The Chronicles of Narcissist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kramodlog

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
Challenge accepted!

I judge all the time. We all do. It is a natural thing to do. It helps keep us alive. Is that street safe to cross? Let me judge that. Is that green meat in the fridge safe to eat? Let me judge that. Should I try to stop that hobo who is doing is business in my driveway? Let me judge that...

Do not judge unless you wanna be judged? People judge me all the time. Its three in the morning and a woman is walking towards me, she'll judge if I am a threat or not. Silver's boss will judge him to see if he is fit for a promotion (and he isn't cause of the drunkeness). Heck, we judge ourselves all the time. "Why did I take the red pill!? Stupid stupid stupid!"

We also judge politicians all the time. It is the normal thing to do when we decide for whom to vote, or vote at all. If a politician starts talking about real rape and how a woman's body prevents pregnancy in the case of real rapes, well, I'll judge him or her severely. I am ready to be judged by that politician. Why not judge the political base that made them candidates in the first place? I am also ready to be judged by that base.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Ryujin

Ryujin

Legend
Now Ann Coulter is chiming in. Someone must have said her name in front of a mirror three times.
 


Rune

Rune

Once A Fool
goldomark said:
Do not judge unless you wanna be judged?
Click to expand...

That's not really what the passage says. Phrasing changes with the translation, but Mathew 7:5 says, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

In other words, "recognize that your judgement of others is biased by your own faults and/or limitations of perspective and account for that if you judge others." Or, more bluntly, "don't be a judgemental jerk." Which is practical advice, when you get down to it.

Note that the above is not the same thing as, "judge not, lest ye be judged." It does not, in fact, imply any causal relationship between two people, at all.
 

I'm A Banana

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.

It's natural to compare things to what they're placed next to. Trump as a candidate will be compared with all the other candidates. He'll make people who are less completely insane than he is - but still pretty off-kilter - seem saner by comparison.

You know, as a hypothetical, a candidate promising "tough enforcement of immigration laws" now sounds reasonable next to Donald. Whereas before, that position might've been more to the extreme of the spectrum that might run from "open door policy" to "careful immigration reform" (or whatever).

In a two-party system, the wingnut candidates can help a party's goals more broadly by shifting the conversation and re-defining "centrist." The party with the wingnutties wingnuts gets to pull the middle in their direction and thereby ultimately win bigger.

So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race - it makes the "centrist" folks on the other side seem dangerously left-of-center. Republican candidates have more breathing room with him in the race - they don't have to be not crazy, just less crazy than Donald, and they'll seem pretty reasonable, even if they're still saying kind of crazy stuff.

It also serves as a useful distraction. With Donald yelling and screaming and telling everyone to pay attention to him (something he's got some practice doing!), you have your rodeo clown, the person your enemies can target so they won't be ready when you actually start to fight back for real. He's your pawn, your tank, the one you predict will get hit, but who will stop your enemies from getting a more coherent attack against your actually-vulnerable forces (or that your enemies try to ignore and thus suffer the penalties for ignoring).

It's something the progressives in the US haven't been doing a great job of since about the time of the Red Scare and the strong Labor movements, though the conservatives seem to have it down pretty well (there's been someone from the Conservative Loony Bin on display in most major elections of the last ~20 years or so, but it seems like it's harder to find someone willing to espouse liberal-crazy in a way that can be put on stage).

I am perhaps giving political wonks more credit than they deserve on that though. ;)
 
Last edited:

T

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Kamikaze Midget said:
There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm also noticing that the large number of republican candidates rather uses up bandwidth. They may seem to be as a pile of clowns emerging endlessly from their car, but they are stealing the show. They seem well on their way to defining what conversation will be had months from now.

Thx!

TomB
 

Kramodlog

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
Kamikaze Midget said:
There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.

It's natural to compare things to what they're placed next to. Trump as a candidate will be compared with all the other candidates. He'll make people who are less completely insane than he is - but still pretty off-kilter - seem saner by comparison.

You know, as a hypothetical, a candidate promising "tough enforcement of immigration laws" now sounds reasonable next to Donald. Whereas before, that position might've been more to the extreme of the spectrum that might run from "open door policy" to "careful immigration reform" (or whatever).

In a two-party system, the wingnut candidates can help a party's goals more broadly by shifting the conversation and re-defining "centrist." The party with the wingnutties wingnuts gets to pull the middle in their direction and thereby ultimately win bigger.

So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race - it makes the "centrist" folks on the other side seem dangerously left-of-center. Republican candidates have more breathing room with him in the race - they don't have to be not crazy, just less crazy than Donald, and they'll seem pretty reasonable, even if they're still saying kind of crazy stuff.

It also serves as a useful distraction. With Donald yelling and screaming and telling everyone to pay attention to him (something he's got some practice doing!), you have your rodeo clown, the person your enemies can target so they won't be ready when you actually start to fight back for real. He's your pawn, your tank, the one you predict will get hit, but who will stop your enemies from getting a more coherent attack against your actually-vulnerable forces (or that your enemies try to ignore and thus suffer the penalties for ignoring).

It's something the progressives in the US haven't been doing a great job of since about the time of the Red Scare and the strong Labor movements, though the conservatives seem to have it down pretty well (there's been someone from the Conservative Loony Bin on display in most major elections of the last ~20 years or so, but it seems like it's harder to find someone willing to espouse liberal-crazy in a way that can be put on stage).

I am perhaps giving political wonks more credit than they deserve on that though. ;)
Click to expand...

But can it work in the Republican context? Rep candidates have a tendacy to out perform each other rather than try to look moderate and rally everyone under their umbrella. Romney during the last primaries was a good example. He became more severe on immigration, not less, among other policies. He even became more "severely conservative". Now it is about immigration, but there will be taxes, abortion, war in the Middle-East, gay marriage, etc. It isn't like the base is actually moderate.
 

Umbran

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Kamikaze Midget said:
So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race...
Click to expand...

Someone correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't think anyone "let" Trump run. There are some technical requirements/bureaucratic steps he has to take, but if he meets them, he's allowed, and that's it. The party leaders don't get to say, "No, you can't," just because they don't like him.
 

I'm A Banana

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Umbran said:
Someone correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't think anyone "let" Trump run. There are some technical requirements/bureaucratic steps he has to take, but if he meets them, he's allowed, and that's it. The party leaders don't get to say, "No, you can't," just because they don't like him.
Click to expand...

Nobody has to "let" him run.

But I think if you are imagining he isn't connected to a greater political party machine by a series of advisors and handlers, then I think you might not be seeing a bigger picture. It's not too hard for the guy running, I dunno, Jeb's campaign to call up the guy who is Donald's advisor and say, "Yeah, if he runs, we win, too, so let him run! In fact, want some help setting up a Super PAC?"

goldomark said:
But can it work in the Republican context? Rep candidates have a tendacy to out perform each other rather than try to look moderate and rally everyone under their umbrella. Romney during the last primaries was a good example. He became more severe on immigration, not less, among other policies. He even became more "severely conservative". Now it is about immigration, but there will be taxes, abortion, war in the Middle-East, gay marriage, etc. It isn't like the base is actually moderate.
Click to expand...

I think pulling Romney harder to the right may have been a strategic miscalculation - they under-estimated Obama or the nation's enthusiasm for him at the time, they over-estimated their ability to distance themselves from the primaries, they under-estimated the turnout of groups that tend not to vote in the last two elections, etc., etc. Romeny had to work hard to get the conservative base on board (being a Mormon from New England who promoted Health Care after all), which made him lean out from his center.

Against Hillary - who definitely does not have that enthusiasm - and with a candidate with more conservative cred (which Jeb, forex, has in spades!), they might be able to NOT pull their guy farther right, and just make his already-right-wing stuff seem more centrist.

Their calculation this year seems to be more: "Let the idiots run and make our draft picks look more reasonable." I think that in seeing candidates like Rubio basically say "Trump's a dink," you're seeing that in action: "I'm not as extreme as THIS guy!" and "Hillary/Bernie is clearly more extreme the OTHER way!" walk pretty nicely hand-in-hand. It's not like the Left can trot out a candidate who would espouse single-payer healthcare, nationwide decirminalization of marajuana, laws empowering labor unions, de-funding the military and pouring the money into education, establishing a tax on stock investments, stricter financial controls on markets, or any of the more progressive wish-list items that Hillary or Bernie can point to and be like "at least I'm not THAT extreme!"
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top