I wanted and planned to play Destiny 2 but then I got sucked into this drama against my better judgement. Calling me a weirdo and doubling down on the “you don’t understand” condescension is a choice you are free to make.
You didn’t leave me a choice. I keep hearing about stats about Bush and what Trump is doing today, but that’s not the only argument being made. I think it’s a little weird to say you are going to go play a game like you did. And I didn’t actually call you a weirdo, i said you made a weirdo remark. Perhaps you are reading into my comments what you want to see instead of what is being written and getting angry at me over it.
Folks, please don’t fight about me. I got angsty over a view that just didn’t compute in my brain. It’s silly for you two to fight with each other over it.
And Nesrie, I told you, i didn’t mean to insult you or anything. I just don’t like fighting with you, and it always turns into some ugly thing. It’s on me, please don’t take it as an insult.
Okay. I hear ya.
It never ceases to amaze me how she can bring up so many of the same feelings and frustrations I get when arguing in circles with my wife.
Yes, Bush did more harm policywise thusfar, but the potential downside of Trump is far worse.
And there’s another thing. Bush was still playing the democracy game within reasonable bounds. Trump does not care about American democracy at all, and while I find that frightening, what’s more frightening, is that 30% of Americans – the ones who most loudly declare themselves ‘patriots,’ by the way – are totally okay with that.
It’s an undeniably fun mental exercise, trying to determine all this worseness.
Timex being an “enemy of my enemy” or a true convert, or somewhere in between is immaterial. Unless you like purity testing. I think it likely we all share different nuances of views.
However:
I felt compelled to defend that as unnecessarily dismissive. You might not agree with it, but it’s not irrational.
Telling someone you don’t intend to acknowledge their existence, like they don’t belong in the community and should not be apart of it, I have no idea how you think someone would take it.
The fact rrmorton went the same road…
Like what the hell… I don’t even know what to say.
It’s like you guys mark these invisible lines on the ground and decide if I cross it it’s not okay, meanwhile I can watch some of you argue for three days straight but that’s perfectly okay. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know what you two are expecting but I am who I am.
And I don’t think Bush is worse than Trump, but that’s like saying the wound isn’t as bad as the infection. The infection wouldn’t be there without the wound… that’s my position, not that anyone wanted or cared about clarification on that.
I love my wife so, so much!
Well I am glad to hear it, but we do tend to put up with shit from people we love that we wouldn’t put up with for other people. I am thinking that comparison is not a good thing…
Agreed. Jingoism and looting the treasury are one thing, actual Facism is another.
But as Nesrie’s says:
I think it’s certainly possible to hate both.
I choose to interpret the wife comment as “No one can drive you as insane as those you love”. Still, probably not the best analogy.
HW fought in Kuwait because Iraq was an aggressor, and aggression was wrong unless America was the aggressor, in which case it was justifiable. Remember the New World Order? Well, America was supposed to be the enforcer of the NWO, aka world police. And the police get to use aggression whereas civilians don’t.
So just to spell it out since you keep asking: HW thought Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait was bad, but America’s aggression against Panama was good, because America is exceptional and has sole authority to determine when aggression is good.
You may not like it, but that was a self-consistent worldview that stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s view, which is that America has no special international role and should not be expected to maintain any kind of world order.
I’d take it a step further and say he thinks we should take the side of those who disrupt the order.
I’d say it’s more likely that he doesn’t have a view other than “people who don’t cheat are chumps”. He admires dictators because they take what they want, and he’d like to do the same. To think he actually has any real opinion on international policy beyond that is giving him too much credit.
At first I thought it was a gender dynamic at play, but the more I think about it, the more I realize you’re a lot like my wife, Nesrie. Fierce and strong-willed and stubborn and fired-up for what’s right. Then on the other side of that coin, there’s a certain lack of filter, neglecting of tact, defensiveness, and reluctance to back down.
Then, over here, I’m mister sensitive. Hyper-aware of tact, too-easily offended, and worst of all, extreme self-righteousness. We clash brilliantly! Just celebrated our 20th anniversary this past September.
Yesterday on the subway a man did the whole “after you” thing and placed his hand on her back and it made her angry. We talked and kind of yelled for half an hour over the whole issue. I supported and agreed with her completely yet (just like this discussion) we found room to carve out different sides and go to the mat over the minor nuances. When we were done I had to make sure the girls upstairs knew we weren’t arguing arguing. (They did.)
This is accurate. Also the bad guys give you money. Not America. You. And say nice things about you. Big Pluses.
When you first asked me this, I felt like in order to answer it, I’d have to go through all the policies and rehash the issues and in doing so, I would’ve been engaging in an argument that I didn’t feel was necessary. (So I landed in a different one! Clever me.)
But to go back and answer it, I’d just say that the argument (and counter-argument) boils down to the folks who are considering Trump the man/leader of the free world vs. the folks who are comparing policies and outcomes of the various presidencies.
I was trying to point out this disconnect I thought I saw while also saying that I leaned more toward the ‘Trump is a brand new kind of loathsome’ side of the discussion. I thought Timex was making sense but I didn’t mean to quote unquote disagree with those on the other side of the conversation.
The problem about fiscal responsibility by the GOP is that they realize when they get into power that if they actually implemented their more drastic proposals regarding Social Security and Medicare that they would be out on their ear at the next election. So they content themselves with cutting spending for programs that primarily make life a little less intolerable for poor people, and of course with cutting income taxes, which disproportionately helps people with greater incomes, and with shoveling government spending to their big donors.
Of course the federal deficit grows. What makes it possible for this not to sink the country in short order is that the US government, as a fiat sovereign currency issuer, can revolve the debt essentially forever. But this is anti-intuitive to most people, so there’s a constant moral panic about it which is weaponized by the party out of power.