3. When one of the myriad examples of Democratic lies, gaslighting, totalitarian tactics and frightening Machiavellian threats are pointed out (because, flawed though he may be, Donald Trump is nearly the only bulwark that can stand up to the Axis of Unethical Conduct), the response is always, “Well, that’s a mistake.” No, I retort. It is not a mistake. That is the party you are supporting because you think the White House Ball Room will be too big.
This was the exchange regarding Virginia trying to gerrymander half of its voters out of representation in Congress by 1) breaking the state’s laws and 2) lying on the referendum ballot: “That was a mistake.”
4. The discussion keeps coming back to the Capitol riot and the fact that Trump keeps claiming that he “won” the 2020 election. My response is that it’s quite possible that he did win in 2020, though unlikely, and that nobody should care what he says he believes. (I suspect that Trump keeps saying this to drive people like my friend to the edge of madness.) Because of MSNow, she refuses to believe that the President’s unethical $1.8 billion “slush fund” won’t be used to “pay his private militia” (that is, the stupid rioters). The pardoning of the rioters also makes her crazy. My position: the partisan prosecutorial over-zealous punishment of the rioters was unconscionable when the far more violent, deadly, long-lasting and expensive George Floyd rioters were mostly given raps on the wrist at worst.
“So you don’t think an attempt to reverse the election results by violence should be punished?” Uh, A. The Impossibility Principle applies. B. They were punished sufficiently, which is why the pardon is defensible. C. This was a huge demonstration that got out of hand, as they often do. There were many parties at fault. For the Trump Deranged to still be harping on the fiasco after five years shows a lack of perspective and fairness.
5. She said that rioters were convicted of “insurrection.” Not one rioter was even charged with insurrection. A tell: that’s MSNOW pollution.
6. New causes of outrage are pre-spun and distorted by biased news sources, but assumed to be correct. The ballroom again: My friend said, “Did you know that the corporate donors to the ballroom have been given billions in government contracts? So in exchange for financing the ballroom to save taxpayers money, taxpayers will pay much more for rigged government contracts!” I tracked down the source of this “proof of Trump corruption.” It’s a report by Public Citizen, the left-wing, anti-corporate “watchdog” that somehow never finds flaws with Democrats, eagerly picked up by The Washington Post—you know, the paper whose staff rebelled when the paper wouldn’t endorse the worst Democrat Presidential candidate since 1872. “Ballroom donors won $50B in contracts after giving to Trump project, watchdog group finds.” The article lost me when I read,
“Of the known donors, no single contributor received more new business with the government since giving to the project than Lockheed Martin. The defense giant received roughly $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding since last fall, according to the report. Booz Allen Hamilton followed, with more than $4.2 billion, and Palantir, with just over $1 billion. Other donors that received new or increased contracts include Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Caterpillar and T-Mobile. ….Altogether, more than two-thirds of corporate ballroom donors — 19 of 27 — have received government contracts over the past five and a half years, totaling $338 billion, the report says.”
Gee, what a surprise. That a pretty good list of the companies that always are winning government contracts. There is no evidence of a quid pro quo. This is a typical example of presumed Trump wrongdoing, because “you know what he’s like.”
In sum, what I felt from the discussion was pure emotion almost totally unmoored to logic, proportion, fairness, or reason. Hate and anger, that was all of it. For the second straight election cycle, that is what the Democratic Party is counting on, and it might work. You can’t argue with bias and emotion. I sure found that out.
Ethics Alarms 
I continue to be struck by the seething anger oozing out of my fellow baby boomers following 2016. Where did this cauldron of fury come from? What precipitated this insanity? Did they really think the Clintons and Obamas and Rahm Emmanuel James Carville and Keith Olbermann were going to be running a kinder, gentler United States that would be enlightened and be just the way they wanted it to be? All these comfortable white people in middle and senior management thought THEY were ascendant and the world would conform to their worldview. All ruined by a crude huckster stealing the presidency from not one, but two women. All I can say is, I guess they never grew up, the just got older. They might as well still be demonstrating against having to risk their lives fighting … er wait, demonstrating against the Vietnam war. The prototypes are Bill Kristol, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, John Kerry, Bill Gates, etc. For them to admit they are deranged would require them to toss away their entire lives starting since their days in high school.
The discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages.
Curious, you’re claiming your friend never ends up on substantive outrages? Not one? Ever?
I’m not “claiming” anything: I just had the discussion and accurately related it. I mentioned the alleged ballroom donor “scandal,” which sounded substantive until I checked the facts. I also stated that she alerted me to the unethical IRS law suit settlement. Also substantive.
So you just misrepresented what I wrote. Check the Comment policies under “Putting words in my mouth.” Keep that up, and see what happens.
apologies Jack. To clarify, you said “The discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages”
does that mean the discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages and never substantive outrages?
Yes. As in defaults to stuff like “And that blue in the reflecting pool is ugly! And why does anyone need a ballroom that holds 9000 guests? And he’s putting his name on everything, like a king!” because that’s where the rage lies. This happens when one doesn’t fall in line with the substantive complaints. For example, she talked about Trump defying court orders. It’s not a simple topic. Many of the orders allegedly defied were also challenged as illegal, and many were, I believe, indeed illegal. The pattern of Leftist federal judges halting national programs has been condemned by members of the Supreme Court, and it is an abuse of power. Personally, I believe that some of Trump’s resistance is necessary and justified, but it is gutsy. But when my friend’s arguments don’t convince me, it’s back to the mean tweets and the 250 dollar bill.
Thanks for clarifying Jack. I’d just note that when I first ask you, you yourself cited the IRS issue as substantive, which contradicts “always non-substantive.” And then you said “yes” when I asked if you meant always and never substantive…So the “always” appears to be contradictory by your own account.
Was the IRS comment from your friend really the only substantive claim she’s made to you? As you admit?
I was confused at first as well, but Jack’s responses made it clear to me that the operative words here are “ends up”: “The discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages.” (Emphasis added.)
From that, I gather that people may raise complaints about Trump with Jack that Jack considers substantive and may agree with, but he may not agree about what should be done in response to those complaints. When people fail to convince Jack to support their course of action against Trump with their substantive complains (or complaints that would be substantive except they are based on misinformation), then they always resort to non-substantive complaints.
Is that what you were saying, Jack?
I find that it’s easier to guide these conversations in constructive directions by articulating people’s fears and affirming I don’t want them to come true (even if I think they’re vanishingly unlikely) and then exploring alternative ways to prevent those fears beyond the approaches that people have gotten fixated on.
For example, “I don’t want you to be kidnapped by Antarctican lizard people either. I think we have better options for ensuring that doesn’t happen than running around screaming all the time. Let’s see if we can think of some.”
As their fear slowly fades, people become more able to reflect and realize that it was a misplaced fear from the beginning. That’s much more difficult to do while in the grip of the fear. That’s one of the most basic facts about fear.
The point is that the major anti-Trump venom comes from relative trivia, and the objections to the policies often come from cognitive dissonance scale osmosis: that guy who put his name on the Kennedy Center wants to defeat Iran, so that must be wrong too. You write as if that single observation, that the constant resort to the silly stuff when the TDs can’t persuade on more substantive matters is a symptom of an ethics deficit, was the whole post.
Ever? Oh no, she has made others, as well as some objections that she thinks are substantive but I don’t.
ok thanks for clearing that up. So your comment that it’s “always non-substantive” was made in error. That makes more sense
I don’t know a single person like this. Perhaps that’s because I live in a ruby-red state, but whatever the reason, I am thankful.
I cannot imagine for the life of me how you can walk away from this without your head exploding from the sheer assault on reason, and exposure to what I consider a form of clinical insanity that would test the patience of Job himself. I’d probably have to hide in handle of bourbon if I had to go through what you just described.
I was just trying to clarify things for Ben, since he seemed to have overlooked part of your explanation.
“The point is that the major anti-Trump venom comes from relative trivia…” That sounds like an ethics deficit that will lead people to resort to criticizing the silly stuff to me.
All that aside, I have friends whom you’d call Trump-deranged, and it gets on my nerves as well, because they’re venting, and I can tell they’re not actually thinking about nuances, constructive options, or anything besides “everything associated with him is bad and making him go away is necessary and sufficient for making things good”. Even so, I can still appreciate and agree with their core concerns when I listen for them. It helps me steer conversations in constructive directions.
I don’t think you’re in a position to make statements about what motivates people’s all-consuming animosity towards Trump. I don’t remember you expressing a serious interest in understanding the perspective. If you want to be more persuasive, you’ll need that understanding.
I know what motivates it. Herd instinct, group-think, bubble-dwelling and lack of rational, independent thought (in most cases.) as well as general civic ignorance and woke indoctrination through the news media.
To me, that’s like saying, “I know why you love each other. Reproductive instinct, the rush of hormones, familiarity, and the fear of being alone, as well as cultural expectations.”
You have an explanation for why people do something you’re certain is wrong. Do you know why it makes sense to them, though? Do you know what being wrong looks like from the inside?
My TDS-suffering sister is part of an organization suing the White House over the ballroom and other changes. She is headed to DC in a couple of weeks. I’d heard good things about the new reflecting pool and told her to let me know how it looks. She grumbled about it maybe not being opened. She pointed out that the rose garden is gone and that changes require a process and permits. That’s why they’re suing! Trump didn’t follow the process or get the permits!
When she went off to talk to someone, I turned to my uncle and told him that processes and permits would be no big deal if it were Obama making the changes. He agreed and we just chuckled. We love her but there’s no convincing her of anything.
”Trump didn’t follow the process or get the permits!”. I imagine the company hired to remodel the ballroom did get the permits. Trump, as omnipresent as people seem to think he is, won’t be on the ground for the construction of a ballroom while he’s busy chatting with China, etc… or be the person who pulls permits. Silliness. People have too much time on their hands. I get why we have permits, but it’s the death of 1,000 cuts for businesses. Fees, insurance, delays and increased costs. People like your sister are helping to put companies out of business to “get them”. Trump has nothing to do with city permits.
“We love her but there’s no convincing her of anything.”
C.S. Lewis might observe that she specifically, and omnipotent moral busybodies generally, are convinced with the approval of their own conscience.
PWS
My es-husband and his wife are die-hard liberals. Our grandson was married the weekend after the 2024 re-election of the President, and my daughter was worried that her dad and his wife would be TDS obnoxious. They were not. In fact, Danny and I sat with them for about 2 hours over dinner and had a lively conversation about the grandchildren, travel, mutual friends …. everything except politics. Proof that it is possible for people to be charming, gracious and polite. So many choose not to be. All we can do is avoid ‘dangerous’ topics and/or avoid them.
So sorry, Jack that many of your friendships have become a chore or strained over TDS.