Bolton has been Mar a Lago'd!

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 8:18 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Do you believe “pointing out these very alarming things he's doing” is working? Americans who support President Trump hear him being labeled as a dictator, does it influence them to reconsider their support or work with Democrats to alter the direction of the country?

I've asked three times before and this time makes the fourth - what is the acceptable term? I answered your questions in good faith and I would appreciate if you could do the same.

Of course, by these evasions, you seem to be saying there is no term to describe the actions that would be acceptable to you. Is this assessment correct?

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 9:20 AM

DaisyDay said:
I've asked three times before and this time makes the fourth - what is the acceptable term? I answered your questions in good faith and I would appreciate if you could do the same.

Of course, by these evasions, you seem to be saying there is no term to describe the actions that would be acceptable to you. Is this assessment correct?

I'm unsure about the appropriate terminology. I am not a supporter of President Trump, nor am I affiliated with the Republican party or the MAGA movement.

Based on my observations, when President Trump is referred to as a dictator, individuals who identify with the MAGA movement typically show no interest in engaging with the speaker's perspective.

If your objective is to preserve democratic processes, it may be important to gain support from some supporters of President Trump. This requires using language that is considerate of their perspectives and encouraging cooperation toward shared goals.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 9:37 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Based on my observations, when President Trump is referred to as a dictator, individuals who identify with the MAGA movement typically show no interest in engaging with the speaker's perspective.

Based on my observations, individuals who identify with the MAGA movement typically show no interest in engaging with the perspective of anyone who they perceive as "liberal" or a "Democrat," regardless of what that person says.

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 9:42 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
I'm unsure about the appropriate terminology. I am not a supporter of President Trump, nor am I affiliated with the Republican party or the MAGA movement.

Based on my observations, when President Trump is referred to as a dictator, individuals who identify with the MAGA movement typically show no interest in engaging with the speaker's perspective.

If your objective is to preserve democratic processes, it may be important to gain support from some supporters of President Trump. This requires using language that is considerate of their perspectives and encouraging cooperation toward shared goals.

It appears to me that there is no language other than praise that can be used to discuss President Trump. This makes discussion of reality nearly impossible.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
A challenge in contemporary politics is the frequent use of terms such as Marxism, Nazism, fascist, socialist, authoritarian, dictator, communist, racist. These words have become less precise over time, and are often used more as rhetorical devices than for their original definitions. Using these words only creates hostility and defensiveness, making open-minded debate with our intended audience more difficult.

And if I forgo these descriptive terms and simply list the concerning actions, that also triggers a shutdown:

Landon Caeli said:
...But when a liberal starts spouting off all negative, to the conservative, it sounds like Chinese - we disagree, and don't even want to hear it...

You agreed with the above quote, so how can the authoritarian things Trump does be discussed - praise him for deploying the military on civilians? Praise him for purging the top brass? Praise him for employing clearly unqualified people such as Hegseth, RFK Jr, Alina Habba, Kash Petal, Tulsi Gabbard while firing career professional? Seems the only discussion to be had under these conditions, eerily reminiscent of Soviet days in the Soviet Union, are deeply ironic ones.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 10:15 AM

RocksInMyHead said:
Based on my observations, individuals who identify with the MAGA movement typically show no interest in engaging with the perspective of anyone who they perceive as "liberal" or a "Democrat," regardless of what that person says.

I agree your statement. That is the reason my initial post #41 included this point.

“A challenge in contemporary politics is the frequent use of terms such as Marxism, Nazism, fascist, socialist, authoritarian, dictator, communist, racist.”

Both sides often use provocative adjectives to characterize each other. For example, when I see individuals affiliated with the MAGA movement use terms like "socialist" or "Marxist," it suggests a lack of understanding of those concepts, which discourages productive dialogue. Similarly, when an evangelical Christian refers to a pro-choice advocate as a "baby killer," it effectively ends any opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion or persuasion.

On both sides of the political spectrum, some people are unwilling to change their views or seek rational compromise, and there is little we can do about it.

About 10–15% of Americans are open to changing their opinions, but using labels like "fascist," "socialist," "Nazi," or "Marxist" won't persuade them.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 10:30 AM

DaisyDay said:
It appears to me that there is no language other than praise that can be used to discuss President Trump. This makes discussion of reality nearly impossible.

It seems you are unwilling to change a simple adjective to describe president Trump , yet you expect others to reconsider their beliefs. How does this differ from people who are set in their views and refuse to see different prospective? Criticizing others while not being open to change yourself comes across as equally irrational.

It's almost impossible to have a rational debate with people who aren't even open to use different adjectives.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 10:49 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
On both sides of the political spectrum, some people are unwilling to change their views or seek rational compromise, and there is little we can do about it.

Then why would you specifically bring up one of those groups that is unwilling to change their views as an example?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
About 10–15% of Americans are open to changing their opinions, but using labels like "fascist," "socialist," "Nazi," or "Marxist" won't persuade them.

Would you agree that Trump is someone who desires the concentration of power in an individual (e.g. the President) at the expense of political freedoms and civil rights? Does he demonize immigrants? Does he reject the democratic process? Does he promote the glorification of the nation and its leader? Is his core messaging about the decline of American society and how he's the only person who can fix it?

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 11:19 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
It seems you are unwilling to change a simple adjective to describe president Trump , yet you expect others to reconsider their beliefs. How does this differ from people who are set in their views and refuse to see different prospective? Criticizing others while not being open to change yourself comes across as equally irrational.

Change the adjective to WHAT? This makes the fifth time I've asked you directly (see posts #42, #44, #58, #61) and I have not yet been given anything other than "not that". Furthermore, you gave me a whole list of unacceptable terms, but no alternate acceptable ones.

I have not said that anyone was being irrational, so "equally irrational" are entirely your own words and meaning. :scratch:

Irrational is not the word I would use for not wanting to discuss a different pov.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
It's almost impossible to have a rational debate with people who aren't even open to use different adjectives.

That is unfair as I have been asking you over and over and over and over to let me know what would be acceptable and you refuse to say. It is almost impossible to have a rational debate when insults are substituted for answers to direct questions.

Pommer · Tuesday at 12:03 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Do you believe “pointing out these very alarming things he's doing” is working? Americans who support President Trump hear him being labeled as a dictator, does it influence them to reconsider their support or work with Democrats to alter the direction of the country?

Teddy Roosevelt called the Office of the President a “bully pulpit”, an apt metaphor; Donald Trump seems to think it’s a pulpit for a bully.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 1:24 PM

DaisyDay said:
Change the adjective to WHAT? This makes the fifth time I've asked you directly (see posts #42, #44, #58, #61) and I have not yet been given anything other than "not that". Furthermore, you gave me a whole list of unacceptable terms, but no alternate acceptable ones.

I have not said that anyone was being irrational, so "equally irrational" are entirely your own words and meaning. Irrational is not the word I would use for not wanting to discuss a different pov.

That is unfair as I have been asking you over and over and over and over to let me know what would be acceptable and you refuse to say. It is almost impossible to have a rational debate when insults are substituted for answers to direct questions.

The adjectives used to describe President Trump are not justified. In my previous post, I stated that the President has the authority to replace military leadership; this is a part of the democratic process rather than an authoritarian act. However, you have associated this action with authoritarianism.

Replacing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not fascist or dictatorial, but is a power granted to the President of the United States. While I agree that it may be ill-advised, such actions do not justify labeling him as authoritarian.

You created a thread stating that President Trump is requiring some private corporations to give equity to the government, and characterized this as fascism. This action is better described as government overreach and against free market ideology, rather than fascism.

My advice for engaging in rational debate is to select adjectives that are suitable and avoid those that may provoke or sensationalize the discussion.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 1:31 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Then why would you specifically bring up one of those groups that is unwilling to change their views as an example?

Would you agree that Trump is someone who desires the concentration of power in an individual (e.g. the President) at the expense of political freedoms and civil rights? Does he demonize immigrants? Does he reject the democratic process? Does he promote the glorification of the nation and its leader? Is his core messaging about the decline of American society and how he's the only person who can fix it?

It is noteworthy how you articulated your point without resorting to adjectives such as "dictator," "authoritarian," or "fascist," which reinforces my argument. One can address important issues and clearly express opinions without employing provocative labels for politicians. Much of what you have written in this passage aligns with views I have also shared in this forum. However, when discussions incorporate inflammatory language—such as references to fascism, Nazism, Marxism, or Stalinism—we risk losing the moral high ground necessary for rational debate that aims to influence hearts and minds.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 1:45 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
It is noteworthy how you articulated your point without resorting to adjectives such as "dictator," "authoritarian," or "fascist," which reinforces my argument.

And what, pray tell, do you think my point was?

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 1:52 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The adjectives used to describe President Trump are not justified. In my previous post, I stated that the President has the authority to replace military leadership; this is a part of the democratic process rather than an authoritarian act. However, you have associated this action with authoritarianism.

Replacing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not fascist or dictatorial, but is a power granted to the President of the United States. While I agree that it may be ill-advised, such actions do not justify labeling him as authoritarian.

Context matters. The President is, indeed, granted the authority to replace military leadership under the Constitution. But replacing a huge swath of the leadership for no clear reason other than that they don't align with his personal or political beliefs is authoritarian.

Similarly, there's no legal issue with the President replacing the head of the BLS. But replacing the head of the BLS because she issued a report that made the President look bad is authoritarian.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
My advice for engaging in rational debate is to select adjectives that are suitable and avoid those that may provoke or sensationalize the discussion.

You mean like the ones that I used?

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 2:43 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The adjectives used to describe President Trump are not justified. In my previous post, I stated that the President has the authority to replace military leadership; this is a part of the democratic process rather than an authoritarian act. However, you have associated this action with authoritarianism.

Having the authority to purge the top military brass for ideological reasons rather than for performance is an authoritarian act. Having the authority does not mean such authority cannot be misused for nefarious purposes. Consider an executive who has the authority to hire and fire employees: this does not mean that this authority can be used to fire someone for being the wrong ethnicity or because they refuse to wash his car on weekends (in most states).

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Replacing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not fascist or dictatorial, but is a power granted to the President of the United States. While I agree that it may be ill-advised, such actions do not justify labeling him as authoritarian.

Firing the BLS head may not be fascistic, but firing a career civil servant competently doing her job supplying accurate statistics because he didn't like the numbers rather than for cause, is a dictatorial move, legal as it may be (not sure what the rules are for her level). He also fired the people who administer the rules as well as the NLRB. Legal does not preclude fascism or authoritarianism.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You created a thread

Heads up here - be careful of bringing up anything from a different thread as some people consider that "calling out" and therefore wrong. I don't agree with this obscure rule, but be aware of it.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You created a thread stating that President Trump is requiring some private corporations to give equity to the government, and characterized this as fascism. This action is better described as government overreach and against free market ideology, rather than fascism.

Okay, fascism was incorrect. Governmental overreach may be better, but I believe that extortion is the most accurate. This also applies to his lawsuits against Paramount, Netflix and various white shoe law firms. It is more than overreach, but we'll call it overreach from now on.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
My advice for engaging in rational debate is to select adjectives that are suitable and avoid those that may provoke or sensationalize the discussion.

My advice is to knock off the "rational" quip as inflammatory adjectives are neither rational nor irrational per se. Also, neither fascism nor governmental overreach are adjectives, but I get your point.

Does this mean we've created a forum dog whistle? From now on, when I say "governmental overreach" those in the know will hear "authoritarianism."

Trump sending masked men in unmarked cars to snatch people from the streets and hold them incommunicado is now governmental overreach! Okay, I can work with that, I guess.

perplexed · Wednesday at 2:31 AM

If you use the search feature you find heaps of people labelled Obama as authoritarian. I will concede the term makes the Trump supporters go feral but that is their problem they are adults

perplexed · Wednesday at 3:14 AM

I concede a better tactic is to be more respectful
I also will refrain from the term fascist.
However not using the word authoritarian is basically the same as being trying not to say something someone might not want to hear which is simply unworkable.

Landon Caeli · Wednesday at 10:03 AM

perplexed said:
I concede a better tactic is to be more respectful
I also will refrain from the term fascist.
However not using the word authoritarian is basically the same as being trying not to say something someone might not want to hear which is simply unworkable.

You do understand it's hard to take complaints seriously after so many false accusations. It appears Russia Gate was now a hoax. We've all heard the story about the boy who cried wolf.

Now do I believe Trump has resorted to walking along the edge of authoritarianism? I do! Is that justified after all the lawfare and hoaxes and slimy lawsuits to take him out? I believe it is not only justified, but necessary after what we all witnessed.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 10:11 AM

Landon Caeli said:
It appears Russia Gate was now a hoax.

Just because Trump has pardoned all the guilty parties (and those who were going to go to trial) doesn't mean they weren't guilty. Quite the opposite.

perplexed · Wednesday at 4:38 PM

Landon Caeli said:
You do understand it's hard to take complaints seriously after so many false accusations.

It is not hard to complaints seriously.
Also if you are not going to take someone seriously then do not engage with them. It is not good to give people the impression that Trump supporters think Trump is infallible.

Landon Caeli said:
It appears Russia Gate was now a hoax.

Only some of it was a Hoax.

Landon Caeli said:
. We've all heard the story about the boy who cried wolf

I do not see how this relevant the complaints do not have the same source.

Landon Caeli said:
Now do I believe Trump has resorted to walking along the edge of authoritarianism? I do! Is that justified after all the lawfare and hoaxes and slimy lawsuits to take him out? I believe it is not only justified, but necessary after what we all witnessed.

The not all the charges were lawfare. Lying about classified documents and supporting fake electors were valid charges, and there is a claim Jack Smith will face justice but this is crazy, there is no way the Trump DOJ will give Jack Smith a day in court it would be really embarrassing.

Landon Caeli · Wednesday at 8:52 PM

perplexed said:
It is not hard to complaints seriously.
Also if you are not going to take someone seriously then do not engage with them. It is not good to give people the impression that Trump supporters think Trump is infallible.

Only some of it was a Hoax.

I do not see how this relevant the complaints do not have the same source.

The not all the charges were lawfare. Lying about classified documents and supporting fake electors were valid charges, and there is a claim Jack Smith will face justice but this is crazy, there is no way the Trump DOJ will give Jack Smith a day in court it would be really embarrassing.

Oh I wouldn't make the claim Trump is infallible. It's not even about Trump - it's about the Never Trumper's. It's all about them.

Bolton has been Mar a Lago'd!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Senior Member

Senior Member

I ♡ potato pancakes and applesauce

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Member

I ♡ potato pancakes and applesauce

Similar threads