywhere near the top ten.
|
Obama being historically 8th ranked is nostalgia at best. He was merely ok as president, not “one of the best” by a long shot.
|
The perks of following Bush2 and being replaced by Trump.
You look really good even by being "average".
|
On March 05 2018 21:52 LegalLord wrote:
Obama being historically 8th ranked is nostalgia at best. He was merely ok as president, not “one of the best” by a long shot.
I'm not too clued up on US history, but name 8 presidents you'd rank above Obama?
My guess would be, in no particular order of presidents who you might rank above Obama:
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
F. Roosevelt
T. Roosevelt
Eisenhower
^ Those I think are undisputably better presidents than Obama, who truly shaped the nation.
Clinton (I'd rank him above Obama, but I'm guessing lots of Americans wouldn't, and I think history won't be kind to him)
Madison?
Truman?
Adams?
Reagan (not that I would rank him high, but I imagine there are plenty of Americans who do)
Kennedy (not a president that did much, but might score for nostalgia?)
|
I think ~15 is more accurate for Obama tbh, although keep in mind this was brought up primarily as a response to Danglars's assertion that Obama and Trump are comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
