Behind his back they laugh at him
I don’t think Bloomberg should be running, let alone elected, but he is in a good position to give Trump what he dishes out.
Trump knows that’s true and he hates it.
Tip Jar
I don’t think Bloomberg should be running, let alone elected, but he is in a good position to give Trump what he dishes out.
Trump knows that’s true and he hates it.
I hope Bloomberg doesn’t get sucked too far into Trump’s stupid little WWE flame war. He’s been trying to provoke him for months, I think a better strategy would be to just let Trump drown himself in his own vomit.
I wish Hillary would run again, I think she’d slam dunk him.
Ideally the Democrats should have (1) a nominee who stays mostly “above the fray” and focuses on issues that affect voters; and (2) many surrogates who mercilessly attack Trump and expose his shortcomings.
Bloomberg could be effective in that second role, assuming he doesn’t stalk off in a snit if he doesn’t like the nominee (e.g. Sanders).
How did Sanders “stalk off in a snit” when he lost the nomination? From what I have heard, he stumped heavily for Clinton when she defeated his bid. Heavier than she did for Obama when he defeated her in the election before that one, too.
@Holms #3,
Did Screechy Monkey say that about Sanders?
You’re right, I misunderstood the bracketed aside.
I still think stooping to Trump’s level of insults and mocking is the wrong strategy. The image he has created for himself is one of profound contempt for people, and by all accounts he’s a narcissist with a deep inferiority complex. I don’t find these admirable qualities. The Post has a good article that points out the effects >>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/school-bullying-trump-words/
Some role model huh…
People need to not play his game by his rules, it’s a losing strategy.
Her’s another example of the Trump effect, this confrontation is unnecessary. Trump even retweeted this showing his approval. This is the Trump political landscape, bullying on both sides, gaslighting, taunting. It’s sick.
https://twitter.com/RealJohnDennis/status/1224463149409030145
Pelosi is no better, she has taken Trump’s bait and swallowed the hook also.
Pelosi is vastly better.
She tries, but she is so very pissed off…
Dennis can’t win that seat anyway, the 12th district hasn’t gone R since the 80’s.
Nonsense. There is no comparison between Trump and Pelosi.
I’m not going to argue that Pelosi is not vastly better than Trump, but I will argue that she has been baited into playing his game, by his rules. Her retaliation has been affected by his constant taunting and baiting, and I wish she would not be sucked in to his BS.
I would have preferred to see her, rather than rip up his state of the union speech in anger, call a press conference and take issue with it point by point, complete with fact checking, and showing where she disagrees with him and why. The speech ripping was dramatic, and justifiable in my mind, but it shows how he has gotten under her skin.
twiliter, I don’t think you’re being fair to Pelosi. To ask someone not to express an angry emotion and do something like tearing up the speech when you have been the target of such vicious, malignant bile for so long is to ask her to be something less than human. And there is NO comparison between tearing up a speech and the things Trump is doing.
As someone who has been the subject of ugly bile throughout my life, I think she was remarkably restrained. Quit blaming people for getting justifiably angry. Yes, the voters may hate it. Yes, they may think it petty. But in this case, the voters may be wrong.
To many, anger in a woman is unacceptable. But it is justifiable in many cases. And if you think tearing up a speech is stooping to Trump’s level, fine. But I believe it is so far and above what Trump would have done in the same circumstance as to be viewable from Trumpland only with a telescope – a powerful one.
I would agree that others should not do or emulate what Trump does. Instead, they should highlight what Trump says and does. Hold a mirror up to him. Not that he’ll care, but others might, if it’s hammered home enough. To quote the Ghost of Christmas Past, “These are the shadows of things that have been. That they are what they are, do not blame me!”
I think an effective strategy would be to constantly quote Trump, using his own words (and actions) against him. Simply repeating the illegality, bile and stupidity that he spews (with a little context and a minimum of editorialization added) would not be stooping to his level but holding him to account for what he has said and done. Quoting his sleazy awfulness is an act of civic memory and accountability, not sleazy awfulness in itself. I can see it now, adds featuring people in hazmat suits quoting Trump’s Toxic Tweet of the Day, analyzing how its contents are illegal, incorrect, bullying, boorish or all of the above. Given the volume of his output over the three years of his occupation of the Oval Office, there’s enough material to run a feature like this every hour, without a repeat, for YEARS.
Stripping away the idea that Trump’s behaviour is “normal” or “usual” would help break down the concept that “Trump being Trump” is something that anyone should put up with or accept.
Well, OB and iknklast, I do see your points. I think Pelosi is very angry, and very justifiably so, and no I don’t begrudge her that. I think it’s more my disgust at the political climate that Trump has almost single handedly created. It is unfair of me to think Pelosi would be immune to all the toxic shit Trump has thrown her way, you’re right, and I agree she has shown remarkable constraint, more than I could have managed. I sure don’t like what he’s done in terms of making the public dialogue so nasty and focused on personal attacks, I think it’s unnecessarily ugly, and I would hope people see it for what it is and resist responding in kind, because that’s what he wants more than anything, to bring people down to his level so he can point at them and say ‘look, they’re just as bad as I am’, which they are certainly not.
Thanks for your views, I’m a little angry too and I’m sure I get things wrong sometimes. :)
Not Bruce, I agree, the normalization is what I don’t like. As if every disagreement calls for a personal attack, or an extreme response. I just don’t like the way it’s going at all.
This isn’t all that new; it’s been around for some time. Charlie Hebdo and Salman Rushdie could certainly comment on that. It’s also become the norm in trans-activism, in intersectionality in general, and in the cancel culture. I think the only new thing is the move to politics. Trump has been steeped in the world of moral purity for some time, and when that combined with his massive ego and his sense that he is the most stable genius in the world, as well as the biggests, bestest deal maker, I think an explosion was inevitable.
I have disagreed with some stand of every single politician I have ever voted for. I think it calls for a decision matrix, where you note what you agree with, possibly weight them by importance, and then compare. For people who don’t know how to do this, there are actually websites that will do it for you. There are some issues that are deal killers, such as I wouldn’t vote for a global warming denier or an anti-vaxxer unless they were up against a worse global warming denier or anti-vaxxer who had deplorable views on everything else…but a world of meaning hides in that unless. Given a good choice of candidates, I can avoid the global warming denier/flat earther/anti-vaxxer. Given them and a candidate like Trump, I don’t know…I think it would depend on what their position in the government is, and what power they have to effect outcomes. (Pardon if I used the wrong affect or effect – that is probably my biggest bugbear grammatically, other than my decades long inability to spell bureaucracy – thank you, spell check.)
“It’s also become the norm in trans-activism, in intersectionality in general, and in the cancel culture. I think the only new thing is the move to politics.”
There has always been mudslinging in politics, but the normalization and frequency of personal insults in particular, that are completely impertinent to any issue is a new thing, like in the last 5 years or so? It used to be pretty rare, or at least more hidden. I do see it in trans activism, it’s pretty malignant there. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still see personal insults as an example of faulty reasoning skill. Not that name calling isn’t effective in some situations, but I sure don’t think it should be the new normal.
I definitely agree with this. What’s so astonishing to me is how many people consider insults to be arguments! And memes to be arguments. And t-shirts. “Okay Boomer” is not a counter argument. “Pencil-neck” is not an argument. It is schoolyard politics, with the bullying and pushing and infantile remarks that are bad on a playground, but alarming beyond measure when adults in charge of nuclear-armed countries do it.
Saw a sign in my neighborhood: Any Functioning Adult 2020. I want one.
@iknklast #18,
Either one could be correct, but they do have different meanings. Affect is mean altering the outcome, and effect means causing it.