Bill Barr on Trump

[Bootstrap]

The tribalism continues...

Not sure what your point is. Please explain.

The definition of tribalism; "Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group".

I'm not Ernie, but let me give it a try.

The original post makes specific claims about Trump, and a suggestion that the Republicans should find someone else. I think that a lot of the response has shown loyalty to Trump - some people seem to circle the wagons to defend Trump, changing the subject to how they feel about Barr or Biden. This happens in a LOT of threads. I have issues with both Barr and Biden, but I also think that Barr had a front row seat to observe Trump, and it's worth asking whether he is speaking truth. Or not. How could we know?

Suppose we wanted to discuss the original post. We might, for instance, want to discuss what members of Trump's own Administration and campaign have said about him, what people like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson say about him in private, what his own chief of staff, defense secretary, secretary of state, or chief strategist have said about these same claims. Is it just Barr, or is this something that a whole lot of people who worked for Trump agree on? Are there other ways we could evaluate these claims?

Or we might ask which policies we really care about and who might best be able to make them happen. That might be best in another thread.

[Grace]

The tribalism continues...

Not sure what your point is. Please explain.

The definition of tribalism; "Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group".

I'm not Ernie, but let me give it a try.

The original post makes specific claims about Trump, and a suggestion that the Republicans should find someone else. I think that a lot of the response has shown loyalty to Trump - some people seem to circle the wagons to defend Trump, changing the subject to how they feel about Barr or Biden. This happens in a LOT of threads. I have issues with both Barr and Biden, but I also think that Barr had a front row seat to observe Trump, and it's worth asking whether he is speaking truth. Or not. How could we know?


.

First of all, Trump is NOT the president, and we can only hope he won't ever be again. Secondly, pointing out facts about the current president is NOT circling the wagons for Trump. Pointing out the positives about the policies Trump enacted that had a positive result for the nation is NOT circling the wagons for Trump. These are the facts.

Suppose we wanted to discuss the original post. We might, for instance, want to discuss what members of Trump's own Administration and campaign have said about him, what people like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson say about him in private, what his own chief of staff, defense secretary, secretary of state, or chief strategist have said about these same claims. Is it just Barr, or is this something that a whole lot of people who worked for Trump agree on? Are there other ways we could evaluate these claims?

In other words, let's trash talk Trump on a personal level. Why not discuss his policies and how they affected the nation? How it affected the middle class and working poor? How it affected the human trafficked women and children? How it affected the economy?

And if Temp, Valerie or I start a thread or make comments on what insiders say about Biden, why his poll numbers are so low, or about his alleged crimes in pay to play schemes etc., we immediately are deemed as circling the wagons for Trump or we are tribalists.

How would You or Ernie like, if every time there was a thread started or comments made that trashed Trump on a personal level, we would hurl the accusations that you are circling the wagons for Biden? Or call you a tribalist for Biden?

Bottom line, it is so much easier to go after Trump on his chaotic personal level, than discuss his policies versus Biden's policies.

[Josh]

If i thought the previous administration failed us in the economy, i would admit it.

If i believed the present administration is helping the economy in our country I would admit that as well. I'm not going to lie just to keep from sounding tribalistic.

Trump failed us by:

- Allowing lockdowns instead of immediately firing Dr Fauci and Dr Birx, which then killed the economy
- Allowing monetary policies because of those lockdowns to spiral out of control and lead to runaway inflation
- Rushing an untested, dangerous “vaccine” which doesn’t work
- Allowing a dangerous, untested “vaccine” to be mandated for immigration, employment, and many other things
- Letting unelected bureaucrats run the country under the guise of “public health”

[Robert]

I'm not Ernie, but let me give it a try.

Why do you need to speak for others? Just speak for yourself. This is what we ask. Stop summarizing what you think others are saying. Just let them speak and speak for yourself.

[Bootstrap]

Not sure what your point is. Please explain.

The definition of tribalism; "Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group".

I'm not Ernie, but let me give it a try.

The original post makes specific claims about Trump, and a suggestion that the Republicans should find someone else. I think that a lot of the response has shown loyalty to Trump - some people seem to circle the wagons to defend Trump, changing the subject to how they feel about Barr or Biden. This happens in a LOT of threads. I have issues with both Barr and Biden, but I also think that Barr had a front row seat to observe Trump, and it's worth asking whether he is speaking truth. Or not. How could we know?

First of all, Trump is NOT the president, and we can only hope he won't ever be again. Secondly, pointing out facts about the current president is NOT circling the wagons for Trump. Pointing out the positives about the policies Trump enacted that had a positive result for the nation is NOT circling the wagons for Trump. These are the facts.

How do you use the word "fact"? Which facts are actually about the same topic as the original post?

Trump is running for president right now. He may also be the single most prominent politician in America today. It seems strange to suggest that he should be out of scope.

Can you pick a particular policy and show how Trump approached it, demonstrating the skills that Barr claims Trump did not have? Could we explore what members of the Trump Administration had to say about that? How do we turn this into a discussion about the actual facts about something?

Suppose we wanted to discuss the original post. We might, for instance, want to discuss what members of Trump's own Administration and campaign have said about him, what people like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson say about him in private, what his own chief of staff, defense secretary, secretary of state, or chief strategist have said about these same claims. Is it just Barr, or is this something that a whole lot of people who worked for Trump agree on? Are there other ways we could evaluate these claims?

In other words, let's trash talk Trump on a personal level.

No, those are not other words for what I said at all. And that's the tribal thing, isn't it? Aren't you trash talking me on a personal level? Turning away from the subject? Perhaps even in order to avoid the subject?

Actually discussing the topic is almost impossible if the topic doesn't make Trump look good. That's what I mean by circling the wagons. Any comments on the subject of this thread?

[Robert]

In other words, let's trash talk Trump on a personal level.

DO not speak for others. Speak for yourself.

[Grace]

In other words, let's trash talk Trump on a personal level.

DO not speak for others. Speak for yourself.

I am sorry. I will try to do better.

[Grace]

No, those are not other words for what I said at all. And that's the tribal thing, isn't it? Aren't you trash talking me on a personal level?

I am going by what I observed in your posts and the threads you have started over the last few years. I won't speak for you as your words speak for themselves.

I do not condone or support Trump's sleazy actions and words in his personal life. However I will always support policies that protect the unborn, that protect the migrant women and children who are being assaulted and raped no matter who the president is. I will support policies that can prevent migrants from being cooked in a trailer. I will support policies that the middle class and working poor can live on and not have to pick between paying the rent or buying food for their families, no matter the president. I will support a president who doesn't embolden a foreign dictator to attack a sovereign nation, killing thousands, even women and children, no matter which president it is. I will support policies that protect children from being sexualized in their schools and other places and protect them from the grooming that the sexualization does. I will support policies that keep fairness in women's sports and men out of women and little girls locker rooms and bathrooms.

Actually discussing the topic is almost impossible if the topic doesn't make Trump look good. That's what I mean by circling the wagons. Any comments on the subject of this thread?

Why is it that any discussions on Trump must always make him look bad and if people don't meet the "making Trump look bad" requirement they are accused of circling the wagons or a tribalist?

Do I have any comments on the subject of the thread? I am fearful I won't make him look bad enough and be called a tribalist for not doing so.

[temporal1]

Grace:
First of all, Trump is NOT the president, and we can only hope he won't ever be again.
Secondly, pointing out facts about the current president is NOT circling the wagons for Trump.

Pointing out the positives about the policies Trump enacted that had a positive result for the nation is NOT circling the wagons for Trump. These are the facts.

i differ here, ‘cause, i have no qualms about Trump returning to office.
Results are in: In office or not, the drama does not fade. No way that’s all his doing!! He is given so much credit!!
So, why not “make it official” and let him do what he can?

Having said that, there are numerous very attractive conservative possibilities, quite encouraging.
Unfortunately, the DNC is so deeply committed to (evil) with a deep bench in it, i don’t have faith even a star standout, if tolerated, would stand a chance to right wrongs. “If tolerated” is pretty much lip service. Not happening.

2024 Campaign+Election Miscellany
viewtopic.php?t=5449

[Ernie]

@Grace

The problem is that nearly everyone supports good policies. Nearly everybody thinks their favored candidate's policies are good and the other party's are bad.
Because of this, no one ever needs to personally answer for the bad policies that they enact. They can always blame the other party or their predecessor for why bad things happen during their time in power. Rarely if ever does a politician say, "I really messed up bad. I am sorry." or "I really let the country down while I was in power and I am going to step out and let someone else lead instead."

Most people seem to have the opinion that if their preferred majority party candidate was in power and could do things the way he wanted, bad things would not happened.
There is a segment of society that does not believe this and I am one of them. I think this is a very naive view of the world.