Where is the Common Ground?

Fudbucker

Philosopher
F
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
8,537
"Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard....

While I know it’s “not presidential” to take on a lowlife like Omarosa, and while I would rather not be doing so, this is a modern day form of communication and I know the Fake News Media will be working overtime to make even Wacky Omarosa look legitimate as possible. Sorry!"

Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama or Bush had said something this retarded? And this is just example A in the ongoing **** show.

How can anyone take a Trump supporter seriously? What common ground does an intelligent person have with these people?
 
I'm afraid that in many cases the only common ground is superficial chatter and movie night with popcorn.
 
Seems he's getting in before her tell all book hits the shelves. From what I have heard she doesn't have any love left for Trump and so doesn't hold back, at least in one part calling Trump mentally unstable.
 
I wonder if there are any conservatives left here who think debasing the office this much was worth a Supreme Court pick.
 
Fudbucker said:
I wonder if there are any conservatives left here who think debasing the office this much was worth a Supreme Court pick.
Click to expand...

TWO Supreme Court justices. And counting.

Now my thought is that the best way to reach common ground is to come out and let the other side know that you think they are not intelligent.

Solid.
 
Fudbucker said:
"Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard....

While I know it’s “not presidential” to take on a lowlife like Omarosa, and while I would rather not be doing so, this is a modern day form of communication and I know the Fake News Media will be working overtime to make even Wacky Omarosa look legitimate as possible. Sorry!"

Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama or Bush had said something this retarded? And this is just example A in the ongoing **** show.

How can anyone take a Trump supporter seriously? What common ground does an intelligent person have with these people?
Click to expand...

And that was pretty much word for word what he heard on Fox and Friends just a few minutes earlier. He can't even rant out of his own head.
 
President Trump is such a bleeding heart. He gave this Black woman opportunity after opportunity, but she proved she wasn't good enough to serve our favorite president.
 
The Big Dog said:
TWO Supreme Court justices. And counting.

Now my thought is that the best way to reach common ground is to come out and let the other side know that you think they are not intelligent.

Solid.
Click to expand...

How do you reach common ground with people who oppose you no matter the issue and not matter what you do, who refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy, and are almost never right about anything?

Like dealing with creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc., it's about ideology. Facts and reason do influence them. Where is the common ground?
 
You reach common ground by taking over all three government branches and making it illegal to disagree with the government. Republicans have taken major steps in this direction. Like TBD says, 2 SCOTUS and counting.
 
Fudbucker said:
I wonder if there are any conservatives left here who think debasing the office this much was worth a Supreme Court pick.
Click to expand...

There's a whole lot of denial going on. They tell themselves "it's the policies", they can forget/forgive the whole pile of **** that is Trump and imagine he's the magic man.

The economy's good. Sure, when you inherited a good economy and you injected an unneeded stimulus tax cut into to, the facade looks rosy pink.

Deficit, don't show me that. Pollution that goes with the supposed wonderful deregulation, nope, don't want to see that. Atrocious actions toward Hispanic immigrants, I'm white, I hear they broke some laws, and those Muslims, we can't have them taking over this good Christian country.

That is who you are talking about that think Trump is worth it.

I heard pundits today saying the amount of dishonesty and pettiness that is Trump isn't new. Other politicians were just as bad. So, they still don't accept that Trump IS NOT NORMAL.
 
The Big Dog said:
TWO Supreme Court justices. And counting.

Now my thought is that the best way to reach common ground is to come out and let the other side know that you think they are not intelligent.

Solid.
Click to expand...

What did you think about Trump's behavior around this hire?
 
I think anyone who still supports this POS after all he has done to debase the office of POTUS has lost any benefit of a doubt I might once have given them. Frankly, I have no respect for the intelligence of anyone that easily deceived by such an obvious and self-serving, loathsome toad.
 
Last edited:
The common ground is that we are all prone to the same cognitive biases and tribalism which is whats driving Trumps support at this point. Believe it or not, a lot of dems, probably most would line up behind a crazy loon if he managed to get elected too. Probably not as many as the GOP but still.

Note the next thing is not a "What about" but rather the most obvious similar though not as extreme examples of dems forgiving the sins of their leaders even when they are quite contrary to the state ideals of most dems. Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer and had been accused of sexual assault then ****** and intern in the oval office the the political party of women's rights just said, "its only sex".

So the point is, the common ground is that all people are most skilled at crafting post hoc rationalizations for the decisions we mostly make with out thinking about it much first. Even we enlightened skeptics.

That and he supreme court picks and a lot of his actual policy are pretty conservative regardless of the **** spewing from his mouth.
 
ahhell said:
That and he supreme court picks and a lot of his actual policy are pretty conservative regardless of the **** spewing from his mouth.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Stop paying attention to Twitter, and politics starts seeming a lot more normal.
 
A Democratic President behaving as a national embarrassment on the world stage (sucking up to Putin at Helsinki, caging children, kowtowing to Kim, etc., etc., etc.) would suffer serious pushback from his Party and voters. But with Trump's supporters it's "America, **** yeah!"

The Dems ousted a Senator of theirs based on a single (adult) person's claims of sexual impropriety, but the Repubs elect "Grab 'em by the pussy!" Trump while he was also standing accused by more than a dozen women, *and* they tried to elect another creep for Senator accused of molesting teens.

Indeed. Where's the common ground?
 
A line in the sand:

"To defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialogue."

Tenzin Gyatso

(Except dialogs about B movies, such as The Meg)
 
Lurch said:
A Democratic President behaving as a national embarrassment on the world stage (sucking up to Putin at Helsinki, caging children, kowtowing to Kim, etc., etc., etc.) would suffer serious pushback from his Party and voters. But with Trump's supporters it's "America, **** yeah!"

The Dems ousted a Senator of theirs based on a single (adult) person's claims of sexual impropriety, but the Repubs elect "Grab 'em by the pussy!" Trump while he was also standing accused by more than a dozen women, *and* they tried to elect another creep for Senator accused of molesting teens.

Indeed. Where's the common ground?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think this overstates the rationality of Dems. You are probably right that there would be more democratic opposition to someone as loony as Trump but there would be a lot that got fully on board the crazy train. Just look at polling on American attitudes towards Russia. The parties basically switched opinion because of of Trump. (less so among dems admittedly.) There's also plenty of research that clearly shows that both liberals/dems and conservatives/reps will have more or less positive opinions on politics and ideas based solely on who they think states those opinions.



https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-psychology/

There is there there’s a lot of scientists and Geoffrey Cohen — this is my favorite experiment that was ever done — he gave people a position on welfare and experimentally altered it so that either the Republicans or Democrats were saying basically the same thing on welfare. It’s an unknown issue, right? It’s welfare. And what he found was that he could get people to change their position on welfare, 100 percent, all the way to the other side of the spectrum of policy, just based on what party they were told supported that position. And the crazy thing is that after they said they supported that position, he asked them why they supported that position, and they didn’t say, “Because my party does.” They came up with other reasons. So, after being experimentally induced into holding a position that they actually didn’t agree with, they then came up with reasons that they thought they agreed with that.
Click to expand...
Again, the common ground is we all do this to some extent. It makes me quite sad that folks on a skeptics forum are so willing to ignore some basic lessons of skepticism because they hate the other tribe so much.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Believe it or not, a lot of dems, probably most would line up behind a crazy loon if he managed to get elected too.
Click to expand...

But what would that look like? We have a crazy right wing person now being enabled by ostensibly less crazy right wing people. Would a crazy left wing president like . . . rely too heavily on science to inform policy? Would there be too little discrimination?
 
Anyone who saw any seasons of The Apprentice with Omarosa on them, I have to think, was completely baffled that he would hire her in the first place. The only reason she appeared to be on that show was the ratings her train wreck behavior drew in. The fact that she went all “Omarosa” and recorded things she shouldn’t have and is now attempting to capitalize on them should come as a shock to no one.

Trump really shouldn’t have a negative thing to say about her or the situation. He basically invited it. I don’t know how he thought it would end any differently.

Interesting experiment, ahhell. And no surprise. Reminds me of all the people willing to sign a petition to end the sufferage of women or to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
 
I thought there would be common ground agreeing that Trump is a colossal buffoon, and that the American institutions of government are more than robust enough to survive a buffoon administration. Boy, was I wrong about that.

Not wrong about the strength of American institutions - they're doing just fine, obviously. But wrong about half the country being able to comprehend this.
 
theprestige said:
I thought there would be common ground agreeing that Trump is a colossal buffoon, and that the American institutions of government are more than robust enough to survive a buffoon administration. Boy, was I wrong about that.

Not wrong about the strength of American institutions - they're doing just fine, obviously. But wrong about half the country being able to comprehend this.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they are. We'll see after Trump fires Mueller.
 
There is no common ground.

The fields were burned and the ground salted because that'll show those libtards!
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure they are. We'll see after Trump fires Mueller.
Click to expand...
The country has survived a Civil War with its institutions intact. Nothing that's happened in the past two years - not the tweets, not the gaffes, not the racism, not even the Russian meddling (such as it was) - rises anywhere near that level.

The irony is that the Russian objective was to get Americans to give up on their national institutions. You're the one who's giving up, not me. I'm not the Russian collaborator, here.
 
Fudbucker said:
We're supposed to not pay attention to official statements from our own President? Do you know how loony that sounds?
Click to expand...

Well, if you ignore what he says and does, and how he acts, and his past actions, and his proposals for future actions, and the input of everybody who has ever worked with or encountered him, why then Trumb seems an okay guy! I can't see why you can't overcome partisan bias to admit it.
 
theprestige said:
The country has survived a Civil War with its institutions intact. Nothing that's happened in the past two years - not the tweets, not the gaffes, not the racism, not even the Russian meddling (such as it was) - rises anywhere near that level.

The irony is that the Russian objective was to get Americans to give up on their national institutions. You're the one who's giving up, not me. I'm not the Russian collaborator, here.
Click to expand...

Yes, the FCC, ICE, FBI, CIA, NPS, and Depts of Labor, Education, and Energy suffered no damage from the Civil War. Neither did NASA, or NATO, or the UN.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yes, the FCC, ICE, FBI, CIA, NPS, and Depts of Labor, Education, and Energy suffered no damage from the Civil War. Neither did NASA, or NATO, or the UN.
Click to expand...

We might actually have some common ground here, but with the sarcasm(?) it's hard to tell. Also, I think you may have misread my post. But again, with the sarcasm(?) it's hard to tell.

Can you try again without the sarcasm? Just your counter-argument as such?
 
The Big Dog said:
which Senator was that??
Click to expand...

Forgot Al Franken already? I guess the ongoing battles to defend the current Administration's repugnance by ingesting, inventing and investing in all manner of whackadoodle whatabouts does place limits on the amount of information that can be retained for quick recall.:rolleyes:
 
The Shrike said:
But what would that look like? We have a crazy right wing person now being enabled by ostensibly less crazy right wing people.
Click to expand...
Would a crazy left wing president like . . . rely too heavily on science to inform policy?
Click to expand...
Definitely not, they would rely on science when it supports their pre-existing beliefs or fit the narrative of their tribe. I strongly suggest you listen to the podcast I linked to above, or read the transcript.

Would there be too little discrimination?
Click to expand...
IDK, employment guarantees for workers or protectionist trade policies? Advocating bad policy that won't help the problem it means to solve like rent control.

I shouldn't have responded because that doesn't actually address my point, which is that the GOP is just falling for cognitive biases we all have and all fall for, just not all of us are falling quite as hard. The evidence is pretty clear on that.
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
Forgot Al Franken already? I guess the ongoing battles to defend the current Administration's repugnance by ingesting, inventing and investing in all manner of whackadoodle whatabouts does place limits on the amount of information that can be retained for quick recall.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Al Franken? was there a typo in your post then? because you wrote a "single" claim. I assume you want to go back and fix that then?
 
theprestige said:
We might actually have some common ground here, but with the sarcasm(?) it's hard to tell. Also, I think you may have misread my post. But again, with the sarcasm(?) it's hard to tell.

Can you try again without the sarcasm? Just your counter-argument as such?
Click to expand...

My point was that America 1860s was a lot different from America 2010s. Our 'institutions' are both more powerful and more delicate. One buffoon with a phone really could trigger WWIII. It took decades of increasing hostility over a complex issue to cause the Civil War. WWIII can be caused by Trump Tweeting from his toilet in a rage over something said on Fox News.
 
TragicMonkey said:
My point was that America 1860s was a lot different from America 2010s. Our 'institutions' are both more powerful and more delicate. One buffoon with a phone really could trigger WWIII. It took decades of increasing hostility over a complex issue to cause the Civil War. WWIII can be caused by Trump Tweeting from his toilet in a rage over something said on Fox News.
Click to expand...

My bad. No common ground yet, after all. Unless we agree that nobody - not even you - is really taking Trump's tweets that seriously.
 
Fudbucker said:
We're supposed to not pay attention to official statements from our own President? Do you know how loony that sounds?
Click to expand...

I don't think people should be following Twitter in general. It's a cesspit.
 
theprestige said:
My bad. No common ground yet, after all. Unless we agree that nobody - not even you - is really taking Trump's tweets that seriously.
Click to expand...

Other countries seem to be taking them seriously, as are those investigating Trump as he seems to keep making damaging admissions on Twitter. The courts also agreed that a president's Tweets are official enough to fall under recordkeeping laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom