The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

gerritn said:

Secondly, they (angry older white folks) are a dying breed. Literally. 

 A reminder, as we all score our points, that there’s a real person behind this thread who lost her husband not so long ago.

DaveSchmidt said:

gerritn said:

Secondly, they (angry older white folks) are a dying breed. Literally. 

 A reminder, as we all score our points, that there’s a real person behind this thread who lost her husband not so long ago.

I did not mean it as a personal thing, but I apologize.

“Tierney, like Trump, want to create distractions for us so we don't focus, because if we focus we will kick them out of power for a long while. Next thing you know we"ll see a post about Hillary again, or how the Democrats have no real message, or how we should get rid of Pelosi, or how Obama failed, etc. All just designed to distract and demotivate. But we actually are in much better shape than they want us to believe. First of all, we are on the right side of history. Secondly, they (angry older white folks) are a dying breed. Literally.“

gerritan, you do have a way with words.   I didn’t realize how helpless Dems felt until you outlined their weaknesses. Thanks.

I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 

BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help.

Beyond help? Patently obvious.

Why is she still engaged? I try not but at times do when she pisses me off with something quite stupid or deplorable.

The psychology of forum engagement is interesting and worthy of a more doctorates.

Some engage not to really engage the person but to publicly show "see me, see how smart I am with my clever and intelligent refutation."

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her? 

 I don’t engage in this thread that often, but when I do it’s for the some of the same reasons I engage with anyone on MOL: Maybe I can shed a little light that gets someone, even if it’s not mtierney, to think about something in a different way, and maybe she or somebody else replies in a way that gets me thinking in a different way.

For some regulars, MOL is a tug-of-war. I don’t get that sense from mtierney, which helps. Nothing disengages me here quite like a tug-of-war.

Meanwhile, tierney's hero the Bone Spur President derided a REAL patriot:

President Trump derided retired Adm. William H. McRaven as a “Hillary Clinton fan” and an “Obama backer” and suggested that the venerated former head of U.S. Special Operations Command should have apprehended Osama bin Laden faster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-suggests-venerated-navy-seal-commander-should-have-found-bin-laden-faster/2018/11/18/363aff2a-eb53-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html?utm_term=.6c426a2a3630

There's a pattern. Be assured if its good or decent, Mr Bone Spur will deride it.

Interesting read on why we need to start planning for healthcare overhaul now (and not wait until we win back WH and senate). He is saying the country will not be ready for single-payer (which would be the more responsible thing to do imho). So medicare for all instead?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/opinion/sunday/democrats-aca-medicaid-exchanges.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Meanwhile, Our President is keeping it witty and classy on the Twitter.

DaveSchmidt said:

For some regulars, MOL is a tug-of-war. I don’t get that sense from mtierney, which helps. 

it's more like passive resistance

It’s fascinating to me to realize, time and time again, how liberals just cannot abide hearing other points of view. How can they define themselves as “liberals”? Check the definition of the word.

Liberals will analyse and chat among themselves on how could it be possible that this other reality actually exists. More scary is that they do not believe opposing thought should exist at all! Sexism, ageism —and much worse — have been used to demonize these “others” who dare to express another point or view. On MOL, I am the resident “other.”

I’ve been wearing big girl pants for a long time, I can take it. The occasional kind word, however, is much appreciated.

Ah, and now we're back to the intolerance of the liberals who are always screaming about tolerance.

mtierney said:
It’s fascinating to me to realize, time and time again, how liberals just cannot abide hearing other points of view. 

That's not true. It's actually that conservatives can't abide liberals pointing out their logical fallacies. And then they call it "intolerance." 

mtierney said:
It’s fascinating to me to realize, time and time again, how liberals just cannot abide hearing other points of view. How can they define themselves as “liberals”?

 If that were true none of us would come to this thread. Your problem is that when your views are challenged you do not actually engage in analytical dialogue. You do not back up your expressed points of view with logical arguments. Mostly you get defensive or change the subject.

I also note that you never engage those who criticize "mainstream liberals" from the left, like Nan or Paul.

Frankly after all this time I still do not know your basic beliefs. I see you just as a loyal partisan Republican who follows the Party Line. You have the same attitude toward your Party as toward your Church. You do not question its teachings, you just accept them.

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 
BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

 I guess I believe that no one is beyond help. I am trying to save her soul, silly me.

I am an older angry white male. I am angry about the same things I was angry about when I was young; Racism, poverty, war, injustice.  

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 
BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

Based on this thread, most of us meet one of the criteria for insanity - repeating the same process in expectation of getting a different result.  In this case, Mtierney is never going to engage in discussion and and reason.

not your version for sure!

tjohn said:In this case, Mtierney is never going to engage in discussion and and reason.

mtierney said:
not your version for sure!

 Therein lies the problem. There are people out there who think there are different versions of reason.

mtierney said:
 Surely Dr. Ford and her husband recognized beforehand the risks involved in presenting a 36 year old, uncorroborated, recollection as proof that Justice Kavanaugh was unfit to be on the Supreme Court. 

 I don't think they anticipated having to move 4 times because of death threats.

tjohn said:

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 
BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

Based on this thread, most of us meet one of the criteria for insanity - repeating the same process in expectation of getting a different result.  In this case, Mtierney is never going to engage in discussion and and reason.

 Like this?

mtierney said: you asked me a direct question, so here is my direct answer: Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.  If he refused to step aside, denying all knowledge of any such incident, I would follow through and send a letter to Sen. Feinstein — as Dr Ford did do. After sitting on the letter for weeks (did Feinstein find the allegations weak?),  what happened next was pure politics. Some 20+ years later, Justice Thomas remains under a dark cloud for repeating smutty jokes in the office.  Justice Kavanaugh might very well be labeled going forward as a teenage assaulter. Is this the sort of judge/jury/executioner world we want in the future?  

Good point, Lord_Pabulum.  I had forgotten instances of reasoning I would expect from an excessively optimistic and idealistic teenager.  Now, why an adult would expect many of men in Congress to be concerned about sexual assault absence a severe political cost is quite beyond me.

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 
BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

 Well, after 16,000+ posts, no one's surprised by the POV. I'll say this: while it's sometimes infuriating, libs need to scrimmage with someone on this board. And if you've been through the Pennboy and Zoinks "era," mtierney's a treat.  

I quite miss Pennboy, actually.

tjohn said:
Good point, Lord_Pabulum.  I had forgotten instances of reasoning I would expect from an excessively optimistic and idealistic teenager.  Now, why an adult would expect many of men in Congress to be concerned about sexual assault absence a severe political cost is quite beyond me.

Interestingly many posts on this thread equate to child like reasoning.  It is not beyond me that the Ne'er-do-wells in congress are guided purely by the political gain or loss of their actions. 

tjohn said:
I quite miss Pennboy, actually.

 I miss him too, sometimes. As he once said, "I like discussing things with people who disagree with me. What would I get about chatting on a notice board of like minded people?!"

lord_pabulum said:

tjohn said:
Good point, Lord_Pabulum.  I had forgotten instances of reasoning I would expect from an excessively optimistic and idealistic teenager.  Now, why an adult would expect many of men in Congress to be concerned about sexual assault absence a severe political cost is quite beyond me.

Interestingly many posts on this thread equate to child like reasoning.  It is not beyond me that the Ne'er-do-wells in congress are guided purely by the political gain or loss of their actions. 

We are in agreement on this point.  I wonder how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to name one new Congressperson, will be shaped on encountering this reality.

ridski said:

tjohn said:
I quite miss Pennboy, actually.

 I miss him too, sometimes. As he once said, "I like discussing things with people who disagree with me. What would I get about chatting on a notice board of like minded people?!"

I don't miss him.  He became pretty tiresome after awhile.  I'm not interested in debating someone when I already know in advance exactly what the response will be.  I could have written his posts for him and no one would have known the difference.

From reddit user OrionSuperman

I once met an old man who told me of his kingdom. People trusted their king there. They believed whoever sat upon the throne was important and would protect their kingdom. They were good subjects and the stability that the king represented was important to them.

There was also an ox on a nearby farm. It thrashed and kicked and gored anyone who came near it.

The good people of the kingdom kept their distance as much as they could, until one day the ox tore down the fence that kept it contained. It galloped into the square and slammed into the vaulted door of the court. The door swung open, and the ox came to rest beside the throne.

The people of the kingdom didn't know what to do, the old king had died the week before and there was still uncertainty about who his heir was. The old man who told me this story explained that he left the issue of the throne to others and decided instead to look for the ox's owner to have him removed.

He told me he went out from the court into the square, where the good people of the kingdom told him of the great strength of the ox that had charged the gate. He went out to the field, where the farmers told him of the great cleverness of the ox to approach the weakest point of the fence. He searched for days to find the ox's owner, and when he did, he returned to the kingdom. When he returned, he found the kingdom celebrating their new king: the ox. So strong, so clever, and so bold that he had taken the throne himself.

In public, the courtiers praised the ox, but in private, they fretted. "A king is merely a symbol", they said, "and our kingdom is strong enough to survive even a beast as its king. After all, he sits in the throne room and the people support him. Is he not brave and clever and strong?"

So, I told them what I had found in the pasture. The owner of the ox had seen it happen. The day the ox had taken the kingdom, a dark cloud had come over the hill. Fearing rain, the ox sought shelter under a tree. The tree had been struck by lightning, and the ox had fled in the opposite direction, driven only by fear. "So," the man said to the courtiers and then later to me, "the creature that had been praised for his strength by some, his cleverness by others, his boldness by more, and even his statesmanship by the court... was only ever driven by fear."

The old man told me this is the reason he left his kingdom. He heard tales for some days after of courtiers gored as madness gripped the kingdom. The king, they believed, would protect the kingdom. The people asked for answers for every trampled victim of the ox-king, and always the answer was the same: it was the king's will.

But the old man told me that he knew the truth. An ox cannot be a king. And it's not really the ox's fault that he was mistaken for one, it was the kingdom's. They had built a system where a beast could take a throne, and the people would accept it. They would scratch their heads at every breach of kingly behavior, and seek some explanation for why the king would do something so foolish.

But an ox cannot be a king.

GL2 said:

 Well, after 16,000+ posts, no one's surprised by the POV. I'll say this: while it's sometimes infuriating, libs need to scrimmage with someone on this board. And if you've been through the Pennboy and Zoinks "era," mtierney's a treat.  

 Can anyone confirm that "zoinks" passed earlier this year? I saw a FB post saying so, but haven't seen an obit, or the like.

wharfrat said:

GL2 said:

 Well, after 16,000+ posts, no one's surprised by the POV. I'll say this: while it's sometimes infuriating, libs need to scrimmage with someone on this board. And if you've been through the Pennboy and Zoinks "era," mtierney's a treat.  

 Can anyone confirm that "zoinks" passed earlier this year? I saw a FB post saying so, but haven't seen an obit, or the like.

I don't know about that.  But he did retire the zoinks persona on MOL.  He posted a rather long essay about how the 2016 election, as well as other well-publicized events made him rethink a lot of his attitudes.  It seemed really heartfelt, and pretty remarkable that someone would come to this board and make what was essentially an apology and a mea culpa.  

Jerseyperson said:
I’m confused. Why does anyone engage her?  If she had valid, cogent arguments it would be rational. All she posts are deflecting comments or posts some stupid link. She is beyond help. 
BRW, my husband and I are older and we loathe and have always loathed trump. We support women’s rights, universal healthcare, marriage equality, etc. Please don’t lump us all in one basket. 

I've written this before -- for me it's like arguing with my Catholic relatives by proxy.