Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[dholliday]

Except that you’ve said two diametrically opposed things.

“Keep calm and focus on the midterms”
“I’ve said for a while the media focus should be on who will be the candidate in 2020”

So which is it, is all I was asking.

There's two answers to that: the first one I already offered: for brevity I was agreeing with 25's post about focussing on 2020, then I linked my earlier comment which also highlights the importance of the mid-terms as well as 2020. So in chronological order: focus on mid-terms, then on 2020. How is that even close to being "diametrically opposed"? Again, language is important. What you're saying makes no sense, except in your head.

The second answer is...why not both? Why not focus on 2020 alongside the mid-terms. It's a positive focus: let's big up some bright people in the blue party, nothing heavy like "so-and-so is deffo gonna run", but just some slow build-up of making folk aware of who some people are.

All this anti-Trump focus is taking attention away from the blue side, that has to be counter-productive not just to the mid-terms, but also to 2020.

The article you posted isn’t revelatory - and given that the Democrats’ focus (now and in 2020) is (or certainly should be) mobilising their own base in a way Hillary didn’t rather than trying to convince Trump supporters - it isn’t especially relevant either.

Well now you've just said exactly what I've been saying. See what I mean about how we don't fundamentally disagree? So of course it's relevant otherwise why would you call me "crazy" earlier?

I'm not personally fussed, but on a global scale these "you're crazy, you're this, you're that" comments are causing damage to debate. This benefits Trump.

We all KNOW the people who are still with Trump are going to be with him til the bitter end - if policies of pulling kids from their parents and costing up to Putin didn’t break them from him, there’s certainly no magic argument that a Democratic candidate can make to do it.

As I said earlier, healthcare and the tax breaks for the rich are the issues that have resonated the most - but if some (entirely justified) outrage helps to keep the left as engaged and committed as they have been through the special elections etc - then that’s absolutely fine by me.

The engaged-by-outrage voters aren't gonna swing an election as, much like the pro-Trump faction, they've already decided. As the article said, many voters weren't keen on either candidate. The trick is then to focus media attention on things which could swing such voters to a decent sensible direction. The media and most of the chattering classes still think that focus should be #resist...however, it doesn't look like it's working.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

There's two answers to that: the first one I already offered: for brevity I was agreeing with 25's post about focussing on 2020, then I linked my earlier comment which also highlights the importance of the mid-terms as well as 2020. So in chronological order: focus on mid-terms, then on 2020. How is that even close to being "diametrically opposed"? Again, language is important. What you're saying makes no sense, except in your head.

The second answer is...why not both? Why not focus on 2020 alongside the mid-terms. It's a positive focus: let's big up some bright people in the blue party, nothing heavy like "so-and-so is deffo gonna run", but just some slow build-up of making folk aware of who some people are.

All this anti-Trump focus is taking attention away from the blue side, that has to be counter-productive not just to the mid-terms, but also to 2020.




Well now you've just said exactly what I've been saying. See what I mean about how we don't fundamentally disagree? So of course it's relevant otherwise why would you call me "crazy" earlier?

I'm not personally fussed, but on a global scale these "you're crazy, you're this, you're that" comments are causing damage to debate. This benefits Trump.




The engaged-by-outrage voters aren't gonna swing an election as, much like the pro-Trump faction, they've already decided. As the article said, many voters weren't keen on either candidate. The trick is then to focus media attention on things which could swing such voters to a decent sensible direction. The media and most of the chattering classes still think that focus should be #resist...however, it doesn't look like it's working.

Ok, so starting from the top:

You weren’t “just” agreeing with the other post, you said “I’ve been saying for a while the media focus should be...” which certainly implies you think it should have started before now...

I disagree with this, I think the focus should 100% be on the midterms currently. Aside from anything else, it gives potential 2020 targets cover from Trump/GOP attacks. It also REDUCES the exact “Trump-centric” messaging you’ve been decrying - anyone who gives even a whiff that they’re running will be bombarded with questions about Trump, and will have little choice but to engage with him.

You keep mentioning “anti-Trump focus”... there are certain issues, yes, where it is simply required that a response is given (particularly from the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Schmidt) - the recent Helsinki summit being a prime example - to not do so would be dereliction of duty.

but it’s not like midterm candidates are running on anti-Trump platforms - they’re focused on healthcare etc, as I’ve repeatedly said and you’ve (seemingly, at least) ignored.

I’m really not engaging on the “crazy” thing al- you know exactly what I meant. Ironic that it’s the right that constantly calls the left “snowflakes”.

Finally on your last paragraph, the focus is on Democratic voters who while, yes, may be decidedly anti-Trump, they failed to come out for Hillary in 2016 - it’s holding THEIR engagement, and getting them out in November that is key to success.

 

[dholliday]

You weren’t “just” agreeing with the other post, you said “I’ve been saying for a while the media focus should be...” which certainly implies you think it should have started before now...

I disagree with this, I think the focus should 100% be on the midterms currently. Aside from anything else, it gives potential 2020 targets cover from Trump/GOP attacks. It also REDUCES the exact “Trump-centric” messaging you’ve been decrying - anyone who gives even a whiff that they’re running will be bombarded with questions about Trump, and will have little choice but to engage with him.

While I disagree, at least we're now debating normally. No craziness, nothing's diametrically-opposed. This is what should be happening to debate globally: get over the oneupmanship and focus on good debate.

I disagree that any good Dems out there are forced to focus on Trump. They really don't have to do that. They can shift the focus on more positive things, like their policy ideas. Obama did this expertly in the slow build-up to his announcing his running, back when the world had had enough of W Bush (Bush Jr back then was almost as villified as Trump is now).

You keep mentioning “anti-Trump focus”... there are certain issues, yes, where it is simply required that a response is given (particularly from the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Schmidt) - the recent Helsinki summit being a prime example - to not do so would be dereliction of duty.

On that specific example: honestly I thought it was a good thing that Trump & Putin are publicly friendly. But many from the anti-Trump agenda wished Trump publicly labelled Putin an enemy.

Check this ridiculous headline out for one:

Trump REFUSES to call Russia an 'adversary' in Fox News interview

The mainstream media, even from ostensibly the Left, have been pushing for conflict with Russia for years. There's some horribly-sick agenda behind that.

That's why I, for one, applaud Trump's diplomatic public stance with Putin. Less conflict means less deaths of innocent people.

So that's one example of anti-Trump focus where the other, more peaceful, side of the argument was drowned out.

but it’s not like midterm candidates are running on anti-Trump platforms - they’re focused on healthcare etc, as I’ve repeatedly said and you’ve (seemingly, at least) ignored.

I haven't ignored it. I agree it's good to focus on specific important everyman issues like healthcare.

I’m really not engaging on the “crazy” thing al- you know exactly what I meant. Ironic that it’s the right that constantly calls the left “snowflakes”.

No, what exactly did you mean? That I'm not crazy after all? Your last sentence about the Right, snowflakes & irony makes no sense. Do you mean to say I'm of the Right and that I'm reacting like a sensitive snowflake because you called me "crazy" ?

That's epicly missing the point if so. Think less of your specific "crazy" tone, and more about that as microcosm: a million "you're crazy for not thinking exactly like me" comments out there. It's damaging.

Finally on your last paragraph, the focus is on Democratic voters who while, yes, may be decidedly anti-Trump, they failed to come out for Hillary in 2016 - it’s holding THEIR engagement, and getting them out in November that is key to success.

Quite. Are they engaged by the constant anti-Trump hate? Clearly not, otherwise they would've voted for Clinton.

 

[Prevenger17]

That's why I, for one, applaud Trump's diplomatic public stance with Putin. Less conflict means less deaths of innocent people

It wasn't diplomacy D, it was rolling over and having his belly tickled. The same people who are praising his laughably meek performance with Putin are probably praising his caps lock tourettes at Iran. Trump is utterly utterly out of his depth, and probably beholden to Putin because of compromising material. Call it what it was, an abject shoe-kissing at the feet of an international thug, not some conscious effort to smooth over Russian and American relations

 

[dholliday]

It wasn't diplomacy D, it was rolling over and having his belly tickled. The same people who are praising his laughably meek performance with Putin are probably praising his caps lock tourettes at Iran. Trump is utterly utterly out of his depth, and probably beholden to Putin because of compromising material. Call it what it was, an abject shoe-kissing at the feet of an international thug, not some conscious effort to smooth over Russian and American relations

I'm happy to call it that too, Prev. Happy because the end result is the same: no conflict between Russia & USA.

 

[Ruairi77]

Quite. Are they engaged by the constant anti-Trump hate? Clearly not, otherwise they would've voted for Clinton.

you're conflating present and past here, Trump wasn't a sitting president when people were given the choice between him and clinton.

 

[Ruairi77]

I'm happy to call it that too, Prev. Happy because the end result is the same: no conflict between Russia & USA.

right, so all we have do do for peace is sacrifice our democratic process??

 

[Prevenger17]

I'm happy to call it that too, Prev. Happy because the end result is the same: no conflict between Russia & USA.

Was war with Russia just around the corner? Bit of a false proposition imo

 

[dholliday]

you're conflating present and past here, Trump wasn't a sitting president when people were given the choice between him and clinton.

There was incessant anti-Trump media obsessions from the moment he announced he may run. Then from his official in-the-running accouncement the antis stepped up. Especially in the months before the Election it was insane.

It hasn't really let up. So there's no conflating going on as the anti-Trump shouting was very much there before he won.

right, so all we have do do for peace is sacrifice our democratic process??

If that's what it takes, then yes. Had Clinton won, we would likely have seen a horrendous escalation of the Syria conflict.

Was war with Russia just around the corner? Bit of a false proposition imo

It was. There's been much cheerleading for it for a few years now. Syria is the biggest trigger. There's been an intense anti-Russia focus with barely-hidden support for actual conflict, with Syria as the proxy.

I could link you all manner of editorials from respected Western publications pushing for this, they're easy to find online. Clinton was a pusher for this, hence Putin (if not publicly) preferring Trump. How actively he preferred Trump is a matter of debate.

This analysis from before the election is maybe interesting for you, mate:

The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia

 

[Prevenger17]

It was.

So, the US was on the brink of war with Russia and Trump stopped it?

You're a smart lad D, I can't imagine you've reached this conclusion without an incredible round of mental gymnastics

 

[dholliday]

So, the US was on the brink of war with Russia and Trump stopped it?

You're a smart lad D, I can't imagine you've reached this conclusion without an incredible round of mental gymnastics

If I have to answer yes or no, then yes. I'm in agreement with that FP analysis I linked in my reply to you, Prev.

 

[BigDunc'sFod]

I remember when a dholliday post actually made me contemplate stuff. The good old days.

Anyone who thinks Trump is diplomatic must have smoked some serious chang.

 

[Prevenger17]

If I have to answer yes or no, then yes. I'm in agreement with that FP analysis I linked in my reply to you, Prev.

I just don't see it D. If you think it was more likely that Trump was playing 4 dimensional chess by selling out his own intelligence agencies than him being an out-of-his-depth buffoon who just continued his pattern of submissiveness to strongman autocrat types, then that's your prerogative

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

While I disagree, at least we're now debating normally. No craziness, nothing's diametrically-opposed. This is what should be happening to debate globally: get over the oneupmanship and focus on good debate.

I disagree that any good Dems out there are forced to focus on Trump. They really don't have to do that. They can shift the focus on more positive things, like their policy ideas. Obama did this expertly in the slow build-up to his announcing his running, back when the world had had enough of W Bush (Bush Jr back then was almost as villified as Trump is now).




On that specific example: honestly I thought it was a good thing that Trump & Putin are publicly friendly. But many from the anti-Trump agenda wished Trump publicly labelled Putin an enemy.

Check this ridiculous headline out for one:

Trump REFUSES to call Russia an 'adversary' in Fox News interview

The mainstream media, even from ostensibly the Left, have been pushing for conflict with Russia for years. There's some horribly-sick agenda behind that.

That's why I, for one, applaud Trump's diplomatic public stance with Putin. Less conflict means less deaths of innocent people.

So that's one example of anti-Trump focus where the other, more peaceful, side of the argument was drowned out.




I haven't ignored it. I agree it's good to focus on specific important everyman issues like healthcare.




No, what exactly did you mean? That I'm not crazy after all? Your last sentence about the Right, snowflakes & irony makes no sense. Do you mean to say I'm of the Right and that I'm reacting like a sensitive snowflake because you called me "crazy" ?

That's epicly missing the point if so. Think less of your specific "crazy" tone, and more about that as microcosm: a million "you're crazy for not thinking exactly like me" comments out there. It's damaging.




Quite. Are they engaged by the constant anti-Trump hate? Clearly not, otherwise they would've voted for Clinton.

Maybe you don’t know exactly what I meant, but if not I think you must have slept through the last 30yrs of evolution of colloquial English. Woefully ill-advised, if you prefer that.

On the Putin stuff... if you think it’s good that he is friendly with him, great. Personally I think his performance was a pretty disgusting abdication of his oath. Putin isn’t any old world leader. He isn’t Macron or Trudeau. He is a despot who imprisons or kills those who challenge or disagree with him. He illegally stole a large chunk of another nation, and he - let’s not forget - signed off on a (potentially rather successful) attempt to subvert American democracy. So no, I don’t think it’s great that Trump stood there lauding his “incredible offer” to have the US hand over former diplomats for questioning.

And yes, Clinton didn’t mobilise them - but it’s worth remembering how things were back then - no one thought Trump had a hope in hell of actually winning.

The threat from Trump is a much stronger call to action than it was then.

Clinton was also almost certainly a much stronger call to action for the right than whoever the 2020 candidate is - and she also had a very specific set of baggage that (rightly or wrongly) discouraged a number on the left.

 

[Ruairi77]

@dholliday so If I'm to get this straight, you think anti trump voters won't turn out in bigger numbers than they did in the GE, is that right? "The engaged-by-outrage voters aren't gonna swing an election as, much like the pro-Trump faction, they've already decided".
There's a big difference between the anti-Trump noise while he was a candidate and the reaction to him as a president.
Granted, I can't speak for the whole country but I think that anti trump sentiment has ballooned. During the GE there were a lot of people who were appalled by his behaviour and proposals but were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as it was a break from the political dynasties and there's a chance he may govern for all and not just his base.
That hasn't happened.
There's no middle ground any more,
There's no body who woke this morning, saw his Iran tweet and thought, 'meh, lets see where this goes, what ever, no big deal'. People either thought 'Yea, tough talking, I love it' or 'sweet jesus, the president is a dangerous moron'.
Faaar more thought the latter.
The democrats have to run on taking power off Trump. They have to hammer that message home. They have to harness the hatred for and embarrassment of the man. If they do that, they'll take the house and stop the GOP taking a tighter grip of the Senate.
Then next year they can hold the senators feet to the fire and show the GOP up for what they are, just in time for the 2020 GE