The nation elects the president, not Ohio. — Maw

There are 50 state elections. How much of the Dems support is coming from CA and NY? It’s the polls in the battleground states that we should be looking at.

Apophasis (/əˈpɒfəsɪs/; Greek: ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι apophemi, "to say no") is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony.

Apophasis can be used to discuss a taboo subject, as in, "We are all fully loyal to the emperor, so we wouldn't dare to claim that his new clothes are a transparent hoax." (Wikipedia)

An example from the Mueller hearing:

“Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference you explained that, quote, ‘the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,’ end quote,” Representative Veronica Escobar said. “That process other than the criminal-justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?”

Mueller dodged: “I’m not going to comment on that.”

Escobar forged on: “In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, ‘potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,’ end quote. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by ‘potentially preempt constitutional processes’?”

“I’m not going to try to explain that,” Mueller dodged again.

“That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume 2 in the footnote is the reference to this,” Escobar said. “What are those constitutional processes?”

This time, Mueller deadpanned an answer: “I think I heard you mention at least one.”

“Impeachment, correct?” she pressed. But Mueller had given as much as he was going to give, and he reverted to form: “I’m not going to comment.” 1

There are 50 state elections. How much of the Dems support is coming from CA and NY? It’s the polls in the battleground states that we should be looking at — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, but that outcome isn't true of several key states that Trump previously won including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, etc. So while Ohio may currently be edging slightly towards Trump outside of a Biden nomination, what's being indicated by Trump's consistently low approval rating is a tepid response at the polls particularity within swing states, as also exemplified by the Blue Wave of 2018.

Sure, but that outcome isn't true of several key states that Trump previously won including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, etc. So while Ohio may currently be edging slightly towards Trump outside of a Biden nomination, what's being indicated by Trump's consistently low approval rating is a tepid response at the polls particularity within swing states, as also exemplified by the Blue Wave of 2018. — Maw

I appreciate the optimism. I know who I’m going to vote for (not Biden) but will vote for Biden if he’s the nominee. It’s still very early.

I appreciate the optimism. I know who I’m going to vote for (not Biden) but will vote for Biden if he’s the nominee. It’s still very early. — Noah Te Stroete

It's not optimism; I have no idea how any of the Democratic candidates will actual fair against Trump when it comes down to election day, and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. I'm just pointing out how inane it is to argue, at this point in time, that the Democrats will need to nominate a moderate in order to beat Trump, when current polling suggests otherwise. My point is that people should just vote for who they think will be best for America, as oppose to voting for who they think is "most electable" or who can "beat Trump". No one thought Trump was going to get the nominee, and at this point in time relative to the 2016 election, Trump was polling low single digits. Even Obama didn't pull ahead of Hilary until several months prior to the Primary. So no one actually knows. Just vote for who you think will offer the greatest material interests for Americans.

“ The point of such comparisons is to draw attention to where we the US is headed if that behaviour is the new normal.“

Oh, please. The point of such comparisons is to introduce (knee-jerk) well poisoning to compensate for a mindless argument. Trump’s deficiencies are ample enough to excoriate him sans the silly Hitler, Stalin, Lucifer noise.

Oh, please. The point of such comparisons is to introduce (knee-jerk) well poisoning to compensate for a mindless argument. Trump’s deficiencies are ample enough to excoriate him sans the silly Hitler, Stalin, Lucifer noise. — Reshuffle

The regimes of Hitler and Stalin were the result of long processes. Trump does not need to be "like Hitler" or "like Stalin" in order to lead the US towards such a regime. Refusal to accept comparisons is refusal to learn from history. In 1930s Germany, Jewish immigrants were put into concentration camps, for much the same reasons immigrants are being interned in concentration camps in the US right now (by a left wing government, by the way). in Germany, this would eventually lead to death camps. Does this mean the same is going to happen in the US? Of course not. But it's still valid to bring up the similarity.

Stalin liquidated his political foes and ex-comrades; exiled, tortured and murdered his countrymen, including soldiers, academics, scientists and anyone he arbitrarily thought was against the State; i.e., against him; moreover, he purged well over 10 million of his glorious proletariat, whom he duped into putting him in charge, while starving half as many.

The moment you can provide a factual analogue between his reign of terror and the GOP qua Trump ( or the reverse)-get back to me. Until then, any historical or rhetorical nexus of the two is at best risible and suited to the empty bark of an ideologue.

Stalin liquidated his political foes and ex-comrades; exiled, tortured and murdered his countrymen, including soldiers, academics, scientists and anyone he arbitrarily thought was against the State; i.e., against him; moreover, he purged well over 10 million of his glorious proletariat, whom he duped into putting him in charge, while starving half as many.

The moment you can provide a factual analogue between his reign of terror and the GOP qua Trump ( or the reverse)-get back to me. Until then, any historical or rhetorical nexus of the two is at best risible and suited to the empty bark of an ideologue. — Reshuffle

Because things are only bad when you're literally as bad as Stalin or Hitler, right? No such thing as heading down a dangerous path.

Like I asked, once you offer some factual comparisons between the GOP and Stalin, I’ll start to heed your warnings.

moreover, he purged well over 10 million of his glorious proletariat, whom he duped into putting him in charge... — Reshuffle

They didn't put him in charge, he put himself in charge.

I think Trump is very smart.

I think Trump is very smart. — James Pullman

He has the keen ability to manipulate, which is a sign of intelligence at least in one forum.

I meant that he understands people. He got the votes, did he not? So, so many flies can't be wrong, right? ;)

I agree. My confused use of language was trying to communicate what you just said.

But i also like your tendency to search conflicts. We can do that to if you like. :)

I’m not sure what you mean by “search conflicts.”

conflict is a conflict: opposition, battle, differ, diverge, disagree. And for the record, i don´t see it necessarily as a negative thing. Like I said, I like it. From discussion, if endured and persevered, normally results increase of knowledge.

Also for the record, If I was American, I would not vote for Trump.

Also for the record, If I was American, I would not vote for Trump. — James Pullman

I didn’t take it that you would.

So we should open a topic, no? We could call it " On the concern of balance the need for recognition and the need to be different". What you think?

conflict is a conflict: opposition, battle, differ, diverge, disagree. And for the record, i don´t see it necessarily as a negative thing. Like I said, I like it. From discussion, if endured and persevered, normally results increase of knowledge. — James Pullman

Conflict does help me to understand things better. It’s just that so many people take it personally or get personal. I’m not immune to that myself.

I understand. That´s why I purposed the topic! :)

So we should open a topic, no? We could call it " On the concern of balance the need for recognition and the need to be different". What you think? — James Pullman

The politics of difference is of interest to me as well as your normative implication. I think that would be an awesome topic, but I wouldn’t know where to start.

I understand. That´s why I purposed the topic! :) — James Pullman

Let me mull it over and see what I can come up with.

I truly think if people get disagreement personally, in what concerns subjects like the ones that are being discussed here they should first train themselves to accept that humans are often wrong or incomplete (i mean in the discussion of philosophy subjects, not in a personal level). Socrates got that a long time ago. Also sometimes we tend to get emotional about this things, because we love ourselves, and manly our intelligence. And that´s ok. But i believe that it is also important that we understand that there are others like us, tat will battle us hardly, like there is no tomorrow. And this, even if it doesn't look like at first sight, is extremely important in our development as thinkers.

Thanks for the input. I should have a few to several paragraphs in an OP sometime today. Thanks for suggesting such an important topic! :smile:

I´m trying my best... ;) (sorry for my english)

https://www.push4words.com/post/of-the-concern-in-being-good

I think Trump is very smart ... I meant that he understands people. He got the votes, did he not? — James Pullman

There are several reasons Trump got the vote, none of them have to do with him being smart or understanding people.

First, Hillary was not a good candidate. Even though she won the popular vote, she was not well liked even by Democrats and because of all the rumors and accusations she was not trusted. Trump on the other hand, was unknown outside of the New York area, except as a TV personality with a fictional history of business success. Those in the New York area have known for years that he is a con artist who cannot be trusted. New York banks refused to lend money to him.

Second, he resonates with those whose political sentiments are based on fear and resentment. It is not that he understood this, but rather that these are his political sentiments too. They range from his opposition to government regulations which force him to comply with safety and environmental codes when building, to being forced to rent to blacks, which he fought in court and lost, to scapegoating Muslims and minorities even though his businesses hire many illegal immigrants.

Third, he made a deal with Evangelicals. Trump, who until recently favored abortion rights, became a anti-abortion champion. I do not recall ever expressing strong pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem views before the Evangelicals made a deal with the devil. Why they are pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem is something I discussed in this topic not too long ago. Why he is is because of their political power. Like his attraction to ostentatious displays of wealth, he is drawn to power like a moth to a flame.

Second, he resonates with those whose political sentiments are based on fear and resentment. It is not that he understood this, but rather that these are his political sentiments too. They range from his opposition to government regulations which force him to comply with safety and environmental codes when building, to being forced to rent to blacks, which he fought in court and lost, to scapegoating Muslims and minorities even though his businesses hire many illegal immigrants.

Third, he made a deal with Evangelicals. Trump, who until recently favored abortion rights, became a anti-abortion champion. I do not recall ever expressing strong pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem views before the Evangelicals made a deal with the devil. Why they are pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem is something I discussed in this topic not too long ago. Why he is is because of their political power. Like his attraction to ostentatious displays of wealth — Fooloso4

I don’t believe Trump actually believed the birther bullshit. He just knew it would be widely popular. Also, your second paragraph which I quoted above furthers the argument that Trump understands people (at least a lot of people).

I can´t refute any of that, I´m keen to agree with you. But Trump is smart. Not cult, not a reader or artist, just smart. People do like him, he is the US President. Fact.

Also he is probably my "unfavourite" person, because he is the reflection of the opinions/thoughts(or absence of them)/culture(same as previous) of US population. Ignoring his preponderance might be more dangerous than acknowledging his outstanding ability.