New Yorker article about Trump's ghost-writer.

Yawn.

Billy_T wrote:

Well, bnw, you might not care. You might think all criticism of Trump is meaningless. But a lot of people do care. They don’t dismiss all criticism of Trump automatically. They don’t close their eyes and ears to all of it. They investigate, see him on TV, listen to him on the radio, try to sift through his word salad. They read his incredibly vague policy ideas, his tendency to avoid all details, and note that none of his policies could possibly work. They also take him at his word, and see him as a racist, xenophobe and Mussolini-wannabe. They see him as a serial liar and someone who has exploited bankruptcy laws and protections to fill his own pockets, and that he has hundreds of outstanding lawsuits against him due to his crooked business practices.

Even his own party has been highly critical of him. GOP delegates called him a fascist today, at the convention.

It may be a big yawn for you, but a lot of people don’t see it that way. Me, personally? I think he’s either a baby fascist or plays one on TV for votes and for personal enrichment. He’s taken his cue from George Wallace, among others, seeking to whip up white fears of black and brown people. Basically, I see him as a vile human being. Easily one of the worst people to ever run for president — and that’s saying a lot, because America has a long history of rotten people vying for the presidency.

I don’t like Clinton, either. Can’t stand either party. But Trump is clearly the greater evil this time around.

Isn’t that bound to stir a fight? I think everyone knows where everyone stands. Bnw is entitled to his response. We’re not going to badger him into agreeing with us, and aggression just begets more aggression. Fair enough?

.

Billy_T wrote:

I just wish his supporters would deal with the substance of that criticism, and not automatically dismiss it all. I just wish they’d be willing to debate that substance, instead of acting as if it’s not worth discussing — that Trump’s criticism of others is worthy, but not criticism of Trump, etc. etc.

Not “modding” now, just chatting. It’s just politics. So Hillary is untrustworthy, Sanders is an extremist, and Trump a demagogue. So the way to handle attacks on your candidate is to attack the other. Shrug.

To me personally, the attacks don’t matter. That’s to make it about character which is already to buy into the PR/politics and “selling the personality” game.

So I personally don’t care if a Trump guy owns up to this or that criticism. I just think of all the policies and appointments I won’t like (eg. supreme court appointments) and vote for the policies and appointments I will like better (supreme court again).

But in the context of a political forum, it can make fruitful discussion very difficult. Often pointless.

Which may be the very definition of a political forum, frankly.

To me, political discussion is about unstated premises and emotional reasoning. If it ever escaped that, it wouldn’t BE political discussion. I am being a little reductive but that’s okay for now.

The info you get is valuable but then that’s always angled in terms of perspectives. So I take the info as being about “what does it mean to be an informed leftist” and sometimes get into crossover issues.

I think it’s important in this day and age to stay informed and invested when it comes to issues of race and policing. I could list a thousand other issues. There you can try and sort out the mainstream propaganda from more trustworthy info and ideas.

But when it comes to voting for who’s in office…I generally find all you get is “character” stuff, and to me, that means it’s no different from the mainstream.

.

TSRF wrote:

From my POV, the original “Yawn” post was passive aggressive. Why even do that? What did it add structurally to the thread?

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?

Yawn, the re-reprise.