Trump Thread

[Pannonian]

I take your point, but my point is that the nature of the lies she has told to/about herself show she's not fit to be president.

Monty's argument is what you might call "The Prince Philip Defence" that all she's guilty of is the sort of "benign" racism common to her class.

If it doesn't directly pertain to the job, I wouldn't say that any kind of deception about oneself affects one's fitness for it. If she's buffing her CV, who cares. The current posterboys for the alt-right are far, far worse at it, both in frequency (it's the defining aspect of Trump, Johnson, and all the rest of that tribe) and in degree. What the chief executive should be judged on is whether they're good at identifying talents to help them, and whether they're good at picking what advice to follow. The alt-right make it their point to screw the world on that front.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I take your point, but my point is that the nature of the lies she has told to/about herself show she's not fit to be president.

Monty's argument is what you might call "The Prince Philip Defence" that all she's guilty of is the sort of "benign" racism common to her class.

Class does not mean quite the same thing on this side of the pond as it does on yours. Which is not to say that we don't have them, just that things on this side are somewhat more mutable.

[Montmorency]

I take your point, but my point is that the nature of the lies she has told to/about herself show she's not fit to be president.

Monty's argument is what you might call "The Prince Philip Defence" that all she's guilty of is the sort of "benign" racism common to her class.

My argument? I'm not even sure what your point is. If you think "the nature of the lies" shows her unfitness, then surely you would be prepared to personally apologize for every white politician whom you've ever supported - no? Yet again here you made an ostentatiously spurious declaration with the unconcealed design of erasing contrasts between political causes and persons. I find it perverse that a relatively decent and upright person should have to be justified specially against the morally squalid, as though a clear solvent ought to be precisely titrated in the hunt for sins yet the effluence of biohazard can be dismissed as constitutionally odious and therefore uninteresting for scrutiny.

PVC, do you - do you think of yourself as less racist than Warren? Or, oh my god, do you think only leftists have agency?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My argument? I'm not even sure what your point is. If you think "the nature of the lies" shows her unfitness, then surely you would be prepared to personally apologize for every white politician whom you've ever supported - no? Yet again here you made an ostentatiously spurious declaration with the unconcealed design of erasing contrasts between political causes and persons. I find it perverse that a relatively decent and upright person should have to be justified specially against the morally squalid, as though a clear solvent ought to be precisely titrated in the hunt for sins yet the effluence of biohazard can be dismissed as constitutionally odious and therefore uninteresting for scrutiny.

It's not about the depth of her sin, it's about the lack of awareness she demonstrates, and frankly basic competency. this is a Harvard academic who looks in the mirror and then write "Native American" on a form where it says "ethnicity". Oh, and I do mean "writes" because apparently there wasn't a tick-box for that.

It's not like her platform is that coherent anyway - she abandoned the republicans because they don't believe in "markets" any more, but she's stoled most of Bernie's policies. As Bernie said, he doesn't necessarily believe in markets - warren is committed to them.

PVC, do you - do you think of yourself as less racist than Warren? Or, oh my god, do you think only leftists have agency?

Yes, excellent, mockery, well done.

[Montmorency]

It's not about the depth of her sin, it's about the lack of awareness she demonstrates, and frankly basic competency.

It's a fatal lack of awareness and competence to conceive of Indian-ness in a way that the large majority of Americans have? Even if one could take you seriously on you believing that, it would behoove you to move from the abstract realm and evaluate her competence against her performance and conduct. If you refuse to do that much, then there's nothing to work with here.

this is a Harvard academic who looks in the mirror and then write "Native American" on a form where it says "ethnicity". Oh, and I do mean "writes" because apparently there wasn't a tick-box for that.

We already discussed this. On official employment documents she recorded her race as simply "white." She identified herself as Native American with a state bar and a professional (legal) association.

It's not like her platform is that coherent anyway - she abandoned the republicans because they don't believe in "markets" any more, but she's stoled most of Bernie's policies. As Bernie said, he doesn't necessarily believe in markets - warren is committed to them.

Have you read anything of her platform? She did not "steal" Sanders' policies; the only thing within a mile's radius is that she signs on to his basic vision for Medicare for All because she doesn't have a better idea yet. Sanders, it should go without saying, did not invent the concepts of taxation or populism or left politics.

She's been active in politics (before becoming a Senator) for 15 or 20 years. Her beliefs and proposals are public record. You really should familiarize yourself with these things before you pratfall.

Yes, excellent, mockery, well done.

It's not mockery, it's a deadly serious question because I think I see where this is coming from...

[Pannonian]

It's not mockery, it's a deadly serious question because I think I see where this is coming from...

Namely, because PFH doesn't apply his standards across the board. In the UK, he backs a cause that has lies as its fundamental basis, with lies being the most effective factor that got it electoral credibility, yet excuses himself from these lies whilst backing the cause that uses them. One would say that these lies are rather more relevant than merely buffing up one's CV via identity.

Here's a funny looking Zulu.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Namely, because PFH doesn't apply his standards across the board. In the UK, he backs a cause that has lies as its fundamental basis, with lies being the most effective factor that got it electoral credibility, yet excuses himself from these lies whilst backing the cause that uses them. One would say that these lies are rather more relevant than merely buffing up one's CV via identity.

Here's a funny looking Zulu.

Except the last prime minister who had my personal support was David Cameron, and the last politician I voted for was Lib-Dem.

Elizabeth Warren is not a cause, she's a presidential candidate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not mockery, it's a deadly serious question because I think I see where this is coming from...

Where this is coming from is I see her actions as either deeply cynical or extremely weird - and frankly I don't think you'd give anyone further to the Right this much benefit of the doubt.

Now, please initiate you personal attack, I'm suitably braced.

[Idaho]

Class does not mean quite the same thing on this side of the pond as it does on yours. Which is not to say that we don't have them, just that things on this side are somewhat more mutable.

Unless you have brown skin.

[Pannonian]

Except the last prime minister who had my personal support was David Cameron, and the last politician I voted for was Lib-Dem.

Elizabeth Warren is not a cause, she's a presidential candidate.

If there is a referendum on Johnson's deal, would you vote for it? NB. Johnson is as much of a liar as Trump is, and he's made promises that he never intended to keep, which his chief of staff said were instrumental in winning the 2016 vote. So these are far more relevant lies than ones about one's identity.

What do you think of the Zulu whose picture I posted? Is he a Zulu? Or is he not a Zulu? Looks a bit pale to be a Zulu, doesn't he?

[rory_20_uk]

Unless you have brown skin.

Apart from the Landed Aristocracy, it's pretty mutable over here and is mainly based on money and accent. And if you've got the former you can make the jump in about 1 generation since you send your children to a good school and job done.

Race is much less important than the school tie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Elizabeth Warren is not a cause, she's a presidential candidate.

For the ardent activist Dems (who represent most of the folks paying attention at this point in our process) there is a bit of a conflation between cause/candidate in outlook. Some are voting for her for the "cause" of advancing Social Democracy.

To be fair, Trump's yahoos are -- in their minds -- crusading against the evils of left wing liberalism (along with a sub-group whose cause is white supremacy).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Unless you have brown skin.

Even those with different melanin, despite our historical problems with 'race.'

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there is a referendum on Johnson's deal, would you vote for it? NB. Johnson is as much of a liar as Trump is, and he's made promises that he never intended to keep, which his chief of staff said were instrumental in winning the 2016 vote. So these are far more relevant lies than ones about one's identity.

What do you think of the Zulu whose picture I posted? Is he a Zulu? Or is he not a Zulu? Looks a bit pale to be a Zulu, doesn't he?

Friend of mine is married to a Native American who looks white. I find it a bit odd that she barely identifies with her Polish heritage but she grew up on a Reservation and her grandparents are full-blooded Native-American.

This is not about skin colour, really, and Elizabeth Warren doesn't just "look white" because of her skin colour.

[Pannonian]

Friend of mine is married to a Native American who looks white. I find it a bit odd that she barely identifies with her Polish heritage but she grew up on a Reservation and her grandparents are full-blooded Native-American.

This is not about skin colour, really, and Elizabeth Warren doesn't just "look white" because of her skin colour.

The Zulu I posted doesn't just look white. He has 0% Zulu ancestry, and as is 100% European as can be practically discerned. He doesn't call himself Zulu. But he grew up alongside Zulus, speaks the Zulu language, is owned by Zulus as one of them, is at least partly culturally and socially Zulu, and is known by the nickname "Zulu". What is he? Or does it matter?

There are lies that matter, and lies that don't matter. Who cares about identity? But then you have the likes of Johnson and the other Leave leaders who deliberately and consistently lie about their work, yet the advantage this gives them is condoned by their supporters. Even Trump isn't as bad as the Brexiteers, given that he lies as a lifestyle, compared with the focused lies of his more politically capable but no less mendacious UK counterparts. These lies, that are actually relevant to the political sphere, should be ones that matter and to be addressed. But they're not. While you complain about Elizabeth Warren claiming an identity she may not warrant. Who cares what she calls herself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Zulu I posted doesn't just look white. He has 0% Zulu ancestry, and as is 100% European as can be practically discerned. He doesn't call himself Zulu. But he grew up alongside Zulus, speaks the Zulu language, is owned by Zulus as one of them, is at least partly culturally and socially Zulu, and is known by the nickname "Zulu". What is he? Or does it matter?

So the polar opposite of Elizabeth Warren, then?

Actually has some Zulu culture, none of the Zulu blood.

[Pannonian]

So the polar opposite of Elizabeth Warren, then?

Actually has some Zulu culture, none of the Zulu blood.

Completely missing the point. Who cares what people identify as. Why is it important? If telling the truth is important to you, do you apply these standards across the board?

[Greyblades]

Who cares what people identify as.

*laughs in attack helicopter*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Completely missing the point. Who cares what people identify as. Why is it important? If telling the truth is important to you, do you apply these standards across the board?

Telling the truth is important to me - and I'm not a supporter of Farage or Johnson before you say it. In the Etremis of "ARRRG! The House is on fire!" I'd rather have Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn. That's pragmatism.

The question over picking the Democratic nominee is, at this stage especially, rather different. Elizabeth Warren is, in my view, hardly fit to face trump and, frankly, unlikely to beat him.

[Montmorency]

Where this is coming from is I see her actions as either deeply cynical or extremely weird - and frankly I don't think you'd give anyone further to the Right this much benefit of the doubt.

Now, please initiate you personal attack, I'm suitably braced.

As we have seen, it is neither of those things in American cultural and Warren's personal context.

You're only reinforcing my impression that you believe only leftists have agency. If my reaction to the BS is strong it is because it cuts much more broadly than just across Warren as a candidate; the whole political philosophical spectrum is implicated. Warren, who told no lies, made the common error of exoticism and insufficient contemplation of the experience of contemporary Natives and of her own social privileges. In other words, for failing to privately check her privilege as a younger woman she is disqualified in your eyes as a candidate. The fact that she rectified her error and moreover promises policies that would greatly improve the lives of the relevant demographic is something you refuse to engage with despite being repeatedly addressed. Meanwhile, in your estimation white men who dislike the thought of their daughters being in proximity to blacks or Muslims, well that threat sensitivity is just normal psychology and not something we can fairly hold against them.

Like, you literally said you would support Johnson over Corbyn in your last post. Gives the game away completely. Corbyn at least is not entirely implausibly a sclerotic racist, but it's revealing when you wail about him writing an introduction to a hundred-year-old monograph while going out of your way to excuse Boris Johnson's concrete and explicit racist sentiments. Any gap in racism between the platforms and governance of the Labour and Conservative parties and the individual records of Corbyn and Johnson within them, then, is not even a consideration.

It's not even necessary to speculate about you as a person. I simply fear that you afford those on the right all the benefit of the doubt for egregious offenses, and reflexively condemn those on the left for peccadilloes, all while declining to consider the respective politics beyond the internal individual. It's a flawed mindset to say the least, inasmuch as it assumes that conservatives are fixed and cannot be expected to grow into good behavior, whereas a leftist should be expected to perform as a paragon from their genesis because they alone have an affirmative moral responsibility to be upright.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As we have seen, it is neither of those things in American cultural and Warren's personal context.

You're only reinforcing my impression that you believe only leftists have agency. If my reaction to the BS is strong it is because it cuts much more broadly than just across Warren as a candidate; the whole political philosophical spectrum is implicated. Warren, who told no lies, made the common error of exoticism and insufficient contemplation of the experience of contemporary Natives and of her own social privileges. In other words, for failing to privately check her privilege as a younger woman she is disqualified in your eyes as a candidate. The fact that she rectified her error and moreover promises policies that would greatly improve the lives of the relevant demographic is something you refuse to engage with despite being repeatedly addressed. Meanwhile, in your estimation white men who dislike the thought of their daughters being in proximity to blacks or Muslims, well that threat sensitivity is just normal psychology and not something we can fairly hold against them.

Like, you literally said you would support Johnson over Corbyn in your last post. Gives the game away completely. Corbyn at least is not entirely implausibly a sclerotic racist, but it's revealing when you wail about him writing an introduction to a hundred-year-old monograph while going out of your way to excuse Boris Johnson's concrete and explicit racist sentiments. Any gap in racism between the platforms and governance of the Labour and Conservative parties and the individual records of Corbyn and Johnson within them, then, is not even a consideration.

It's not even necessary to speculate about you as a person. I simply fear that you afford those on the right all the benefit of the doubt for egregious offenses, and reflexively condemn those on the left for peccadilloes, all while declining to consider the respective politics beyond the internal individual. It's a flawed mindset to say the least, inasmuch as it assumes that conservatives are fixed and cannot be expected to grow into good behavior, whereas a leftist should be expected to perform as a paragon from their genesis because they alone have an affirmative moral responsibility to be upright.

So you think I'm a hypocrite but you're not?

I could, if I so wished, marshal Muslim women writers in support of Johnson's statements on the Burkha, I could martial statistics showing that inter-class and inter-race conflict is a real thing. I could point out that many black parents justifiably worry about their sons, and moreso their daughters, being the victims of just the exoticism you seek to excuse.

We could talk about the stereotypical virile black man and why white women don't seem to be able to identify their black attackers in a line-up.

I believe Jeremy Corbyn is an "intellectual racist" of the same bent as the men who sought to justify the Holocaust, I think Boris Johnson is probably what we might acidly call "a bit racist" in that he lives in a white Middle Class bubble, despite having a multi-racial background.

Your problem is that you over-empathise with the Left and under-empathise with the Right - your project that failing back on me (reversed) because you over-emphasise the times I disagree with you.

I'm not claiming Elizabeth Warren is some filthy racist scumbag who wants to wipe out the remaining Native Americans - I'm claiming she has a history of being self-deluding if not cynical about her background. The idea that she's "racist" comes from you, not me.

[Pannonian]

Telling the truth is important to me - and I'm not a supporter of Farage or Johnson before you say it. In the Etremis of "ARRRG! The House is on fire!" I'd rather have Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn. That's pragmatism.

The question over picking the Democratic nominee is, at this stage especially, rather different. Elizabeth Warren is, in my view, hardly fit to face trump and, frankly, unlikely to beat him.

You're not a fan of Farage or Johnson, but you're happy to ride in their slipstream. Thus you get what you want via their lies, but you can disassociate yourself from the liars.

[CrossLOPER]

*laughs in attack helicopter*

Way too many memes fused into one, man.

[Idaho]

Even those with different melanin, despite our historical problems with 'race.'

Yeah race is just a historical issue. Nothing to see now.

Jesus. You (white) Americans really have no idea how segregated and screwed up your nation is in this regard. It's always been this bad, but for a brief period racists kept their mouth shut. Now trump has ripped off the band aid and those people feel at liberty to "say it as they see it".

[Greyblades]

Way too many memes fused into one, man.

No such thing as too many memes!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yeah race is just a historical issue. Nothing to see now.

Jesus. You (white) Americans really have no idea how segregated and screwed up your nation is in this regard. It's always been this bad, but for a brief period racists kept their mouth shut. Now trump has ripped off the band aid and those people feel at liberty to "say it as they see it".

I had meant to note that it was a theme that has continued throughout our entire history as a nation. I was not using it in as a synonym for past or in the past. I can see where the word choice was off, as it can and often does imply that connotation.

[Montmorency]

I could, if I so wished, marshal Muslim women writers in support of Johnson's statements on the Burkha, I could martial statistics showing that inter-class and inter-race conflict is a real thing. I could point out that many black parents justifiably worry about their sons, and moreso their daughters, being the victims of just the exoticism you seek to excuse.

We could talk about the stereotypical virile black man and why white women don't seem to be able to identify their black attackers in a line-up.

I am unable to divine what you're talking about or its relevance.

I believe Jeremy Corbyn is an "intellectual racist" of the same bent as the men who sought to justify the Holocaust, I think Boris Johnson is probably what we might acidly call "a bit racist" in that he lives in a white Middle Class bubble, despite having a multi-racial background.

It would seem more the other way around, all the more salient in the context of which of their politics is the more anti-racist.

Your problem is that you over-empathise with the Left and under-empathise with the Right - your project that failing back on me (reversed) because you over-emphasise the times I disagree with you.

It's really about the facts and substance of any given case.

I'm not claiming Elizabeth Warren is some filthy racist scumbag who wants to wipe out the remaining Native Americans - I'm claiming she has a history of being self-deluding if not cynical about her background. The idea that she's "racist" comes from you, not me.

You're the one who said she's not fit to be President on this basis, and it's not because you have preternatural standards for chief executives in general or the American chief executive in particular. Not merely that the affair damaged your confidence in her ability to gain the office, but that it shows her unfit to hold it. It's arbitrary, like a bill of attainder.

My phrase "failed to check her privilege" is the most apt here. Everyone will stumble, so the recovery relative to the error is the crux. I doubt the valid criticisms of Warren on policy or politics are exhausted to my awareness, so when you fixate on this one (flanked by other facile talking points from her enemies about her once being a Republican or a capitalist) when routinely excusing much worse from others - excusing in the sense of not calling for the culpable to be stripped of public trust forthwith - it appears to me one of the systematic ideological pitfalls I routinely encounter in the discourse and find quite frustrating. Trump tried just now, for example, to openly embezzle government money and solicit foreign contributions/bribes by designating one of his hotels as the upcoming G7 venue, before being convinced somehow to walk it back. Would it be wrong to say that you take this as merely typical from Trump and so unworthy of reproach, whereas if Warren were to bring home a stapler from her Senate office this would strike you as a grave scandal and mark against her integrity? I've read plenty who do have such discernment and you're falling into the same pattern.


Apropos of nothing, I've figured out why your aphorism that "Rome is always falling" is such a quintessentially conservative sentiment to have. Conservatives of all stripes and eras prominently proclaim the decline of their society and the contribution to decline of all the things they don't like, no?


I think you will find this very long video exploring issues of American class and race and transgenderism and their, uh, confluence, worth viewing. This format and voice handles some of the questions that interest you better than we ever could here. I watched the whole thing so I am in a position to recommend it.

[Pannonian]

I am unable to divine what you're talking about or its relevance.



It would seem more the other way around, all the more salient in the context of which of their politics is the more anti-racist.



It's really about the facts and substance of any given case.



You're the one who said she's not fit to be President on this basis, and it's not because you have preternatural standards for chief executives in general or the American chief executive in particular. Not merely that the affair damaged your confidence in her ability to gain the office, but that it shows her unfit to hold it. It's arbitrary, like a bill of attainder.

My phrase "failed to check her privilege" is the most apt here. Everyone will stumble, so the recovery relative to the error is the crux. I doubt the valid criticisms of Warren on policy or politics are exhausted to my awareness, so when you fixate on this one (flanked by other facile talking points from her enemies about her once being a Republican or a capitalist) when routinely excusing much worse from others - excusing in the sense of not calling for the culpable to be stripped of public trust forthwith - it appears to me one of the systematic ideological pitfalls I routinely encounter in the discourse and find quite frustrating. Trump tried just now, for example, to openly embezzle government money and solicit foreign contributions/bribes by designating one of his hotels as the upcoming G7 venue, before being convinced somehow to walk it back. Would it be wrong to say that you take this as merely typical from Trump and so unworthy of reproach, whereas if Warren were to bring home a stapler from her Senate office this would strike you as a grave scandal and mark against her integrity? I've read plenty who do have such discernment and you're falling into the same pattern.


Apropos of nothing, I've figured out why your aphorism that "Rome is always falling" is such a quintessentially conservative sentiment to have. Conservatives of all stripes and eras prominently proclaim the decline of their society and the contribution to decline of all the things they don't like, no?


I think you will find this very long video exploring issues of American class and race and transgenderism and their, uh, confluence, worth viewing. This format and voice handles some of the questions that interest you better than we ever could here. I watched the whole thing so I am in a position to recommend it.

You'll find that PFH professes to despise the liars on the right such as Trump and Johnson, and thus excuses himself from their personae, whilst repeating the arguments based on falsehoods that these liars pump out. You see it earlier on the page where he says that he doesn't support Johnson the liar, but he'll still back the signature cause of this serial liar. You see it in self-professed centrists who tack to the (alt)right. In earlier times I believe they were called fellow travellers (a label also used, correctly I think, to describe Jeremy Corbyn and his association with anti-semites).

Centre-leftists tend to be a bit more self-aware and apply their standards more evenly. I'd say that proper centre-rightists would be the same, as long as they don't get caught up believing in one of the alt-right causes. It's the tragedy of our times that the far left and far right have each colonised the political scene when there are far more important issues to be addressed by a central consensus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am unable to divine what you're talking about or its relevance.

Message: You don't pay attention to what I say.

It would seem more the other way around, all the more salient in the context of which of their politics is the more anti-racist.

Johnson is a Liberal - his politics are theoretically at least as Anti-racist as Corbyn's far-Leftism some would argue has antisemitism baked in.

It's really about the facts and substance of any given case.

If I said something like that you'd accuse me of a lack of self-awareness.

You're the one who said she's not fit to be President on this basis, and it's not because you have preternatural standards for chief executives in general or the American chief executive in particular. Not merely that the affair damaged your confidence in her ability to gain the office, but that it shows her unfit to hold it. It's arbitrary, like a bill of attainder.

OK - let's ditch "chief executive". Now, how do you know what standards I have for politicians? At this point the Democrats are supposed to be choosing their best person, not only to face Trump but to govern America. Mrs Warren is neither of those things.

When faced with a binary choice between slightly-racist Johnson and obviously-crypto-racist Corbyn that's a different question.

Apropos of nothing, I've figured out why your aphorism that "Rome is always falling" is such a quintessentially conservative sentiment to have. Conservatives of all stripes and eras prominently proclaim the decline of their society and the contribution to decline of all the things they don't like, no?

Not even close - the full quote is: "Rome is falling, but then Rome is always falling". It doesn't mean anything like what you think it does.

[Montmorency]

You'll find that PFH professes to despise the liars on the right such as Trump and Johnson, and thus excuses himself from their personae, whilst repeating the arguments based on falsehoods that these liars pump out. You see it earlier on the page where he says that he doesn't support Johnson the liar, but he'll still back the signature cause of this serial liar. You see it in self-professed centrists who tack to the (alt)right. In earlier times I believe they were called fellow travellers (a label also used, correctly I think, to describe Jeremy Corbyn and his association with anti-semites).

Centre-leftists tend to be a bit more self-aware and apply their standards more evenly. I'd say that proper centre-rightists would be the same, as long as they don't get caught up believing in one of the alt-right causes. It's the tragedy of our times that the far left and far right have each colonised the political scene when there are far more important issues to be addressed by a central consensus.

Well, I've been open in my belief that the central consensus has failed us. The proof is in the blood pudding*.

*This is a double meaning and mixed metaphor.

Message: You don't pay attention to what I say.

If you want to talk about your understanding of racial issues, feel free to do so, but I haven't been impressed before. But come on, you must be reading me carelessly if you imagine I need convincing that inter-class and inter-racial conflict are real things. rofl

Johnson is a Liberal - his politics are theoretically at least as Anti-racist as Corbyn's far-Leftism some would argue has antisemitism baked in.

A liberal? "Theoretically"? European liberalism? I won't take up your time calling in your references for those and just ask what you see in a comparison of their concrete policy platforms and actions.

If I said something like that you'd accuse me of a lack of self-awareness.

Why do you say that? That's what I've consistently asked from you, isn't it? See above where I raise an eyebrow at your argument from theoretical theory.

OK - let's ditch "chief executive". Now, how do you know what standards I have for politicians? At this point the Democrats are supposed to be choosing their best person, not only to face Trump but to govern America. Mrs Warren is neither of those things.

You don't have good or even generalizable reasoning. Like, even in the most limited scope of argumentation if one assigned Warren's behavior an extremely negative valence it still wouldn't speak to those two criteria in itself.

As distinct from our conversation you're welcome to increase engagement in the relevant thread with your own narrative for who the best person to face Trump or to govern America is (and, if you must, what overlap if any there is between the two). It's not my fiefdom after all.

Not even close - the full quote is: "Rome is falling, but then Rome is always falling". It doesn't mean anything like what you think it does.

It definitely sounds like it does. What metatextual meaning would you render as more consonant with the phrase? Alternatively, whatever your own interpretation may be why isn't mine available?


If you'll ever countenance a recommendation from me, I do recommend the video.