What point are you trying to make? Is spreading optimism among Republicans the new way to combat them? Perhaps you are trying to wake up the Democrats by making them feel dysthymic and pessimistic by reproaching them for their inability to do what you think they need to. Why is it no longer best to denounce the Trump Administration's wro…
What point are you trying to make? Is spreading optimism among Republicans the new way to combat them? Perhaps you are trying to wake up the Democrats by making them feel dysthymic and pessimistic by reproaching them for their inability to do what you think they need to. Why is it no longer best to denounce the Trump Administration's wrongs and ill-intended governance well grounding what you say or write? Are you a journalist or a reverse psychology expert in disguise? Look at the reactions your writings are getting. How do you know that those favoring them are not coming from Republican or anti-Trump readers? Increasing confusion is, in general, not necessarily the best way to spark interest or mobilize people. It is disrespectful to publish thoughts on such vital matters as politics, assuming that all of your readers will interpret your thoughts the way you intend them to or that all of your readers have the same level of political awareness or information that political insiders like you may have. Being direct and explicitly transparent is always best when trying to inform, educate people, or raise their awareness. In what measure is being convolutedly paradoxical or ironical (if that is what you are doing) the best way to tell or raise awareness? Furthermore, assuming to be infallible is generally offensive to readers or listeners or simply arrogant, which is not an attractive attitude. I know you will probably not read my comment; however, venting my frustrations is helpful.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?
What point are you trying to make? Is spreading optimism among Republicans the new way to combat them? Perhaps you are trying to wake up the Democrats by making them feel dysthymic and pessimistic by reproaching them for their inability to do what you think they need to. Why is it no longer best to denounce the Trump Administration's wrongs and ill-intended governance well grounding what you say or write? Are you a journalist or a reverse psychology expert in disguise? Look at the reactions your writings are getting. How do you know that those favoring them are not coming from Republican or anti-Trump readers? Increasing confusion is, in general, not necessarily the best way to spark interest or mobilize people. It is disrespectful to publish thoughts on such vital matters as politics, assuming that all of your readers will interpret your thoughts the way you intend them to or that all of your readers have the same level of political awareness or information that political insiders like you may have. Being direct and explicitly transparent is always best when trying to inform, educate people, or raise their awareness. In what measure is being convolutedly paradoxical or ironical (if that is what you are doing) the best way to tell or raise awareness? Furthermore, assuming to be infallible is generally offensive to readers or listeners or simply arrogant, which is not an attractive attitude. I know you will probably not read my comment; however, venting my frustrations is helpful.
Totally agree.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.
Calling Trump a liar and a con hasn't worked in a decade. But if you wanna keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, go right ahead.
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?