Comrade Trump

[creekster]

Ted, even the socialists on the site know this. It's not news. If all of us on CS make a solemn vow that yes, both parties suck, would that help?

Honestly, it's OK to criticize one side and not refer to the other side. every.single.time. Only bots do that.

Just out of curiosity, who are the socialists here?

[Moliere]

Just out of curiosity, who are the socialists here?

blueK, frank, nwc, JL, and robin. Adam is communist. Niku is also probably socialist since he’s no longer Mormon.

[Northwestcoug]

Just out of curiosity, who are the socialists here?

Duh. Me. And every other Costco-hating commie on here.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I agree wholeheartedly with your description of Trump. Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts. Can't both be true?

Of course, but I find Trump supporters' obsession with pointing out the flaws of people no longer in office, with zero likelihood of ever taking office again, to be usually pointless, weird and unbecoming. Why not focus on those in power, where change is at least theoretically possible and something to strive for? But given Trump's obvious flaws, it's easier to point out the problems of those in the past, rather than defend the ones we're facing now.

[creekster]

Of course, but I find Trump supporters' obsession with pointing out the flaws of people no longer in office, with zero likelihood of ever taking office again, to be usually pointless, weird and unbecoming. Why not focus on those in power, where change is at least theoretically possible and something to strive for? But given Trump's obvious flaws, it's easier to point out the problems of those in the past, rather than defend the ones we're facing now.

I am not sure that is an accurate explanation for why it happens in general and I think it definitely doesn't apply to our own Uncle Ted. UT can speak for himself, but to me it looks like a lot of people here criticize Trump freely for being all the things you described. And they are right and it is all true. And yet, those truths don't address the substance of issues we are facing as a nation and even allow his detractors to feel smugly superior when, as UT often points out, the other side is NOT necessarily (and rarely) superior, they just wear nicer or more palatable clothes. It is easy to criticize Trump and to keep a watchful eye on his idiocy. But we need to be careful to what end we are criticizing and to make a distinction with a difference.

Moreover, there are millions (think about that: MILLIONS) of people that voted for Trump. Some of them idiots, but some of them pretty mainstream and some very intelligent. Keeping track of the positions UT puts forth reminds us of WHY they did so. It is very easy to dismiss these people as complete idiots and simply discard half the electorate as fooled or worthless. But the other half of the electorate is equally stretched between idiots and geniuses. It is much better to try to understand how we got to Trump and to see him as the end of a defective process than to see him as an aberration that can be easily expunged and ignored. We cannot go back to how it was because 'how it was' gave us Trump. So we MUST understand what was rotten on both sides so we can move forward avoiding ALL of it.

TLDR: Its the antidote for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Northwestcoug]

I am not sure that is an accurate explanation for why it happens in general and I think it definitely doesn't apply to our own Uncle Ted. UT can speak for himself, but to me it looks like a lot of people here criticize Trump freely for being all the things you described. And they are right and it is all true. And yet, those truths don't address the substance of issues we are facing as a nation and even allow his detractors to feel smugly superior when, as UT often points out, the other side is NOT necessarily (and rarely) superior, they just wear nicer or more palatable clothes. It is easy to criticize Trump and to keep a watchful eye on his idiocy. But we need to be careful to what end we are criticizing and to make a distinction with a difference.

Moreover, there are millions (think about that: MILLIONS) of people that voted for Trump. Some of them idiots, but some of them pretty mainstream and some very intelligent. Keeping track of the positions UT puts forth reminds us of WHY they did so. It is very easy to dismiss these people as complete idiots and simply discard half the electorate as fooled or worthless. But the other half of the electorate is equally stretched between idiots and geniuses. It is much better to try to understand how we got to Trump and to see him as the end of a defective process than to see him as an aberration that can be easily expunged and ignored. We cannot go back to how it was because 'how it was' gave us Trump. So we MUST understand what was rotten on both sides so we can move forward avoiding ALL of it.

TLDR: Its the antidote for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

All of these are valid points. But none of them are addressed by UT's posts. He is not arguing anything on its merits, just how we should interpret facts in a context of media bias and libertarian ideology.

I should say, I don't mind his posts. I get a chuckle out of his sheer tenacity. But he's not posting to further the cause of thoughtful political discourse. And maybe many of us aren't either.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I am not sure that is an accurate explanation for why it happens in general and I think it definitely doesn't apply to our own Uncle Ted. UT can speak for himself, but to me it looks like a lot of people here criticize Trump freely for being all the things you described. And they are right and it is all true. And yet, those truths don't address the substance of issues we are facing as a nation and even allow his detractors to feel smugly superior when, as UT often points out, the other side is NOT necessarily (and rarely) superior, they just wear nicer or more palatable clothes. It is easy to criticize Trump and to keep a watchful eye on his idiocy. But we need to be careful to what end we are criticizing and to make a distinction with a difference.

Moreover, there are millions (think about that: MILLIONS) of people that voted for Trump. Some of them idiots, but some of them pretty mainstream and some very intelligent. Keeping track of the positions UT puts forth reminds us of WHY they did so. It is very easy to dismiss these people as complete idiots and simply discard half the electorate as fooled or worthless. But the other half of the electorate is equally stretched between idiots and geniuses. It is much better to try to understand how we got to Trump and to see him as the end of a defective process than to see him as an aberration that can be easily expunged and ignored. We cannot go back to how it was because 'how it was' gave us Trump. So we MUST understand what was rotten on both sides so we can move forward avoiding ALL of it.

Despite the pleasant and somewhat cathartic feeling I get when describing what a loathsome person Trump is, I agree that focusing on that, or projecting his myriad flaws onto many of those who voted for him, is a fruitless strategy if one wants to get rid of him. It merely emboldens, rather than sways, his base. Trump got to where he is by pretending to be among the populists, who (candidly) are life's losers. I really don't mean that pejoratively or condescendingly. They've failed to achieve their dream, often through no fault of their own, and they're looking for someone to lift them up. And that's what Trump (and Bernie) promised them, while Hillary often appeared to mock them.

I'd like a candidate who isn't a demagogue and who gives me a reason to vote for him or her, not against someone else.

[creekster]

Despite the pleasant and somewhat cathartic feeling I get when describing what a loathsome person Trump is, I agree that focusing on that, or projecting his myriad flaws onto many of those who voted for him, is a fruitless strategy if one wants to get rid of him. It merely emboldens, rather than sways, his base. Trump got to where he is by pretending to be among the populists, who (candidly) are life's losers. I really don't mean that pejoratively or condescendingly. They've failed to achieve their dream, often through no fault of their own, and they're looking for someone to lift them up. And that's what Trump (and Bernie) promised them, while Hillary often appeared to mock them.

I'd like a candidate who isn't a demagogue and who gives me a reason to vote for him or her, not against someone else.

Thats accurate but goes too far by at least half. You truly think that's the only explanation for why people voted for Trump?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Thats accurate but goes too far by at least half. You truly think that's the only explanation for why people voted for Trump?

Didn't mean to imply it was the only explanation (is there ever only one?).

[creekster]

Didn't mean to imply it was the only explanation (is there ever only one?).

Of course not, but that was sort of my original point. By incessantly vilifying trump for being a boorish idiot, we conclude that the only explanation is that all republicans are idiots. It is MUCH more complicated and Trump exists because some people are dumb but also because the democrats are dumb and have acted very, very poorly, behind a shiny veneer, for years. We are well served to keep that in mind.

[Uncle Ted]

Despite the pleasant and somewhat cathartic feeling I get when describing what a loathsome person Trump is, I agree that focusing on that, or projecting his myriad flaws onto many of those who voted for him, is a fruitless strategy if one wants to get rid of him. It merely emboldens, rather than sways, his base. Trump got to where he is by pretending to be among the populists, who (candidly) are life's losers. I really don't mean that pejoratively or condescendingly. They've failed to achieve their dream, often through no fault of their own, and they're looking for someone to lift them up. And that's what Trump (and Bernie) promised them, while Hillary often appeared to mock them.

Drumpf acts like your typical New York City bully if you ask me. To his credit, however, he has done a lot of the things he said he was going to do. I think that is why liberals hate him so much. To me he reminds me of many of the dumb new yorkers that I know that are cocky as hell.

I don't think his supporters care what he has done with his personal life although liberals are making an yuge deal of it. Maybe because they can't find any evidence of russian collusion. Didn't everyone already know that Drumpf was a billionaire playboy before he even announced he was running for president?

I'd like a candidate who isn't a demagogue and who gives me a reason to vote for him or her, not against someone else.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Perhaps my biggest problem with Paul (and here's further evidence of my own shallowness, as if more were needed) is that ugly hair that usually looks like a bad 70's era perm job. Better than Trump's terrible tonsure, however.

[Walter Sobchak]

Trump got to where he is by pretending to be among the populists, who (candidly) are life's losers. I really don't mean that pejoratively or condescendingly. They've failed to achieve their dream, often through no fault of their own, and they're looking for someone to lift them up.

I didn't think PAC could sink any lower after his spineless Clinton/Lewinsky backpedal. And, yes, I admit that I didn't have a high opinion of PAC to begin with, but holy cow.

[Flystripper]

I didn't think PAC could sink any lower after his spineless Clinton/Lewinsky backpedal. And, yes, I admit that I didn't have a high opinion of PAC to begin with, but holy cow.

[creekster]

Despite the pleasant and somewhat cathartic feeling I get when describing what a loathsome person Trump is, I agree that focusing on that, or projecting his myriad flaws onto many of those who voted for him, is a fruitless strategy if one wants to get rid of him. It merely emboldens, rather than sways, his base. Trump got to where he is by pretending to be among the populists, who (candidly) are life's losers. I really don't mean that pejoratively or condescendingly. They've failed to achieve their dream, often through no fault of their own, and they're looking for someone to lift them up. And that's what Trump (and Bernie) promised them, while Hillary often appeared to mock them.

I'd like a candidate who isn't a demagogue and who gives me a reason to vote for him or her, not against someone else.

You know, with all respect, the more i thought about this post, the more it angered me. It is so obnoxiously elitist (not to mention erroneous) to say that "populists" are life's losers. Especially when you selectively define populist to mean just those who disagree with you. You almost always sound the right note, but this one was way off base. And if you can't at the very least see why I would think so, even if you disagree, then you need to recalibrate your thinking, which I mean non-pejoratively and non-condescendingly.