caryking said:Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:
I don't know how history will regard DJT. But much of the animus towards him has to do with the fact that he "didn't pay his dues", I.e., come up through successive levels of office, becoming corrupted, and therefore controllable, along the way. First guy since Eisenhower to go to the White House without holding prior office.
Fascinating that given his mountain of trashy, abusive, norm-violating, Jan-6'ing, illegal behavior that you and others want to ascribe "much of the animus" towards him to some nebulous sense of him not having paid political dues.
Isn't a vastly more likely explanation for the animus towards him simply that his bad behavior warrants most of the animus?
This isn't a mellow, likable, professional chap like John Kasich suddenly becoming a pariah for reasons unclear. It's someone who behaves extraordinarily poorly and who represents the Presidency and our country in ways never before seen catching heat commensurately with his behavior.
Not much of what you've said, logically connects to anything I said, thus I really can't respond except perhaps to say that a significant majority of the American people decided that was what should be elected. No one for or against him can claim they didn't know what they were getting in electing him.
You know, I sometimes wonder what the liberals are like in real life while riding their high horse on the internet? What skeletons does Civ have in his closet but yet he wants to point fingers at someone.
LOLOL
Y'all are being oddly sensitive about what I've said on here.
What does my closet have to do with anything I've ever said?
I've got takes on political and other leaders and their actions and inactions, as we all do.
Who exactly have I pointed fingers at on here? Are we still talking about me calling someone's take "shortsighted" or are we talking about my exchange with Souljer?
I'm never on here calling posters names or talking about them personally, or making up their views and arguing against made-up stances like many folks on here do.
I've got political takes on a political topic.
Souljer literally said...Quote:
...much of the animus towards [Trump] has to do with the fact that he "didn't pay his dues", I.e., come up through successive levels of office, becoming corrupted, and therefore controllable, along the way
and I responded...Quote:
Fascinating that given his mountain of trashy, abusive, norm-violating, Jan-6'ing, illegal behavior that you and others want to ascribe "much of the animus" towards him to some nebulous sense of him not having paid political dues.
Isn't a vastly more likely explanation for the animus towards him simply that his bad behavior warrants most of the animus?
It's a direct response to what Souljer said, and that's it. I was questioning why in the world we're looking for mystical reasons that there's animus towards Trump, when his behavior alone is obviously very sufficient explanation for the animus.
Wait, Civ is actually trying to have a conversation…
No, not really... just more of the same as usual.
