Trump does what all narcissists do, create chaos, blame others, treat boundaries, honesty, and consequences as personal attacks. It's one of several reasons the Republican party can't win elections in landslides despite very poor, unlikeable, candidates who are emboldened by Trumps lack of self discipline and egregious acts. Here's hoping to a return to some normalcy and perhaps an awakening among conservatives in 2028 and beyond
I hope you will provide specific details on how I and thousands of others can apply for our fair share of the Trump fund. We are absolutely political victims in this sad saga. For myself, I don't sleep well because I "feel" I can no longer trust the federal government at all. I need to be financially compensated!
While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds". In fact - at least as I have come to understand what happened on that day - the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation. Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged. Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say. But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place. In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters". I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
>>While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds"
There were close to 1,600 people charged with crimes for their actions during the U.S. Capitol attack. Over 400 of them assaulted police officers. Another 200 were resisting arrest or otherwise interfering with police officers. Those numbers don't include many more individuals who were filmed but never identified.
>>the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation.
You could use that excuse for literally any riot. They almost always start out as some kind of protest. That doesn't given anyone license to resort to violence and criminality.
>>Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged.
Literally none of those people were locked up for years without being charged.
>>Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say.
It's because he didn't care, Bill. He freed everyone who broke the law in his name that day, including seditionists, child molesters, cop-beaters, and sex traffickers. It didn't matter to him.
>>But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place.
Why on earth not? Why should anyone who broke the law that day get a pass?
>>In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters".
Thousands of ANTIFA and BLM rioters were charged with crimes, including arson.
>>I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right,
Then why are you saying the vast mast majority of people who committed crimes on January 6 should have never been charged in the first place?
>>but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
You believe Trump granted pardons to almost 1,600 criminals, because other people rioted that year? How does that make any sense.
Trump pardoned those people because the crimes they committed were in support of him.
Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing. Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,” labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,” and presenting disputed claims as settled fact tells you the Mr. Goldberg's conclusion was decided before the article was written.
The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies — not simply because of Trump’s “ego.” You can disagree with those concerns without pretending they were invented out of thin air.
And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether Mr. Goldberg wants to acknowledge it or not.
Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
>>Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing.
Mr. Goldberg didn't write this column. I did.
I'm no partisan (I have enormous problems with both sides and belong to neither party), but this is absolutely an opinion piece (as is every column on this website). And it's based on facts. The only assumptions I've suggested are also based on facts, which I described in detail.
>>Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,”
That is my honest, entirely defensible view of him.
>>labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,”
I said "and" cartoon villains. If it matters, I had people like George Santos in mind with that verbiage (though I suppose the J6er dressed like a viking would work as well).
>>and presenting disputed claims as settled fact
What's disputed? That Biden won the 2020 election? Sorry, but he did. The facts have long made that clear. Those who dispute it don't have the facts on their side.
>>The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies
People questioning pandemic-era rule changes (which favored no candidate over the other) has never been my beef. My beef is with those who deny that Biden won. They don't have the facts on their side.
>>not simply because of Trump’s “ego.”
If Trump (who was told by everyone around him, including his AG, that he absolutely lost) had admitted defeat and conceded the race like every other losing presidential candidate, there would have never been any meat behind this "stop the steal" nonsense. It would have been as impotent and harmless as the Al Gore stuff in 2000. What happened (and continues to happen) is directly due to Trump's actions.
>>And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether the author wants to acknowledge it or not.
I have no such double standard. I've called out all of these groups. But the fact of the matter is that no president and no DOJ set up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa or BLM rioters. Nothing even close to that.
>>Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
Again, I wrote this. And both Bernie and I have called out corruption on both sides - many times. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
You say you’re “not partisan,” yet the entire article reads through one political lens while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty. That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals. Millions questioned the unprecedented rule changes, mass mail voting expansions, media suppression stories, court refusals to hear cases on procedural grounds, and uneven election standards between states. Reasonable people can acknowledge Biden was certified the winner while still believing the process deserved scrutiny.
As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump ignores years of election denial rhetoric from both parties. Democrats challenged 2000, 2004, and 2016 in various ways, with claims of illegitimacy, foreign interference, voter suppression, or “not my president” movements. Election skepticism did not suddenly appear in 2020.
And regarding January 6 versus the 2020 riots: your distinction is technically true — there wasn’t a federal compensation fund for BLM or Antifa rioters. But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity. Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
>>yet the entire article reads through one political lens
What political lens is that? Is it your belief that any criticism of Trump or the Trump administration is a Democratic position? If so, aren't you the one who's revealing yourself as a partisan?
>>while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty.
What opposing concerns have I dismissed? If you're talking about the ones that don't have a factual basis (or have outright been debunked by the facts) why do you believe it is incumbent on me to entertain those positions as legitimate, good-faith concerns?
>>That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
Who or what am I advocating for?
>>You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals.
LOTS of "stop the steal" people have focused on the vote totals. It was the entire basis of the movement: That Trump actually won -- that he got more votes than Joe Biden, especially in the Republican-led swing-states. There are additional branches that people climbed out on, but the basis for the whole thing was Trump won, and Biden stole the election.
>>As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump
Who's pretending that? Government distrust has been with us since our founding, as have concerns over election integrity. Trump went FARRRRRR beyond that. As President of the United States, he declared, in no uncertain terms, that the election had been stolen. He tried to stay in power after his defeat, and he pushed and pushed the "stop the steal" crap until the U.S. Capitol came under attack, police got the crap beat out of them, and lawmakers were running for their lives. And he's STILL pushing it.
>>But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
I don't disagree with any of that. And I've called a lot of it out. But that doesn't give Trump any kind of pass with me, nor should it with anyone.
>>Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity.
Why? Is there any objective argument, in your view, that Trump is not a narcissist? Have you not seen overwhelming evidence of that over at least the last 10 years? (Do you really need me to list examples?) And if you concede that he's a narcissist, do you not believe he's a higher degree of one than your average narcissist? If a Democrat acted EXACTLY the same way he does, my guess is that you wouldn't object one bit to me calling him or her a malignant narcissist.
>>Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
Other than your belief that I should be entertaining factually false claims as good-faith concerns, and abstain from using defensible (albeit unflattering) phrases to describe Donald Trump, what about my analysis do you believe is unfair? And why is there an assumption that I haven't strongly criticized Democrats?
I am not condescending at all - nothing towards you - it's just common sense, it's impossible for to Biden to have garnered 81,000,000 votes (without cheating like crazy).... I wish you argued this hard for more meaningful conservative things
>>I am not condescending at all - nothing towards you
Your words - to me: "you cannot argue with a liberal."
Your words - to me: "there is no hope for you."
Yes, that's very obviously condescension.
>> it's just common sense, it's impossible for to Biden to have garnered 81,000,000 votes (without cheating like crazy)
No, it's not "common sense." It's a purely emotional reaction, in denial of hard facts.
Again, in 2020, approximately 22 million more people voted in the presidential election than in 2016. I explained why in my previous post. Trump increased his own vote total by over 11 million (which you have no trouble believing). Biden, who won back independents from Trump four years earlier, got a little over 15 million more than the very unpopular Hillary Clinton (which you somehow find impossible).
So, to review, you have absolutely no trouble believing that Donald Trump (who never had an above-water approval rating during his first term in office, and had just spent 8 months bungling the pandemic in front of an angry, frustrated, underemployed electorate) increased his 2016 vote total by over 11 million. But you find it impossible that Joe Biden would improve the vote total of Hillary Clinton (who no one liked, and who lost the independent vote) by just 4 million more?
Sorry, but your irrationality and denial of facts is anything but "common sense."
>>I wish you argued this hard for more meaningful conservative things
Which tells me that you haven't actually read any of the many things I've written about limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, peace-through-strength foreign policy, free markets, free trade, the rule of law, good character, personal responsibility, etc.
I want the Republican Party to care about these things. They currently don't. Criticizing them for such isn't liberal. It's conservative.
I can go to the MSM anytime and watch or read TDS stuff - I didn't expect it from this site.. I always liked to watch and listen to Bernie over the years (but I hadn't seen him in a long time) - then recently I saw him interviewed on some conservative channel, and I liked what he had to say (he has a unique take on things), so I subscribed to this...
Anyways I (foolishly) started talking to you, after you said you were a Reagan guy --- I explained that your article sounded very liberal..
Now (below) you jump to these conclusions about me, and you top it off by saying: "It's hilarious to me THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU..." Wow .... Rarely would a conservative start a fight with someone on his own team - but liberals have no problem trash talking, at the drop of a hat....
Lol. No. Opposing a government slush fund that doles out money to criminals is very much a conservative position.
>>I can go to the MSM anytime and watch or read TDS stuff - I didn't expect it from this site..
When you categorize literally any criticism of Donald Trump, or any unflattering fact about him, as "TDS," you've lost the plot. Sorry.
>>I always liked to watch and listen to Bernie over the years (but I hadn't seen him in a long time) - then recently I saw him interviewed on some conservative channel, and I liked what he had to say (he has a unique take on things), so I subscribed to this...
Thanks for subscribing. Yes, Bernie is very unique in today's political-media market because he's fair, principled, avoids hypocrisy, and tells the truth regardless of whether his audience wants to hear that truth. I do the same thing.
>>Anyways I (foolishly) started talking to you, after you said you were a Reagan guy
I am.
>> --- I explained that your article sounded very liberal..
You didn't 'explain' anything. You simply dismissed it as "liberal" because it was critical of Donald Trump. My criticisms of Trump have always come from a conservative perspective, and I'm far more conservative than he is.
>>Now (below) you jump to these conclusions about me, and you top it off by saying: "It's hilarious to me THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU..."
Yes, I'm talking about the people who try to disparage others with the whole 'You think Biden got 81m votes when Obama only got 69m — What are you, stupid???' stuff.
I've fielded that condescending nonsense time after time after time. It's entire MAGA sub-genre.
>>Wow .... Rarely would a conservative start a fight with someone on his own team
Psst... You started this fight/argument with me, not the other way around. You called me a liberal, and literally said there was no hope for me (simply because I know how voter turn-out works, and why it was much larger in 2020 than in previous years).
>>but liberals have no problem trash talking, at the drop of a hat....
That's exactly what you did to me, dude. Are you a liberal?
I'll tell you what is "UNFAIR" about your article.... and Bill O'Reilly always said: "You don't justify bad behavior with other bad behavior" - but I think it's ridiculous to pick on Trump, without him our country (and the world) would be beyond repair (the dems are nuts - they want to drive our "way of life" right down the toilet)..... So for you to spend so much energy picking on "our guy" is annoying -- the dems do 100X times more destructive things than we do....
PS if you really think Biden got 81,000,000 votes (when their messiah Obama only got 69,000,000 votes) then there is no hope for you.
So, in summary, you believe it is unfair for people to criticize Donald Trump because you think he's awesome, and you hate the Democrats. Got it.
PS: If you don't understand by now that 2020 had the highest voter turnout in U.S. history (well over 20 million more than in 2008, 2012, and 2016), largely attributable to pre-vaccine pandemic conditions (like states adopting mail-balloting, and folks stuck at home and angry about it), there in no hope for you.
It's hilarious to me that people like you have absolutely no trouble believing the fact that, in 2020, Trump improved his OWN vote total by 11+ million over 2016, but you completely reject the fact that Biden topped the terminally unlikable Hillary Clinton's number by a little higher margin than that.
Trump does what all narcissists do, create chaos, blame others, treat boundaries, honesty, and consequences as personal attacks. It's one of several reasons the Republican party can't win elections in landslides despite very poor, unlikeable, candidates who are emboldened by Trumps lack of self discipline and egregious acts. Here's hoping to a return to some normalcy and perhaps an awakening among conservatives in 2028 and beyond
I hope you will provide specific details on how I and thousands of others can apply for our fair share of the Trump fund. We are absolutely political victims in this sad saga. For myself, I don't sleep well because I "feel" I can no longer trust the federal government at all. I need to be financially compensated!
I suspect you and I would have more compelling cases that some of the people who will actually apply (and probably get approved).
While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds". In fact - at least as I have come to understand what happened on that day - the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation. Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged. Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say. But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place. In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters". I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
>>While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds"
There were close to 1,600 people charged with crimes for their actions during the U.S. Capitol attack. Over 400 of them assaulted police officers. Another 200 were resisting arrest or otherwise interfering with police officers. Those numbers don't include many more individuals who were filmed but never identified.
>>the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation.
You could use that excuse for literally any riot. They almost always start out as some kind of protest. That doesn't given anyone license to resort to violence and criminality.
>>Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged.
Literally none of those people were locked up for years without being charged.
>>Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say.
It's because he didn't care, Bill. He freed everyone who broke the law in his name that day, including seditionists, child molesters, cop-beaters, and sex traffickers. It didn't matter to him.
>>But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place.
Why on earth not? Why should anyone who broke the law that day get a pass?
>>In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters".
Thousands of ANTIFA and BLM rioters were charged with crimes, including arson.
>>I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right,
Then why are you saying the vast mast majority of people who committed crimes on January 6 should have never been charged in the first place?
>>but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
You believe Trump granted pardons to almost 1,600 criminals, because other people rioted that year? How does that make any sense.
Trump pardoned those people because the crimes they committed were in support of him.
Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing. Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,” labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,” and presenting disputed claims as settled fact tells you the Mr. Goldberg's conclusion was decided before the article was written.
The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies — not simply because of Trump’s “ego.” You can disagree with those concerns without pretending they were invented out of thin air.
And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether Mr. Goldberg wants to acknowledge it or not.
Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
>>Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing.
Mr. Goldberg didn't write this column. I did.
I'm no partisan (I have enormous problems with both sides and belong to neither party), but this is absolutely an opinion piece (as is every column on this website). And it's based on facts. The only assumptions I've suggested are also based on facts, which I described in detail.
>>Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,”
That is my honest, entirely defensible view of him.
>>labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,”
I said "and" cartoon villains. If it matters, I had people like George Santos in mind with that verbiage (though I suppose the J6er dressed like a viking would work as well).
>>and presenting disputed claims as settled fact
What's disputed? That Biden won the 2020 election? Sorry, but he did. The facts have long made that clear. Those who dispute it don't have the facts on their side.
>>The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies
People questioning pandemic-era rule changes (which favored no candidate over the other) has never been my beef. My beef is with those who deny that Biden won. They don't have the facts on their side.
>>not simply because of Trump’s “ego.”
If Trump (who was told by everyone around him, including his AG, that he absolutely lost) had admitted defeat and conceded the race like every other losing presidential candidate, there would have never been any meat behind this "stop the steal" nonsense. It would have been as impotent and harmless as the Al Gore stuff in 2000. What happened (and continues to happen) is directly due to Trump's actions.
>>And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether the author wants to acknowledge it or not.
I have no such double standard. I've called out all of these groups. But the fact of the matter is that no president and no DOJ set up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa or BLM rioters. Nothing even close to that.
>>Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
Again, I wrote this. And both Bernie and I have called out corruption on both sides - many times. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
You say you’re “not partisan,” yet the entire article reads through one political lens while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty. That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals. Millions questioned the unprecedented rule changes, mass mail voting expansions, media suppression stories, court refusals to hear cases on procedural grounds, and uneven election standards between states. Reasonable people can acknowledge Biden was certified the winner while still believing the process deserved scrutiny.
As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump ignores years of election denial rhetoric from both parties. Democrats challenged 2000, 2004, and 2016 in various ways, with claims of illegitimacy, foreign interference, voter suppression, or “not my president” movements. Election skepticism did not suddenly appear in 2020.
And regarding January 6 versus the 2020 riots: your distinction is technically true — there wasn’t a federal compensation fund for BLM or Antifa rioters. But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity. Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
>>You say you’re “not partisan,”
Correct.
>>yet the entire article reads through one political lens
What political lens is that? Is it your belief that any criticism of Trump or the Trump administration is a Democratic position? If so, aren't you the one who's revealing yourself as a partisan?
>>while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty.
What opposing concerns have I dismissed? If you're talking about the ones that don't have a factual basis (or have outright been debunked by the facts) why do you believe it is incumbent on me to entertain those positions as legitimate, good-faith concerns?
>>That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
Who or what am I advocating for?
>>You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals.
LOTS of "stop the steal" people have focused on the vote totals. It was the entire basis of the movement: That Trump actually won -- that he got more votes than Joe Biden, especially in the Republican-led swing-states. There are additional branches that people climbed out on, but the basis for the whole thing was Trump won, and Biden stole the election.
>>As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump
Who's pretending that? Government distrust has been with us since our founding, as have concerns over election integrity. Trump went FARRRRRR beyond that. As President of the United States, he declared, in no uncertain terms, that the election had been stolen. He tried to stay in power after his defeat, and he pushed and pushed the "stop the steal" crap until the U.S. Capitol came under attack, police got the crap beat out of them, and lawmakers were running for their lives. And he's STILL pushing it.
>>But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
I don't disagree with any of that. And I've called a lot of it out. But that doesn't give Trump any kind of pass with me, nor should it with anyone.
>>Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity.
Why? Is there any objective argument, in your view, that Trump is not a narcissist? Have you not seen overwhelming evidence of that over at least the last 10 years? (Do you really need me to list examples?) And if you concede that he's a narcissist, do you not believe he's a higher degree of one than your average narcissist? If a Democrat acted EXACTLY the same way he does, my guess is that you wouldn't object one bit to me calling him or her a malignant narcissist.
>>Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
Other than your belief that I should be entertaining factually false claims as good-faith concerns, and abstain from using defensible (albeit unflattering) phrases to describe Donald Trump, what about my analysis do you believe is unfair? And why is there an assumption that I haven't strongly criticized Democrats?
I am not condescending at all - nothing towards you - it's just common sense, it's impossible for to Biden to have garnered 81,000,000 votes (without cheating like crazy).... I wish you argued this hard for more meaningful conservative things
>>I am not condescending at all - nothing towards you
Your words - to me: "you cannot argue with a liberal."
Your words - to me: "there is no hope for you."
Yes, that's very obviously condescension.
>> it's just common sense, it's impossible for to Biden to have garnered 81,000,000 votes (without cheating like crazy)
No, it's not "common sense." It's a purely emotional reaction, in denial of hard facts.
Again, in 2020, approximately 22 million more people voted in the presidential election than in 2016. I explained why in my previous post. Trump increased his own vote total by over 11 million (which you have no trouble believing). Biden, who won back independents from Trump four years earlier, got a little over 15 million more than the very unpopular Hillary Clinton (which you somehow find impossible).
So, to review, you have absolutely no trouble believing that Donald Trump (who never had an above-water approval rating during his first term in office, and had just spent 8 months bungling the pandemic in front of an angry, frustrated, underemployed electorate) increased his 2016 vote total by over 11 million. But you find it impossible that Joe Biden would improve the vote total of Hillary Clinton (who no one liked, and who lost the independent vote) by just 4 million more?
Sorry, but your irrationality and denial of facts is anything but "common sense."
>>I wish you argued this hard for more meaningful conservative things
Which tells me that you haven't actually read any of the many things I've written about limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, peace-through-strength foreign policy, free markets, free trade, the rule of law, good character, personal responsibility, etc.
I want the Republican Party to care about these things. They currently don't. Criticizing them for such isn't liberal. It's conservative.
Hmmm..... You just exposed yourself a liberal..
I can go to the MSM anytime and watch or read TDS stuff - I didn't expect it from this site.. I always liked to watch and listen to Bernie over the years (but I hadn't seen him in a long time) - then recently I saw him interviewed on some conservative channel, and I liked what he had to say (he has a unique take on things), so I subscribed to this...
Anyways I (foolishly) started talking to you, after you said you were a Reagan guy --- I explained that your article sounded very liberal..
Now (below) you jump to these conclusions about me, and you top it off by saying: "It's hilarious to me THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU..." Wow .... Rarely would a conservative start a fight with someone on his own team - but liberals have no problem trash talking, at the drop of a hat....
>>Hmmm..... You just exposed yourself a liberal..
Lol. No. Opposing a government slush fund that doles out money to criminals is very much a conservative position.
>>I can go to the MSM anytime and watch or read TDS stuff - I didn't expect it from this site..
When you categorize literally any criticism of Donald Trump, or any unflattering fact about him, as "TDS," you've lost the plot. Sorry.
>>I always liked to watch and listen to Bernie over the years (but I hadn't seen him in a long time) - then recently I saw him interviewed on some conservative channel, and I liked what he had to say (he has a unique take on things), so I subscribed to this...
Thanks for subscribing. Yes, Bernie is very unique in today's political-media market because he's fair, principled, avoids hypocrisy, and tells the truth regardless of whether his audience wants to hear that truth. I do the same thing.
>>Anyways I (foolishly) started talking to you, after you said you were a Reagan guy
I am.
>> --- I explained that your article sounded very liberal..
You didn't 'explain' anything. You simply dismissed it as "liberal" because it was critical of Donald Trump. My criticisms of Trump have always come from a conservative perspective, and I'm far more conservative than he is.
>>Now (below) you jump to these conclusions about me, and you top it off by saying: "It's hilarious to me THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU..."
Yes, I'm talking about the people who try to disparage others with the whole 'You think Biden got 81m votes when Obama only got 69m — What are you, stupid???' stuff.
I've fielded that condescending nonsense time after time after time. It's entire MAGA sub-genre.
>>Wow .... Rarely would a conservative start a fight with someone on his own team
Psst... You started this fight/argument with me, not the other way around. You called me a liberal, and literally said there was no hope for me (simply because I know how voter turn-out works, and why it was much larger in 2020 than in previous years).
>>but liberals have no problem trash talking, at the drop of a hat....
That's exactly what you did to me, dude. Are you a liberal?
John ("grip and rip it") Daly,
I'll tell you what is "UNFAIR" about your article.... and Bill O'Reilly always said: "You don't justify bad behavior with other bad behavior" - but I think it's ridiculous to pick on Trump, without him our country (and the world) would be beyond repair (the dems are nuts - they want to drive our "way of life" right down the toilet)..... So for you to spend so much energy picking on "our guy" is annoying -- the dems do 100X times more destructive things than we do....
PS if you really think Biden got 81,000,000 votes (when their messiah Obama only got 69,000,000 votes) then there is no hope for you.
So, in summary, you believe it is unfair for people to criticize Donald Trump because you think he's awesome, and you hate the Democrats. Got it.
PS: If you don't understand by now that 2020 had the highest voter turnout in U.S. history (well over 20 million more than in 2008, 2012, and 2016), largely attributable to pre-vaccine pandemic conditions (like states adopting mail-balloting, and folks stuck at home and angry about it), there in no hope for you.
It's hilarious to me that people like you have absolutely no trouble believing the fact that, in 2020, Trump improved his OWN vote total by 11+ million over 2016, but you completely reject the fact that Biden topped the terminally unlikable Hillary Clinton's number by a little higher margin than that.
Amazing.
Bernie... You are in left field on this one!!!
Bernie didn't write it. I did.
Tell me what I've written that is untrue or unfair?
Ha, I learned years ago - you cannot argue with a liberal
Which is irrelevant, being that I'm a Reagan conservative.
And since I'm a conservative, I oppose taxpayer slush funds for criminals. Why don't you?
John DAiLY, you are no republican conservative.. I was one and that’s how I concluded that you are not.. Your claim to be one doesn’t make you one.
>>John DAiLY,
Daly.
>>you are no republican conservative..
I said Reagan conservative, not Republican conservative. I haven't been a Republican since 2016.
>>I was one and that’s how I concluded that you are not..
Lol. What?
>>Your claim to be one doesn’t make you one.
No, my beliefs and positions make me one.
John , Thank you for your truthfulness
SAYS YOU!