|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 10:30:46 GMT
With what resources? All at the president’s disposal? The tens of millions of the most well armed part of the country that serves as his voting base? Or was he just a big narcissist baby who flailed around and mouthed off for a while and then left office at the exact time he was supposed to? How does the fact that trump is an imbecile make him any less of a threat to democracy? I reject the implications of your question, but even if I take them for argument’s sake, your question is puzzling. Hypothetically, would you rather have a very smart antagonist threatening you or a very dumb one? |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,482
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 19, 2024 12:21:47 GMT
How does the fact that trump is an imbecile make him any less of a threat to democracy? I reject the implications of your question, but even if I take them for argument’s sake, your question is puzzling. Hypothetically, would you rather have a very smart antagonist threatening you or a very dumb one? Stupidity is far more dangerous in dicey situations than cunningness. What's that proverb of yours (Americans)? I think it goes like this: "Fools rush in where wise men fear to trade." or something like that. Anyway, that fits trump like a glove and it's very dangerous, indeed. Who would you rather see with a gun in their hands pointing it in your direction? A grown man aware of the consequences of his actions or a kid who thinks he's handling a toy? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 12:24:18 GMT
I reject the implications of your question, but even if I take them for argument’s sake, your question is puzzling. Hypothetically, would you rather have a very smart antagonist threatening you or a very dumb one? Stupidity is far more dangerous in dicey situations than cunningness. What's that proverb of yours (Americans)? I think it goes like this: "Fools rush in where wise men fear to trade." or something like that. Anyway, that fits trump like a glove and it's very dangerous, indeed. Who would you rather see with a gun in their hands pointing it in your direction? A grown man aware of the consequences of his actions or a kid who thinks he's handling a toy? I see. Intelligence is a detriment for the evil people, in your opinion. Stupidity is more correlated to successful accomplishment of evil plans. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,480
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2024 12:41:32 GMT
Yeah, just because Donny tried to overturn the 2020 election doesn't mean he's a threat to democracy.  With what resources? All at the president’s disposal? The tens of millions of the most well armed part of the country that serves as his voting base? Or was he just a big narcissist baby who flailed around and mouthed off for a while and then left office at the exact time he was supposed to? Pick up the rifle, Fobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 12:49:09 GMT
With what resources? All at the president’s disposal? The tens of millions of the most well armed part of the country that serves as his voting base? Or was he just a big narcissist baby who flailed around and mouthed off for a while and then left office at the exact time he was supposed to? Pick up the rifle, Fobbit. Completely irrelevant response. It makes no sense. My point was that the far more heavily armed part of the population DIDN’T raise arms for the person they voted for, and weren’t asked to. And your response is some lame attempt to be Clint Eastwood or Leonidas or something. It’s just pure cringe. Calm yourself down. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,480
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2024 14:10:46 GMT
Pick up the rifle, Fobbit. Completely irrelevant response. It makes no sense. My point was that the far more heavily armed part of the population DIDN’T raise arms for the person they voted for, and weren’t asked to. And your response is some lame attempt to be Clint Eastwood or Leonidas or something. It’s just pure cringe. Calm yourself down. The expected response from a guy who never went north. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 14:39:44 GMT
Completely irrelevant response. It makes no sense. My point was that the far more heavily armed part of the population DIDN’T raise arms for the person they voted for, and weren’t asked to. And your response is some lame attempt to be Clint Eastwood or Leonidas or something. It’s just pure cringe. Calm yourself down. The expected response from a guy who never went north. Who would care about your baseless accusations? |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,482
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 19, 2024 15:06:58 GMT
Stupidity is far more dangerous in dicey situations than cunningness. What's that proverb of yours (Americans)? I think it goes like this: "Fools rush in where wise men fear to trade." or something like that. Anyway, that fits trump like a glove and it's very dangerous, indeed. Who would you rather see with a gun in their hands pointing it in your direction? A grown man aware of the consequences of his actions or a kid who thinks he's handling a toy? I see. Intelligence is a detriment for the evil people, in your opinion. Stupidity is more correlated to successful accomplishment of evil plans. "Success" is a relative term. A stupid man may not accomplish his goals but in the end, the result could be more evil than he expected. Just like the kid who pulls the trigger on you may not have anticipated that his "toy" was in fact a deadly weapon. I thought I made myself clear. Could you tell me why you failed to understand my simple analogy? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 15:18:34 GMT
I see. Intelligence is a detriment for the evil people, in your opinion. Stupidity is more correlated to successful accomplishment of evil plans. "Success" is a relative term. A stupid man may not accomplish his goals but in the end, the result could be more evil than he expected. Just like the kid who pulls the trigger on you may not have anticipated that his "toy" was in fact a deadly weapon. I thought I made myself clear. Could you tell me why you failed to understand my simple analogy? I just think that’s a poorly thought through generalization. Certainly at acute moments, stupid evil could be worse. But generally, intelligent evil is obviously more dangerous. But whatever. I’m sure you’ll call me names or something now. Go for it. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,482
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 19, 2024 15:51:04 GMT
"Success" is a relative term. A stupid man may not accomplish his goals but in the end, the result could be more evil than he expected. Just like the kid who pulls the trigger on you may not have anticipated that his "toy" was in fact a deadly weapon. I thought I made myself clear. Could you tell me why you failed to understand my simple analogy? I just think that’s a poorly thought through generalization. Certainly at acute moments, stupid evil could be worse. But generally, intelligent evil is obviously more dangerous. But whatever. I’m sure you’ll call me names or something now. Go for it. Well, you are obviously under the delusion that using terms like "poorly thought through" makes you appear intelligent and that it fails to register in people's minds as a "calling of people's names". I am more direct and less underhanded than you in that area. Let's face it rabbit, you are not a clever person. That's why you resort to tricks, and always the same ones. One of the few tricks you use is to basically say "I am not calling you names, I am just baselessly calling your "thinking" "poor", which amounts to the same but may fool my audience into thinking that I have depths." Another one of the tricks is to fail to get someone's analogy (purposely or not) and instead make fun of a strawman which you do all the time. When I am calling you names, I am essentially saying that in fewer words. Can you blame me for that? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 16:10:47 GMT
I just think that’s a poorly thought through generalization. Certainly at acute moments, stupid evil could be worse. But generally, intelligent evil is obviously more dangerous. But whatever. I’m sure you’ll call me names or something now. Go for it. Well, you are obviously under the delusion that using terms like "poorly thought through" makes you appear intelligent and that it fails to register in people's minds as a "calling of people's names". No. I don’t think using words like “poorly thought through” makes me appear particularly intelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 19, 2024 16:17:38 GMT
One thing we don't agree on: I believe there is something to fear from illiberal rhetoric potentially weakening support for the republic. The idea that being concerned that a loss of faith in elections/institutions is adolescent is silly when we consider how liberty and liberalism is in retreat all over the world, while authoritarianism marches on. One could also say that the notion that we are immune or somehow special, and can flirt with this danger without fear, could also be said to be adolescent. Yes, the context of the "enemy within" statement was about election day chaos, and Trump even addressed that in his response, dismissing it and focusing instead on how he sees the "far left" as the real threat. Later on in the interview Trump expands on just who he means by the enemy within, and it is not immigrants or protestors or sedition LARPERs. It is Democrats like Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton: www.mediaite.com/analysis/what-exactly-did-trump-say-about-adam-schiff-and-the-enemy-within/When you look at whole exchange, it is clear that Trump is flirting with the idea of using the military against his political opposition, not in the context of a riot, but in some unspecified context. We can try to sane wash Trump and pretend he's talking about sending the military in to restore order during an election, but we know he's talking about targeting the left, not MAGA. So uncharitable with a narcissist who often just blathers on, often as disjointed stream of conscious. The discussion was about Election Day and, by obvious implication, hypothetical riots. He was President. There were no episodes of using the military against political opposition. I’ll make you a bet. If Trump wins, I’ll bet that he murders fewer American citizens with the military than Obama did. And I’ll bet you $10,000 on that. I’m genuinely good for it. He calls Adam Schiff an enemy? Omg! I can’t believe he’s using that sort of rhetoric against politicians that have repeatedly made similar accusations againt him! “Sane-washing”? Cmon, Rinse. Even you have to see the irony in that. The question began in the context of election day riots but Trump made it clear he thought that wouldn't be an issue but rather pointed to the threat posed by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary. Do you think Hillary is going to be rioting on election day? Yes, you're sane-washing what he is saying for reasons unknown to me because this is basically the textbook definition of illiberalism- something we both ought to recognize and oppose given our shared interest in libertarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 19, 2024 16:33:12 GMT
How does the fact that trump is an imbecile make him any less of a threat to democracy? I reject the implications of your question, but even if I take them for argument’s sake, your question is puzzling. Hypothetically, would you rather have a very smart antagonist threatening you or a very dumb one? The idea that our democracy is threatened by actions undertaken by an organized and capable enemy is silly considering how powerful our government is. The real threat to democracy comes from a loss of faith. These political institutions are not materialistic such that liberal democracy lasts as long as the buildings, paper documents, and cloth flags resist invasion. No, the country is not the things themselves, it is the people and their relationship to the political process (how we feel about it); just as economic value is not embedded in substances or objects, but rather in the relation between those objects and valuing minds. The republic lives in our heads and it is as fragile as the ties that hold as together as a people. The threat to such an invisible order is not primarily from attack, it is from abandonment. Ultimately, our institutions are just shared norms and you don't need to be smart, or strong, or capable, or thoughtful, or powerful to damage norms. Stupidity is enough. If you're still not convinced, consider the case of central planners doing away with private property or capital markets or monetary exchange. Some naive person might say that the planning committee can't wreck the economy because they aren't strong enough or smart enough to do so but there are many dumb ways of gumming up and shrinking economic activity. This social destruction doesn't rely on skill or knowledge, rather it works best when these are most limited, and where ignorance reigns. What is true of economies is also true of nations and their political institutions. The threat to the unseen order is not from strength, or wisdom, but rather from pride and ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 18:43:51 GMT
So uncharitable with a narcissist who often just blathers on, often as disjointed stream of conscious. The discussion was about Election Day and, by obvious implication, hypothetical riots. He was President. There were no episodes of using the military against political opposition. I’ll make you a bet. If Trump wins, I’ll bet that he murders fewer American citizens with the military than Obama did. And I’ll bet you $10,000 on that. I’m genuinely good for it. He calls Adam Schiff an enemy? Omg! I can’t believe he’s using that sort of rhetoric against politicians that have repeatedly made similar accusations againt him! “Sane-washing”? Cmon, Rinse. Even you have to see the irony in that. The question began in the context of election day riots but Trump made it clear he thought that wouldn't be an issue but rather pointed to the threat posed by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary. Do you think Hillary is going to be rioting on election day? Yes, you're sane-washing what he is saying for reasons unknown to me because this is basically the textbook definition of illiberalism- something we both ought to recognize and oppose given our shared interest in libertarianism. So no take on the bet? In the same way you can better follow and interpret (or “sane wash” Walz’s “one man’s socialism is another man’s neighborliness”, I know not to try to take Trump’s disjointed thoughts literally as they spill out. They’re not connected. Trump is quite moderate on everything except for tariffs and immigration. I don’t even agree with him fully on those, yet I can see what he did in his first term and be comfortable betting that he’s not going to murder as many citizens with the military as Obama did. But marketing is marketing, I suppose. And we all sanewash these terrible people were provided as options. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 19, 2024 19:57:20 GMT
The question began in the context of election day riots but Trump made it clear he thought that wouldn't be an issue but rather pointed to the threat posed by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary. Do you think Hillary is going to be rioting on election day? Yes, you're sane-washing what he is saying for reasons unknown to me because this is basically the textbook definition of illiberalism- something we both ought to recognize and oppose given our shared interest in libertarianism. So no take on the bet? In the same way you can better follow and interpret (or “sane wash” Walz’s “one man’s socialism is another man’s neighborliness”, I know not to try to take Trump’s disjointed thoughts literally as they spill out. They’re not connected. Trump is quite moderate on everything except for tariffs and immigration. I don’t even agree with him fully on those, yet I can see what he did in his first term and be comfortable betting that he’s not going to murder as many citizens with the military as Obama did. But marketing is marketing, I suppose. And we all sanewash these terrible people were provided as options. I don't know what to make of the bet, it seems unconnected to anything we are discussing. Trump is also not moderate on the peaceful transfer of power. And that's kind of a big deal. That's not marketing, it's just a straight read of the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 20:06:43 GMT
So no take on the bet? In the same way you can better follow and interpret (or “sane wash” Walz’s “one man’s socialism is another man’s neighborliness”, I know not to try to take Trump’s disjointed thoughts literally as they spill out. They’re not connected. Trump is quite moderate on everything except for tariffs and immigration. I don’t even agree with him fully on those, yet I can see what he did in his first term and be comfortable betting that he’s not going to murder as many citizens with the military as Obama did. But marketing is marketing, I suppose. And we all sanewash these terrible people were provided as options. I don't know what to make of the bet, it seems unconnected to anything we are discussing. Trump is also not moderate on the peaceful transfer of power. And that's kind of a big deal. That's not marketing, it's just a straight read of the facts. Power was peacefully transferred. Right on schedule. That’s a fact too. How do you not understand the bet? You’re worried about Trump using the military against the American people. Harris and Walz are too! |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 19, 2024 20:09:29 GMT
I don't know what to make of the bet, it seems unconnected to anything we are discussing. Trump is also not moderate on the peaceful transfer of power. And that's kind of a big deal. That's not marketing, it's just a straight read of the facts. Power was peacefully transferred. Right on schedule. I think that statement needs an asterisk because quite a bit of violence and fraud was involved. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 20:10:25 GMT
Power was peacefully transferred. Right on schedule. I think that statement needs an asterisk because quite a bit of violence and fraud was involved. Facts are facts. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 19, 2024 20:16:08 GMT
I think that statement needs an asterisk because quite a bit of violence and fraud was involved. Facts are facts. Exactly. it wasn't peaceful or free, even if we got to the same outcome in the end. If a cop stops a thief and the property is returned, we don't get to pretend nothing happened. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 20:40:40 GMT
Exactly. it wasn't peaceful or free, even if we got to the same outcome in the end. If a cop stops a thief and the property is returned, we don't get to pretend nothing happened. Sounds “dumb and paranoid” that just because Trump was president when January 6th happened that he is responsible. |
|
