Trump vs. Biden

[Boogie man]

I included all of your posts precisely to get a more complete picture. I agree that there is some context missing, as I didn't quote those folks to whom you were responding. However, the most important component was your own words. I did read the context when I was commenting, however.

You're right, there are "lotta assumptions", but they're spoken plainly to give you a chance to clarify. To me, that is a great gift. Better to plainly speak my assessment and allow you to clarify than to assume and not open myself up to correction.

I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do. I just wanted to respond to your posts because I saw in them hurt and discomfort.

Alright.

In some ways, Biden's role is taken for granted. Let me give you an analogy:

Suppose I were to offer you the choice between (1) a hog-liver sandwich on stale bread, and (2) a pint of human excrement. You have to eat one. We could certainly spend some time talking about what sorts of condiments are on the sandwich, or about why the corn kernels in the shit are actually a good source of fiber, but I'd be much more compelled to speak about the dangers of eating human excrement. That choice truly is more about avoiding eating shit than the merits of that particular sandwich.

Now, this isn't to say that Trump is human shit or that Biden is some gross sandwich. But, I want to make clear that some choices are such that it is less about what you're for and more about what you're against. How many times have you been in a group and said "I'm OK with anything but seafood" or something similar. It's not abnormal or wrong. But, were I a Trump supporter my goal would be to shift the discussion away from Trump and toward Biden, and I would make similar claims about how this thread "isn't doing it right." Your actions, while perhaps intended differently, are very similar to strategic actions taken by supporters of the president to his benefit. And they aren't generally received favorably because they aren't really germane to the choice. "You shouldn't only talk about why human shit is bad for you...in fact, the science is sort of dubious on that. We really need to be talking about how liver is harmful as well. You are all just echoing each other!" You're essentially talking down to us and criticizing the way we are contributing to this thread collectively even though we aren't coordinating our efforts or doing anything other than behaving as intelligent, reasonable individuals.

Wow. What an analogy. Dare I say... I disagree with the analogy!

See, there is the assumption that the frequent posters here are "intelligent, reasonable individuals." Yet, from saying that, you follow up with:

It isn't that I'm turning a blind eye to Biden. As a part of my efforts phone-banking for him, I've become more familiar with his policies and generally agree with his agenda. But I would have done the same for any of the candidates running in the primary.

This is the good part. Though I stand by my view that all candidates ought to be criticized. Especially on a public thread with such a neutral premise as simply "Trump v Biden."

Anyway, I was really referring to this follow-up:

How would this thread be less of an echo-chamber without contributions from folks like you? You're asking us to speak differently about things, and I wonder why that is? Aren't you making assumptions about us in that suggestion? As though we are doing ourselves a disservice by advocating in a way we'd prefer? I'm not trying to echo anyone.

Obama may have not been unifying, but Trump absolutely isn't. And while Trump wasn't an accident, I think you're making some big assumptions about why/how he was elected. While the establishment isn't ideal, Trump has shown himself to be worse. He's corrupt to the core, and acts almost (or maybe always) exclusively in self-interest.

Yikes!

I think there is opportunity for contributions to this thread by pro-Trump posters, but the harsh reality is that they will face criticism. It's only natural when you have a lopsided group of posters that those on one side will feel ganged-up on and attacked. But in truth, it's simply a matter of a collection of individuals independently reacting to ideas with which they disagree. Each of us has a right to be critical of "bad" ideas and to comment on them. I'm not sure how we could change that without some top-down planning, which would be even worse.

You deem Trump to be "corrupt to the core, and act(ing) almost (or maybe always) exclusively in self-interest."

But Biden gets the pass because you generally agree with his agenda. Are you aware that Trump and Biden have overlapping agenda points? I'm telling you, this is why you will not find yourself in an open dialogue with others who disagree with your viewpoint. To claim that negatively obsessing (that's what it looks like) about Trump (let's say about 90% of this thread, no?) and think that this is intelligent or reasonable when discussing two candidates for the presidency seems anything but. You come across as reasonable and polite, but just as you doubt my intentions, I doubt yours. You are not being critical of Trump. A more correct way of describing is that you have condemned Trump. He already is irredeemable to the frequent posters on this thread. This makes it not open for dialogue. The tone is set, the stage ready, the actors are decided.

You also say that "I think you're making some big assumptions about why/how he was elected." The only thing I mentioned was that it was not because of race. You know why? Because there is simply no evidence for it. This isn't some big assumption. It's rather funny, but it is more of an assumption to assume that my statement there was a big assumption. Oh boy! What a sentence.

To close, I will echo something you said, but change the wording a little:
Were I behaving as an intelligent, reasonable individual, my goal would be to shift the discussion away from speaking nigh exclusively about Trump and instead offer constructive critique to both Trump and Biden and their voters, and I would make similar claims about how this thread "isn't doing it right."
As it stands, I see no constructive critique happening in regards to politics in this thread. And this is not because you favor one over the other - which is what would be normal and expected - but it's because one is deemed irredeemably corrupt to the core, and the other isn't. The self-righteousness in this belief is misplaced, especially when the topic is called "Trump vs Biden." This threat seems to pretend that Trump did not accomplish a single good thing. Or that, if he did, it must have been out of malice! This is just unrealistic. Me finding this thread is like an atheist stumbling into church. Oopsie Daisy! I knocked over the wine.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oopsie Daisy! I knocked over the wine.

here ya go

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm not claiming one thing or the other about you, but I think being open and honest about your preferences is one of the first steps toward establishing good dialogue with others on the internet in these times.

I would think so, yes. That would help with me, for sure.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

And this is not because you favor one over the other - which is what would be normal and expected - but it's because one is deemed irredeemably corrupt to the core, and the other isn't.

And yet, you also criticized me for criticizing both sides (that is, both politicians).

 

[batteries included]

Biden has the advantage of a full Trump term to criticize. So that's good, but unfortunately Trump has a debating "style" that could be used to counter any points made by the former VP. Just want to make clear that I'm firmly anti-Trump. I'm also a pretty firm pessimist (in what is able to sway voters).

Would be delighted to be proven wrong of course.

 

[ceecee]

lol

 

[batteries included]

What would your version of intelligence be, then, Boogie man?

 

[Jonny]

You deem Trump to be "corrupt to the core, and act(ing) almost (or maybe always) exclusively in self-interest."

But Biden gets the pass because you generally agree with his agenda.

This is incorrect. It's not because I agree with Biden's agenda that he "gets a pass." It's because by and large he is a typical politician and behaves as a normal person does. Trump, on the other hand, is an exceptionally poor person for the job, in character, in temperament, in aptitude. For example:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

-James Mattis, Defense Secretary under Donald Trump

I agree with [James Mattis]. There is a concern, I think an awful big concern, that the partisanship has gotten out of hand, the tribal thing has gotten out of hand. He's quite a man, Jim Mattis, and for him to do that tells you where he is relative to the concern he has for our country.

- John Kelly, White House chief of staff under Donald Trump

Like many Americans, I had hoped that Donald Trump, once in office, would soberly accept the burdens of the presidency — foremost among them the duty to keep America safe. But he did not rise to the challenge. Instead, the president has governed by whim, political calculation and self-interest.

-Miles Taylor, DHS chief of staff under Donald Trump

I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist. He is a conman. He is a cheat.

-Michael Cohen, personal attorney for Donald Trump

...fraud was not just the family business — it was a way of life.

-Mary Trump (Donald Trump's niece)

He has no principles.

Donald is cruel.

You can’t trust him.

… reform school. I drove him around New York City to get him into college. He ended up in Fordham. I got him in somehow before I had any real Catholic roots. I mean, I didn’t get him in, but I know he didn’t get into college. And he went to Fordham for one year and then he got into University of Pennsylvania, because he had somebody take the exams and cheat.

-Maryanne Trump Barry (Donald Trump's sister)

I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

-Donald Trump
​

Are you aware that Trump and Biden have overlapping agenda points?

Yes.

I'm telling you, this is why you will not find yourself in an open dialogue with others who disagree with your viewpoint. To claim that negatively obsessing (that's what it looks like) about Trump (let's say about 90% of this thread, no?) and think that this is intelligent or reasonable when discussing two candidates for the presidency seems anything but.

Again, you are welcome to contribute to the conversation from another viewpoint. I've told you this on multiple occasions, and you have thus far declined to participate. You care more about criticizing the participants of this thread than discussing the merits of either Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

You come across as reasonable and polite, but just as you doubt my intentions, I doubt yours. You are not being critical of Trump. A more correct way of describing is that you have condemned Trump. He already is irredeemable to the frequent posters on this thread. This makes it not open for dialogue. The tone is set, the stage ready, the actors are decided.

You say you doubt my intentions. Why don't you try to present what you think my intentions actually are, and I can provide clarity if you care to have it. You're right in that Trump is at this point irredeemable to me and some others who post here. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that position, and it doesn't preclude participation in a thread about Trump vs. Biden. Anyone is welcome to provide information from another view point.

You also say that "I think you're making some big assumptions about why/how he was elected." The only thing I mentioned was that it was not because of race. You know why? Because there is simply no evidence for it. This isn't some big assumption. It's rather funny, but it is more of an assumption to assume that my statement there was a big assumption. Oh boy! What a sentence.

Perhaps I read more into your statement about Trump's election than I should have. Based on the context of that paragraph, I took your words to imply something more meaningful about Trump's election. If not, I stand corrected.

To close, I will echo something you said, but change the wording a little:
Were I behaving as an intelligent, reasonable individual, my goal would be to shift the discussion away from speaking nigh exclusively about Trump and instead offer constructive critique to both Trump and Biden and their voters, and I would make similar claims about how this thread "isn't doing it right."
As it stands, I see no constructive critique happening in regards to politics in this thread. And this is not because you favor one over the other - which is what would be normal and expected - but it's because one is deemed irredeemably corrupt to the core, and the other isn't. The self-righteousness in this belief is misplaced, especially when the topic is called "Trump vs Biden." This threat seems to pretend that Trump did not accomplish a single good thing. Or that, if he did, it must have been out of malice! This is just unrealistic. Me finding this thread is like an atheist stumbling into church. Oopsie Daisy! I knocked over the wine.

A debate doesn't require each participant to play both sides. Instead of leading by example and contributing to this thread as you describe, you continue to proselytize. You say you feel like an atheist stumbling into a church. Well I feel like I'm sitting at a bar talking with other patrons over a glass of cider, and you've come in and started talking about how cider isn't real alcohol, and that we're "not doing it right." You're free to order anything you'd like at the bar, but there's only so long I'm going to sit here politely and have you criticize our choices without ordering anything.

Nobody here claims Trump hasn't accomplished a single good thing, and you're welcome to discuss whatever you'd like along those lines.

 

[Boogie man]

And yet, you also criticized me for criticizing both sides (that is, both politicians).

Calling both parties "senile" is neither reasonable, nor intelligent, nor is it a fair and factual criticism. We have been over this before, your comment does not point to an inconsistency, if that was the intent.

 

[Boogie man]

This is incorrect. It's not because I agree with Biden's agenda that he "gets a pass." It's because by and large he is a typical politician and behaves as a normal person does. Trump, on the other hand, is an exceptionally poor person for the job, in character, in temperament, in aptitude. For example:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

-James Mattis, Defense Secretary under Donald Trump

I agree with [James Mattis]. There is a concern, I think an awful big concern, that the partisanship has gotten out of hand, the tribal thing has gotten out of hand. He's quite a man, Jim Mattis, and for him to do that tells you where he is relative to the concern he has for our country.

- John Kelly, White House chief of staff under Donald Trump

Like many Americans, I had hoped that Donald Trump, once in office, would soberly accept the burdens of the presidency — foremost among them the duty to keep America safe. But he did not rise to the challenge. Instead, the president has governed by whim, political calculation and self-interest.

-Miles Taylor, DHS chief of staff under Donald Trump

I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist. He is a conman. He is a cheat.

-Michael Cohen, personal attorney for Donald Trump

...fraud was not just the family business — it was a way of life.

-Mary Trump (Donald Trump's niece)

He has no principles.

Donald is cruel.

You can’t trust him.

… reform school. I drove him around New York City to get him into college. He ended up in Fordham. I got him in somehow before I had any real Catholic roots. I mean, I didn’t get him in, but I know he didn’t get into college. And he went to Fordham for one year and then he got into University of Pennsylvania, because he had somebody take the exams and cheat.

-Maryanne Trump Barry (Donald Trump's sister)

I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

-Donald Trump
​

Have you researched the negative claims about Biden by those who claim to have been close to him? They are about equally damning as the ones you listed (meaning that, all in all, those statements do not carry much weight.) From this list it is clear that Trump has made enemies. But when it comes to the truthfulness to these accusations? Racist? Deliberate effort in division? Alas, these words are taken at face value.

Yes.

Again, you are welcome to contribute to the conversation from another viewpoint. I've told you this on multiple occasions, and you have thus far declined to participate. You care more about criticizing the participants of this thread than discussing the merits of either Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

I have been trying to explain to you why you won't find someone who is willing to do such a thing here. The reason as I see it is that the current participants are not involved in discussing the merits of either Trump or Biden to begin with - even if you claim the opposite. What you ask of me is to initiate that discussion, rather than join it.

You say you doubt my intentions. Why don't you try to present what you think my intentions actually are, and I can provide clarity if you care to have it. You're right in that Trump is at this point irredeemable to me and some others who post here. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that position, and it doesn't preclude participation in a thread about Trump vs. Biden. Anyone is welcome to provide information from another view point.

That position has become the dominant view of this thread. It may have been from the start. This has been my objection - not that any individual cannot hold this position.

Perhaps I read more into your statement about Trump's election than I should have. Based on the context of that paragraph, I took your words to imply something more meaningful about Trump's election. If not, I stand corrected.

A debate doesn't require each participant to play both sides. Instead of leading by example and contributing to this thread as you describe, you continue to proselytize. You say you feel like an atheist stumbling into a church. Well I feel like I'm sitting at a bar talking with other patrons over a glass of cider, and you've come in and started talking about how cider isn't real alcohol, and that we're "not doing it right." You're free to order anything you'd like at the bar, but there's only so long I'm going to sit here politely and have you criticize our choices without ordering anything.

Indeed, there is no debate in this thread. It's a bar that exclusively serves cider but advertises to also sell beer. People who drink beer do not stay in bars that only serve cider. If anything, the few who wish to drink beer or anything else that isn't cider who stumble into this bar will feel deceived and will act accordingly. Instead of serving beer, you tell them to bring their own beer if they wish to drink here.

Metaphors are so much fun!

Nobody here claims Trump hasn't accomplished a single good thing, and you're welcome to discuss whatever you'd like along those lines.

You yourself claimed that he is corrupt to the core, and following that thought, even Trump's good actions will be seen in the light as if stemming from bad intent. Even the good, then, is the bad. Yet, his supposed "corrupt nature to the core" is not provable. This is where conversations come to die.

I shall go and drink my metaphorical wine elsewhere (not a fan of beer myself). Here's to good health!

 

[batteries included]

Calling both parties "senile" is neither reasonable, nor intelligent, nor is it a fair and factual criticism. We have been over this before, your comment does not point to an inconsistency, if that was the intent.

I mean, Trump could be senile, and best thing you could say about Biden is that he "appeared slightly less confused than last time."

 

[Jonny]

Have you researched the negative claims about Biden by those who claim to have been close to him? They are about equally damning as the ones you listed (meaning that, all in all, those statements do not carry much weight.) From this list it is clear that Trump has made enemies. But when it comes to the truthfulness to these accusations? Racist? Deliberate effort in division? Alas, these words are taken at face value.

And yet you provide no sources for these "negative claims about Biden." That is lazy and disingenuous. Furthermore, your characterization that "...it is clear that Trump has made enemies" is downplaying the significance of the names on that list to a major degree. Presumably his own sister and personal attorney know him well enough, no?

I have been trying to explain to you why you won't find someone who is willing to do such a thing here. The reason as I see it is that the current participants are not involved in discussing the merits of either Trump or Biden to begin with - even if you claim the opposite. What you ask of me is to initiate that discussion, rather than join it.

I'm asking you to be a participant in one side of the discussion, yet you refuse. I would be happy to have a balanced discussion with you if you'd like.

That position has become the dominant view of this thread. It may have been from the start. This has been my objection - not that any individual cannot hold this position.

I suspect the reason there isn't more pro-Trump sentiment in this thread is because the arguments in support of him don't have much merit, and his supporters are reduced to criticizing the discussion itself, as you do here. You're welcome to prove me wrong, or not. But your contributions to this thread have not been very useful.

Indeed, there is no debate in this thread. It's a bar that exclusively serves cider but advertises to also sell beer. People who drink beer do not stay in bars that only serve cider. If anything, the few who wish to drink beer or anything else that isn't cider who stumble into this bar will feel deceived and will act accordingly. Instead of serving beer, you tell them to bring their own beer if they wish to drink here.

No, it's a bar that serves all sorts of liquor, but rather than attempt to order you continue to sit on your high horse and criticize all of us. If you don't like the bar, then leave.

Metaphors are so much fun!

Agreed.

You yourself claimed that he is corrupt to the core, and following that thought, even Trump's good actions will be seen in the light as if stemming from bad intent. Even the good, then, is the bad. Yet, his supposed "corrupt nature to the core" is not provable. This is where conversations come to die.

Not everything everyone says has to be open to debate. You're right, the claim that he is corrupt to the core isn't empirically provable, but it's my opinion of the man based on observation. It doesn't follow that everything he does would be perceived as though it is from bad intent, however. He is still a human being and no doubt has some positive qualities, but there are some people who are, on the whole, "worse" than others.

I shall go and drink my metaphorical wine elsewhere (not a fan of beer myself). Here's to good health!

Take care. I hope you feel better soon.

Edit:
I'd like to add, in case you haven't noticed, that much of this thread is a general discussion about the state of the race itself. I often post analysis of polls here, as do others. This thread is basically a catch-all for the election. A dispassionate discussion about the pros and cons of each candidate isn't the only way to participate. But all you have contributed to this thread is a criticism of the discussion itself.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I was serious about starting over with that dude and having an argument in good faith. Oh well.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I always like the little fluff questions that the moderators ask at the end of the debates. Favorite ice cream, spit or swallow, best Neil Young period, that sort of thing. I'm curious if they'll ask them to say one nice thing about one another.

In all seriousness though, there are some hardball questions I'd like to see asked of both.

President Trump, citizens' faith in journalism and news media are arguably at an all time low. Many of your critics accuse you of stoking the fires of distrust when you make claims such as "fake news." Can you provide a factual case for your assertions of "fake news"? Provide at least 5 examples with citations.

Vice-President Biden, you have said you will reverse the recent reforms to Title IX. Some of your critics are concerned that doing so will eliminate or severely limit due process in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse and assault on university campuses. Can you elaborate on how you will reform Title IX in a manner that allows for greater consideration of victims' experiences whilst also preserving the constitutional rights to due process afforded to the accused?

President Trump, you have frequently brought up socialism when criticizing your opponent and democrats. In 500 words or less, please explain your understanding of socialism and explain exactly how your opponent is a socialist, as some of your supporters have alleged.

Vice-President Biden, You have mentioned institutional racism as something you want to end if elected President. Yet some of your critics have accused you of contributing to the very institutionalized racism you claim to oppose. When in positions of majority power, your party has been accused of speaking a lot on the issue but they have also been accused of doing little to remedy it when they have held majority power at both state and federal levels of government. Please detail how and when, in your distinguished career, you have fought to combat institutional racism, and why, if it has persisted until the present day, you have not done more in your career to fight what you claim to care so much about? If possible, explain what you will do as President to end it once and for all. (a follow up: what sort of reforms to police departments, assuming within your power, are you willing to make once inaugurated?)


Also, both need to be asked if they would sign a bill or enact an executive order to legalize or decriminalize cannabis, based on increasing support by voters for legalization. Trump doesn't seem interested, and Biden seems to doge this issue, but both need to be held to the fire on this

 

[Jonny]

I always like the little fluff questions that the moderators ask at the end of the debates. Favorite ice cream, spit or swallow, best Neil Young period, that sort of thing. I'm curious if they'll ask them to say one nice thing about one another.

lol, what?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

lol, what?

Fair and balanced. We ask the tough questions.

check the edit, I added some legit questions

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I included all of your posts precisely to get a more complete picture. I agree that there is some context missing, as I didn't quote those folks to whom you were responding. However, the most important component was your own words. I did read the context when I was commenting, however.

You're right, there are "lotta assumptions", but they're spoken plainly to give you a chance to clarify. To me, that is a great gift. Better to plainly speak my assessment and allow you to clarify than to assume and not open myself up to correction.

I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do. I just wanted to respond to your posts because I saw in them hurt and discomfort.

In some ways, Biden's role is taken for granted. Let me give you an analogy:

Suppose I were to offer you the choice between (1) a hog-liver sandwich on stale bread, and (2) a pint of human excrement. You have to eat one. We could certainly spend some time talking about what sorts of condiments are on the sandwich, or about why the corn kernels in the shit are actually a good source of fiber, but I'd be much more compelled to speak about the dangers of eating human excrement. That choice truly is more about avoiding eating shit than the merits of that particular sandwich.

Now, this isn't to say that Trump is human shit or that Biden is some gross sandwich. But, I want to make clear that some choices are such that it is less about what you're for and more about what you're against. How many times have you been in a group and said "I'm OK with anything but seafood" or something similar. It's not abnormal or wrong. But, were I a Trump supporter my goal would be to shift the discussion away from Trump and toward Biden, and I would make similar claims about how this thread "isn't doing it right." Your actions, while perhaps intended differently, are very similar to strategic actions taken by supporters of the president to his benefit. And they aren't generally received favorably because they aren't really germane to the choice. "You shouldn't only talk about why human shit is bad for you...in fact, the science is sort of dubious on that. We really need to be talking about how liver is harmful as well. You are all just echoing each other!" You're essentially talking down to us and criticizing the way we are contributing to this thread collectively even though we aren't coordinating our efforts or doing anything other than behaving as intelligent, reasonable individuals.

It isn't that I'm turning a blind eye to Biden. As a part of my efforts phone-banking for him, I've become more familiar with his policies and generally agree with his agenda. But I would have done the same for any of the candidates running in the primary.

How would this thread be less of an echo-chamber without contributions from folks like you? You're asking us to speak differently about things, and I wonder why that is? Aren't you making assumptions about us in that suggestion? As though we are doing ourselves a disservice by advocating in a way we'd prefer? I'm not trying to echo anyone.

Obama may have not been unifying, but Trump absolutely isn't. And while Trump wasn't an accident, I think you're making some big assumptions about why/how he was elected. While the establishment isn't ideal, Trump has shown himself to be worse. He's corrupt to the core, and acts almost (or maybe always) exclusively in self-interest.

I think there is opportunity for contributions to this thread by pro-Trump posters, but the harsh reality is that they will face criticism. It's only natural when you have a lopsided group of posters that those on one side will feel ganged-up on and attacked. But in truth, it's simply a matter of a collection of individuals independently reacting to ideas with which they disagree. Each of us has a right to be critical of "bad" ideas and to comment on them. I'm not sure how we could change that without some top-down planning, which would be even worse.

You're being super diplomatic, and that's kind of you. But I think one thing needs to be pointed out. Generally people who enter a conversation being antagonistic (for pages, with several people, as an initial interaction) whilst being so exceptionally sensitive to antagonism him/herself that it's *all* they can focus on (instead of looking for discussion related content to ask about or respond to, all this person honed in on repeatedly were all nuances of antagonism to respond antagonistically to) are just too much work and most people will either completely ignore them or toy with their emotional reactiveness like a cat playing with a toy. (The latter is annoying because it junks up a thread, and it's also demoralizing because it's unkind and ultimately unnecessary; it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, yet it manages to hook people who need the last word).

Anyone who shows up at a pool immediately criticizing how much others are shitting in it whilst shitting in it themselves (in plain sight, repeatedly) is either a troll or lacks the requisite self-awareness (and ability to regulate their own emotions enough to look past even smaller amounts of antagonism than they are dishing out themselves) to effectively participate in dialogue with others. It's not personal, that approach does not work for anyone. If they don't change their approach, they will only be ignored or toyed with.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

President Trump, you have frequently brought up socialism when criticizing your opponent and democrats. In 500 words or less, please explain your understanding of socialism and explain exactly how your opponent is a socialist, as some of your supporters have alleged.

OMG, a thousand times this. And he needs to be repeatedly brought back to it until he actually attempts some answer instead of spraying deflection (which probably won't happen during the debate, because of time constraints, but simply several attempts at holding him to it - and him going on wildly bizarre tangents - might draw enough attention for reporters to try to hold him to it afterwards).

This is something he won't be able to answer (because he has no clue, he's relying on *spooky language* to scare people). And it would be amazing if there were more reporters focused on it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I was serious about starting over with that dude and having an argument in good faith. Oh well.

Me too, although I didn't expect him to actually take me up on it. He can't even state his own positions when asked.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Me too, although I didn't expect him to actually take me up on it. He can't even state his own positions when asked.

He really bummed me out. It's not the disagreement that bothers me, it's that seeming lack of any convictions or points of his own whilst repeatedly attacking others. I'll stop bringing it up because I wouldn't be surprised if they're sitting back and loving the attention right now.