Western Kentucky Professor: Trump's victory signals that human decency is no longer an American virtue

[Michael Cole]

Of course the riot was violent and illegal. It was a riot. D'uh.

She's watching you. Be careful.

You mean like making the point that a riot is violent and illegal? LOL.

Sheep posting.

Said the gaslighting leftist.

Baaaaaa!!!!

No, you the leftist.

Your posts are really boring. I'm more conservative in my sleep than you could be in 200 years. Stupid post, man.

Have a traffic report.



Y'all have a great December day!!!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

@quip

Thanks for the replies and the substitution, but "selfishness," though a near antonym to "altruism," does not capture the extreme I hoped to convey. (And apparently failed to do.)

Altruism = unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
Dispassion = freedom from or lack of strong feeling, which would remove selfishness as a concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others.

Does not care one way or the other< . . .>Completely cares above and beyond self interest

Anyway, thanks.

You appear to have missed the underlying thread of American politics, which is

VOTE FOR ME
AND
GET LOTS OF FREE STUFF
(that I say I am make someone else pay for)​

 

[BabaVoss]

"You think so. Not everyone shares that view."

Sure they do.

LOL. No, they don't.

Some people just choose to talk shit.

Lots.

Political riots are not rare. There were hundreds during the trump years. Almost all of them from the left of course, who are teh source of most political violence in the US.

Only one at our capitol.
Only one was clearly political. Heck, the criminals wore trump merch and waved trump flags.
Good effort on your part though. Most trumpers refer to the "lefty summer of riots' or some similar stupidity. You are going to try to include years. Truly absurd.
Pretending that any and all riots anywhere for whatever period of time you want to choose were due to politics - left or right - is laughable.
Trying to equate this jumble of events to the singular insurrection by trumpers at our capitol is equally absurd. No one is buying it.
That stain on our history is forever linked to trump and his trumpers. It will not be forgotten, no matter how much you pretend.

When you only have ONE riot a generation, it is by definition a fluke that you can't depend on.

It was orchestrated, not a fluke.

Anyone betting on the outcome of the protest before the riot, would have been predicting a "wild" protest, very loud, very angry.

Trump got what he wanted, even thought the he didn't get the outcome he hoped for. The stunt did not work well enough to delay the certification. All that damage, all those people's lives messed up for nothing.

But a republcian riot is always unlikely.

You guys are ahead in insurrections; The score is 1 - 0.

 

[Corbell]

"You think so. Not everyone shares that view."

LOL. No, they don't.


Lots.


Only one at our capitol.
Only one was clearly political. Heck, the criminals wore trump merch and waved trump flags.
Good effort on your part though. Most trumpers refer to the "lefty summer of riots' or some similar stupidity. You are going to try to include years. Truly absurd.
Pretending that any and all riots anywhere for whatever period of time you want to choose were due to politics - left or right - is laughable.
Trying to equate this jumble of events to the singular insurrection by trumpers at our capitol is equally absurd. No one is buying it.
That stain on our history is forever linked to trump and his trumpers. It will not be forgotten, no matter how much you pretend.

Your manufactured hysteria is noted and dismissed. The antifa and blm riots were political. and there were hundreds of htem with dozens killed.

That you ignore the far more numerous and deadly riots of YOUR side, to have a hissy fit about the ONE riot on the side of your enemies, is clearly just so you can spam negs about your enemies.

It was orchestrated, not a fluke.


Trump got what he wanted, even thought the he didn't get the outcome he hoped for. The stunt did not work well enough to delay the certification. All that damage, all those people's lives messed up for nothing.


You guys are ahead in insurrections; The score is 1 - 0.

The spark that set off the riot was teh dem controlled capitol police firing (non lethal) on the peaceful protestors.


So, unless Nancy Peolosi was working with Trump, your claim makes zero sense.

 

[MamboDervish]

The elector scheme is completely seperate from teh riot.

No it isn't.

When people try to conflate unconnected issues, that is them trying to hide how weak their position is.

When people successfully conflate seemingly "unconnected issues", that is when they file RICO charges.

 

[BabaVoss]

Your manufactured hysteria is noted and dismissed.

Oh goodie.

The antifa and blm riots were political.

What merch were they wearing?
Which party?
How do you know?

That you ignore the far more numerous and deadly riots of YOUR side, to have a hissy fit about the ONE riot on the side of your enemies, is clearly just so you can spam negs about your enemies.

I don't try to equate utterly unrelated events in order to justify awful things done at the behest of my chosen candidate. You, apparently, feel you have no option. I strongly suggest stepping away from the cult, from Fox "News", and thinking for yourself. If that feels like a daunting task only because you are unfamiliar with it. Take a breath and give it a try.

 

[911Sparky]

Let me make this clear: I voted for Harris and do not blame Biden for the rise of prices. My point is about lack of communication skills on the issue. The average Joe and Joanna doesn't understand economics or how the U.S economy operates. It is the job of the Biden Administration to communicate with the average Joe and Joanna and put them at ease with the situation.

If you look at the debate between Harris and Trump, the first question asked to Harris was: Are we better off than we were four years ago? Harris responded that she grew up in a middle class family and acknowledged that prices are too high. There was no defense of the last four years. She could have pointed out that four years ago we ran out of toilet paper, and that she and Joe inherited a recession and a pandemic. There should have presented dozens of examples of how they got us out of a deep hole, and then go on to talk about how the Harris administration is going to tackle affordability. That didn't happen. The Harris campaign basically implied that we are worst off than we were four years ago.

I agree with this to a point. Democratic messaging could have and should have been better, but in the end voters decided to cast their ballot for a known liar, cheater and convicted felon.
Maybe the Dems were just lazy, thinking no decent person, no patriotic American would vote for trump. I hope trump is a successful president, because that is good for the country, but
based on his cabinet picks so far, we are looking at a cluster****.

 

[BrotherFease]

I agree with this to a point. Democratic messaging could have and should have been better, but in the end voters decided to cast their ballot for a known liar, cheater and convicted felon.
Maybe the Dems were just lazy, thinking no decent person, no patriotic American would vote for trump. I hope trump is a successful president, because that is good for the country, but
based on his cabinet picks so far, we are looking at a cluster****.

I am rooting for Trump to succeed, like I do with every President and believe he has the power to redeem himself.

This is not really a debatable point in my view. Just look at Biden's approval rating graph. He has consistently pulled over 50% disapproval since November 7th of 2021. The White House Party has never won re-election, if the incumbent president has more than a 50% disapproval rating. The polling industry started when FDR was president.

Your logic indicates that people were aware of Trump's criminal liabilities and convictions. The problem here is that most people do not follow the news, until September and October. The Democrats failed to make the case that we were better off four years ago. Republicans were able to downplay January 6th and Trump's terrible 1st term presidency.

People just felt that the world was more peaceful and more affordable under Trump, and thus they voted for him in 31 states.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

"Western Kentucky Professor: Trump's victory signals that human decency is no longer an American virtue"​

The opposite is true. Sad that so many can't see beyond the broken ideology that they've been programmed to worship.

 

[trixare4kids]

The good professor is a drama queen.

Aren't all the anti-Trump extremists?

 

[Corbell]

No it isn't.

When people successfully conflate seemingly "unconnected issues", that is when they file RICO charges.

The riot was a fluke. There was no way it could have been part of any plan. It is insane to claim otherwise.

 

[Corbell]

Oh goodie.


What merch were they wearing?
Which party?
How do you know?

,Marxists rioting in support and working with dems.


You can tell by their words and their actions.

I don't try to equate utterly unrelated events in order to justify awful things done at the behest of my chosen candidate. You, apparently, feel you have no option. I strongly suggest stepping away from the cult, from Fox "News", and thinking for yourself. If that feels like a daunting task only because you are unfamiliar with it. Take a breath and give it a try.

The riot was a fluke. The electors scheme was unrelated. You are the one in a cult, not me.

 

[NatMorton]

Do you really believe people voted for Trump because he represents model citizenship?

No, I don't, and I really have no idea why you would even ask the question.

 

[Perotista]

I agree with this to a point. Democratic messaging could have and should have been better, but in the end voters decided to cast their ballot for a known liar, cheater and convicted felon.
Maybe the Dems were just lazy, thinking no decent person, no patriotic American would vote for trump. I hope trump is a successful president, because that is good for the country, but
based on his cabinet picks so far, we are looking at a cluster****.

I think you hit onto something here. The democrats thought the overall dislike of Trump as a person would carry them to a win. Biden used this strategy, he let Trump be Trump back in 2020. But Biden was the challenger facing an incumbent president whose overall job approval was a low 43%. This time around it was Biden who had the very low overall job approval of 41%. 56% of all Americans were very dissatisfied with the job the Biden administration had done over the last 4 years. Trump, who at election time had 54% of all Americans viewing him in a negative or unfavorable manner. It seems enough of those who disliked Trump as a person overcame that dislike of him to vote for him thinking, hoping their life would be better under Trump than a carryover VP of the Biden administration. After all, presidential elections are a referendum on the sitting president, not the challenger.

I do agree that Harris spent way too much time denigrating Trump with negative personal attacks and not enough time on messaging. Especially about inflation, rising prices and illegal immigration. What she would do differently than what Biden had to fix those problems. Perhaps the most damaging event to her campaign was when she said she’d do nothing different than what Biden had done. That wasn’t what people were looking for. They believed what Biden had done to fix those problems hadn’t worked. Here they were being offered more of the same. A continuation of the Biden programs to counter inflation, rising prices and immigration which hadn’t worked in their minds.

In the end, a candidate they disliked as a person won out over a candidate who was viewed as continuing the same path on those most important issues that they deem failed. In short, a change in policy won would over dislike of the challenger. They deemed they had it better under Trump, their lifestyle, standard of living was better than under Biden and his administration. Perhaps it is just this simple.

 

[Cordelier]

I think you hit onto something here. The democrats thought the overall dislike of Trump as a person would carry them to a win. Biden used this strategy, he let Trump be Trump back in 2020. But Biden was the challenger facing an incumbent president whose overall job approval was a low 43%. This time around it was Biden who had the very low overall job approval of 41%. 56% of all Americans were very dissatisfied with the job the Biden administration had done over the last 4 years. Trump, who at election time had 54% of all Americans viewing him in a negative or unfavorable manner. It seems enough of those who disliked Trump as a person overcame that dislike of him to vote for him thinking, hoping their life would be better under Trump than a carryover VP of the Biden administration. After all, presidential elections are a referendum on the sitting president, not the challenger.

I do agree that Harris spent way too much time denigrating Trump with negative personal attacks and not enough time on messaging. Especially about inflation, rising prices and illegal immigration. What she would do differently than what Biden had to fix those problems. Perhaps the most damaging event to her campaign was when she said she’d do nothing different than what Biden had done. That wasn’t what people were looking for. They believed what Biden had done to fix those problems hadn’t worked. Here they were being offered more of the same. A continuation of the Biden programs to counter inflation, rising prices and immigration which hadn’t worked in their minds.

In the end, a candidate they disliked as a person won out over a candidate who was viewed as continuing the same path on those most important issues that they deem failed. In short, a change in policy won would over dislike of the challenger. They deemed they had it better under Trump, their lifestyle, standard of living was better than under Biden and his administration. Perhaps it is just this simple.

Harris ran the most vacuous campaign since Dewey in '48. Sure, people may have wanted a change after 15 years of Democratic rule, and maybe they didn't think Truman, with all of cronyism and questionable appointments wasn't up to the job. But at least with Truman, they knew what they were getting. Aside from him being a crack prosecutor, who really knew what Dewey stood for?

 

[StillBallin75]

Human decency has never been an "American virtue." The only difference is the mask is off now.

 

[MauiMan]

You can read the full article here. Here are some snippets on key points:

This is a terrific, but sad great read. Quite frankly, I cannot disagree with a single word he wrote. Do you guys think human decency is dead?

Only for the MAGAs.

 

[MamboDervish]

The riot was a fluke.

No, the riot was not a fluke, but rather the logical result of the stop-the-steal LIE, the right-wingnut propaganda, the anti-government sentiments, and the brainwashing of so-called "christian" nationalists.

There was no way it could have been part of any plan.

The fact that the plan, if it existed, was poor and uncoordinated, does not mean there was no plan. There were any number of disparate groups of radicals there, so cohesive coordination was unlikely. But even entirely absent a "plan" per se, it does not mean that there wasn't a unified intention! You can have intention with no plan. You can bring weapons - and they did. You can bring effigies - and they did. You can bring personal armor against police action - and they did. You can bring rope to hang Mike Pence - and they did. You can bring pepper spray - and they did. They came prepared for an assault on the Capitol - and they did assault the Capitol!

It is insane to claim otherwise.

No - it's merely observant, without ignorant partisan denial. We've all heard more than enough of that.

 

[Corbell]

No, the riot was not a fluke, but rather the logical result of the stop-the-steal LIE, the right-wingnut propaganda, the anti-government sentiments, and the brainwashing of so-called "christian" nationalists.

One riot in a generation. It wasa a fluke.

The fact that the plan, if it existed, was poor and uncoordinated, does not mean there was no plan. There were any number of disparate groups of radicals there, so cohesive coordination was unlikely. But even entirely absent a "plan" per se, it does not mean that there wasn't a unified intention! You can have intention with no plan. You can bring weapons - and they did. You can bring effigies - and they did. You can bring personal armor against police action - and they did. You can bring rope to hang Mike Pence - and they did. You can bring pepper spray - and they did. They came prepared for an assault on the Capitol - and they did assault the Capitol!

Your hysterical exaggeration of the riot, is... dishonest and callous. You should save some of your pretend outrage for hte lefty riots of the same time, that killed dozens of people and devastated whole communities.

No - it's merely observant, without ignorant partisan denial. We've all heard more than enough of that.

You are spamming hysterica about one riot from years ago, that had no lasting impact. It delayed a formality by a few hours.


But, hey, keep it up. It didn't work in the election, but maybe if you keep doing it, you will eventually convince people that htey need to be afraid of Trump. lol.

 

[BabaVoss]

One riot in a generation. It wasa a fluke.

So you keep insisting. It's still baloney, though. It was an insurrection, obviously set up and fed by trump's lies. But do go on.

Your hysterical exaggeration of the riot, is... dishonest and callous. You should save some of your pretend outrage for hte lefty riots of the same time, that killed dozens of people and devastated whole communities.

Yes, you can conflate decades of unrelated violent events, pretend they were wometign they were not, all in the thin hopes that the insurrection looks somehow less than it was. Its not working.

History will refer to that event as an insurrection forever.

 

[BrotherFease]

I think you hit onto something here. The democrats thought the overall dislike of Trump as a person would carry them to a win. Biden used this strategy, he let Trump be Trump back in 2020. But Biden was the challenger facing an incumbent president whose overall job approval was a low 43%. This time around it was Biden who had the very low overall job approval of 41%. 56% of all Americans were very dissatisfied with the job the Biden administration had done over the last 4 years. Trump, who at election time had 54% of all Americans viewing him in a negative or unfavorable manner. It seems enough of those who disliked Trump as a person overcame that dislike of him to vote for him thinking, hoping their life would be better under Trump than a carryover VP of the Biden administration. After all, presidential elections are a referendum on the sitting president, not the challenger.

I do agree that Harris spent way too much time denigrating Trump with negative personal attacks and not enough time on messaging. Especially about inflation, rising prices and illegal immigration. What she would do differently than what Biden had to fix those problems. Perhaps the most damaging event to her campaign was when she said she’d do nothing different than what Biden had done. That wasn’t what people were looking for. They believed what Biden had done to fix those problems hadn’t worked. Here they were being offered more of the same. A continuation of the Biden programs to counter inflation, rising prices and immigration which hadn’t worked in their minds.

In the end, a candidate they disliked as a person won out over a candidate who was viewed as continuing the same path on those most important issues that they deem failed. In short, a change in policy won would over dislike of the challenger. They deemed they had it better under Trump, their lifestyle, standard of living was better than under Biden and his administration. Perhaps it is just this simple.

Exactly.

Harris was the more likable candidate, but they agreed with Trump on the main issues.

The problem for Harris was she was attached to a widely disliked administration. Both sides of the aisle had major issues with Biden's job performance. Neither Biden or Harris made the case the country was better off under them instead of Trump.

 

[Corbell]

So you keep insisting. It's still baloney, though. It was an insurrection, obviously set up and fed by trump's lies. But do go on.

ONe isolated incident in a generation? HOw would Trump had seen it coming? NO way that was part of any plan.

I keep insisting on it, becuase it is obvious if you think about it for even a second.

You want to address that point? YOu keep disagreeing, but you have not really explained why you think I am wrong.

Yes, you can conflate decades of unrelated violent events, pretend they were wometign they were not, all in the thin hopes that the insurrection looks somehow less than it was. Its not working.

History will refer to that event as an insurrection forever.

Decades? MOst of them were in one summer. And all of them I am discussing were in the trump years. antifa and blm riots, killing dozens.

DOZENS OF PEOPLE DEAD, and your panties are in a twist over a few hours delay in a formality.

you are clearly just having a hissy fit so that that you can spam nonsense about people you hate.

 

[911Sparky]

I think you hit onto something here. The democrats thought the overall dislike of Trump as a person would carry them to a win. Biden used this strategy, he let Trump be Trump back in 2020. But Biden was the challenger facing an incumbent president whose overall job approval was a low 43%. This time around it was Biden who had the very low overall job approval of 41%. 56% of all Americans were very dissatisfied with the job the Biden administration had done over the last 4 years. Trump, who at election time had 54% of all Americans viewing him in a negative or unfavorable manner. It seems enough of those who disliked Trump as a person overcame that dislike of him to vote for him thinking, hoping their life would be better under Trump than a carryover VP of the Biden administration. After all, presidential elections are a referendum on the sitting president, not the challenger.

I do agree that Harris spent way too much time denigrating Trump with negative personal attacks and not enough time on messaging. Especially about inflation, rising prices and illegal immigration. What she would do differently than what Biden had to fix those problems. Perhaps the most damaging event to her campaign was when she said she’d do nothing different than what Biden had done. That wasn’t what people were looking for. They believed what Biden had done to fix those problems hadn’t worked. Here they were being offered more of the same. A continuation of the Biden programs to counter inflation, rising prices and immigration which hadn’t worked in their minds.

In the end, a candidate they disliked as a person won out over a candidate who was viewed as continuing the same path on those most important issues that they deem failed. In short, a change in policy won would over dislike of the challenger. They deemed they had it better under Trump, their lifestyle, standard of living was better than under Biden and his administration. Perhaps it is just this simple.

I don't understand how voters could fail to give credit to Biden for bringing us out of the covid recession and the covid virus. trump mishandled both and yet they gave him a second chance
to destroy the economy. Maybe they did vote solely on the price of eggs. trump promised a better healthcare plan in 2 weeks, he promised us an infrastructure plan in 2 weeks, the only
promise he ever delivered on were tax cuts for he and his wealthy friends, everything else, just empty words. Biden was able to land an overheated economy without the recession even
the most optimistic economists were predicting. I was disappointed in my country on election night as they put a man back into office whose only reason for wanting the office is the
adulation from MAGA and the financial windfall it gives him. I'll bet he will continue holding rallies, simply because they give him the warm fuzzy feelings he can't get any other way.
Needless to say, I believe the country made a huge mistake, one that we have to live with for 4 more years.

 

[BabaVoss]

ONe isolated incident in a generation? Hww would Trump had seen it coming? NO way that was part of any plan.

Please stop. Trump arranged it, fed it, had his cronies add to the hype. He asked those people to be there. The criminals testified that they were there at his request. They were there for him. Did they make that up?
"Be there. Will be wild"

 

[Perotista]

Exactly.

Harris was the more likable candidate, but they agreed with Trump on the main issues.

The problem for Harris was she was attached to a widely disliked administration. Both sides of the aisle had major issues with Biden's job performance. Neither Biden or Harris made the case the country was better off under them instead of Trump.

Roger that. You just said in a short couple of sentences what took me 3 paragraphs. In 2020 they didn’t like Trump nor his policies, Biden just had to sit back, relax and let those two dislikes take hold. In 2024, it was Biden’s policies that was disliked to where the more disliked candidate benefited over the more likeable candidate.