Why Trump Will Win Again

Feb 2010
16,809
7,194
Where'm I At, Doe?
The same tired old talking points. If your complaint is military spending, that's one thing. When you introduce a parade of horribles about the planet dying and being mired in perpetual war, I am correct to accuse you of being devoid of historical context. What we have now is paradise compared to the way it would be if we were perpetually "at war" in any major sense. The involvement we have in the middle east is nothing like what our major wars throughout history have been.


But historically speaking we are not oh-so-much worse off right now than in generations past. The rhetoric you're buying into likes to catastrophize everything because that mobilizes votes.


“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Oh, if all you're saying is that we're superficially better off today than when we were dying by the millions in world wars, that's obvious. I wasn't sure if you were getting at something more subtle than that. That doesn't mean we should ignore all the massive problems that face us. They're very different in nature than the problems that faced us a half century ago, and if we ignore them because on the face of it we seem to be better off from day to day . . . well, we're ignoring the warnings of the scientific community, for one thing. We're also ignoring common sense, which indicates that massive debt and usurious military spending has never ended well for any culture indulging in it. Your insistence on ignoring that because, look, we've moved past trench warfare, isn't very impressive to me.
 
Feb 2011
16,788
5,954
Boise, ID
Oh, if all you're saying is that we're superficially better off today than when we were dying by the millions in world wars, that's obvious. I wasn't sure if you were getting at something more subtle than that. That doesn't mean we should ignore all the massive problems that face us. They're very different in nature than the problems that faced us a half century ago, and if we ignore them because on the face of it we seem to be better off from day to day. . . well, we're ignoring the warnings of the scientific community, for one thing. We're also ignoring common sense, which indicates that massive debt and usurious military spending has never ended well for any culture indulging in it. Your insistence on ignoring that because, look, we've moved past trench warfare, isn't very impressive to me.
Bad job of comprehending what I'm saying. I am criticizing the exaggeration and catastrophizing of our current concerns for political rhetoric purposes. Nowhere did I recommend ignoring anything.
It's a bit like Fox News. Nothing to see here, because poor people have cell phones and working refrigerators.

Yeah, I've heard that one too.
You're characterizing this as one extreme or the other. Either we're perpetually "at war" and the planet is dying and the poor are under attack and the rich are oppressing us all and we're all about to die, or there's literally no problems because poor people have cell phones? Neither of these is the case. People can be spun up (and spin themselves up) into a mass delusion that they're under attack and must take up arms or start rioting and burning or whatever. The more people believe the overdramatized rhetoric, the more extremist they will be in their political views and, eventually, their behavior.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Feb 2010
16,809
7,194
Where'm I At, Doe?
Bad job of comprehending what I'm saying. I am criticizing the exaggeration and catastrophizing of our current concerns for political rhetoric purposes. Nowhere did I recommend ignoring anything.



You're characterizing this as one extreme or the other. Either we're perpetually "at war" and the planet is dying and the poor are under attack and the rich are oppressing us all and we're all about to die, or there's literally no problems because poor people have cell phones? Neither of these is the case. People can be spun up (and spin themselves up) into a mass delusion that convinces them it's time to take up arms or start rioting or whatever. The more people believe the overdramatized rhetoric, the more extremist they will be in their political views and, eventually, their behavior.
okie doke. you seem to have equivocated your way to a soft mealy mush that I have no real issue with, except your presumption that i am acting on behalf of "political rhetoric purposes" that you have not disclosed.
 
Feb 2011
16,788
5,954
Boise, ID
okie doke. you seem to have equivocated your way to a soft mealy mush that I have no real issue with, except your presumption that i am acting on behalf of "political rhetoric purposes" that you have not disclosed.
I didn't "equivocate my way" to anything, I'm saying essentially the same thing now as I did in post 180, which is that exaggerating/catastrophizing of issues inflames more extremist types of views. I just had to repeat myself several times before it seems like that point became understood.

Note that the reason this ties back to the thread topic, which is "Why Trump will win," is because extremists are unpredictable. They might do something like, for example, refuse to vote for the nominee and write in Bernie Sanders, splitting the vote and ensuring four more years of Trump. Or they might be effective at persuading candidates in the primaries that to win over the far left factions of the base, the winner will need to out-radical the others in terms of the reach and outlandishness of their proposals, which gives Trump ammunition against them later.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Feb 2010
16,809
7,194
Where'm I At, Doe?
I didn't "equivocate my way" to anything, I'm saying essentially the same thing now as I did in post 180, which is that exaggerating/catastrophizing of issues inflames more extremist types of views. I just had to repeat myself several times before it seems like that point became understood.

Note that the reason this ties back to the thread topic, which is "Why Trump will win," is because extremists are unpredictable. They might do something like, for example, refuse to vote for the nominee and write in Bernie Sanders, splitting the vote and ensuring four more years of Trump.
I think what it comes down to is that i believe some of the facts i've cited--$22 trillion debt, a trillion dollars a year in wasteful military spending, skyrocketing healtcare, education, and real estate costs, extremely dire reports about the climate from the scientific community--are cause for significant alarm, and you do not. I also think ignoring these problems is part of the reason Trump will win again, and you don't. You think chicken-little extremists will be to blame.

Your position is clear, and mine is too.

Your predictions about write-in votes and Democratic defectors are also quite valid. There is an excellent chance that will happen.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
16,788
5,954
Boise, ID
I think what it comes down to is that some of the facts i've cited--$22 trillion debt, a trillion dollars a year in wasteful military spending, skyrocketing healtcare, education, and real estate costs, extremely dire reports about the climate from the scientific community--are cause for significant alarm, and you do not. I also think ignoring these problems is part of the reason Trump will win again, and you don't. You think chicken-little extremists will be to blame.
Extremism would be associated with extremes, e.g. one side overly catastrophizing the issue, and the other completely denying and ignoring it. Both could have warped views about the reality, which contributes to polarization and deadlock.

I think you're trying to pick a fight about the issues while I have been making a simple point about the drawbacks of relative extremism compared to relative centrism.
 
Feb 2010
16,809
7,194
Where'm I At, Doe?
Extremism would be associated with extremes, e.g. one side overly catastrophizing the issue, and the other completely denying and ignoring it. Both could have warped views about the reality, which contributes to polarization and deadlock.

I think you're trying to pick a fight about the issues while I have been making a simple point about the drawbacks of relative extremism compared to relative centrism.
The subtext of what you're saying seems to be that if I "catastrophize" and "exaggerate" these issues--I think I'm just retaining something of the tone of the IPCC report and reacting proportionately to these other striking statistics but OK--then Trump may be re-elected as a result. Is the prospect of Trump's re-election not a "catastrophe" in your mind?
 
Feb 2011
16,788
5,954
Boise, ID
The subtext of what you're saying seems to be that if I "catastrophize" and "exaggerate" these issues--I think I'm just retaining something of the tone of the IPCC report and the tenor of some of these other striking statistics but OK--then Trump may be re-elected as a result. Is the prospect of Trump's re-election not a "catastrophe" in your mind?
No, Trump's re-election wouldn't in and of itself be a "catastrophe." Nuclear war would be a catastrophe. Complete economic collapse would be a catastrophe. Four more years of mainstream media circus would not in and of itself be a "catastrophe" compared to those things.

If Trump is truly in and of himself a "catastrophe," what exactly is that catastrophe? Just that he's a Republican? He was an anti-Koch Republican the GOP establishment did not want. So that's not it. Because his tweets are a national embarrassment? That's not a "catastrophe." Because he's destroying the economy? Well not exactly, at least at this point. The economic indicators are not catastrophic since his election. But is the economy about to collapse? Who knows? That requires a very bold prediction that I doubt you are I are so prescient to be able to make. Is it because he's a populist that disrupts global stability? That's a more interesting possibility, but it hasn't resulted in any actual real world catastrophe. Would it, with another 4 years? That requires another very bold speculative prediction. Maybe Trump creates a higher risk of catastrophic destabilization, but if Trump were really a catastrophe waiting to happen, wouldn't more of society be in emergency management mode, stockpiling supplies and so forth?

The more anyone feeds into their respective side's exaggerative rhetoric, the more it perpetuates tribalist thinking that is detached from reality, and the more it promotes extremist attitudes, including some who work themselves up into such a state of agitation that they've decided they'd be happy to set things ablaze (at least figuratively, sometimes literally), because they think hell, at least setting it ablaze will cause something to change. These attitudes, which are motivated by mythical or delusional thoughts and feelings about horrible society and/or government are, are not good for the country.