(August 16, 2016 at 7:16 am)chimp3 Wrote: I agree with Harris on this point : Regardless of the sociopolitical variables, ideas alone are capable of inspiring people to action. For better or worse.
Chenk wasn't disagreeing with that one bit. The only part I would say is that to call it a generalization in every case is wrong, and that I would disagree with. But I don't think Bill or Sam or Chenk are on completely different sides in any case. Even Sam has called Trump nuts. I think Chenk would agree.
Listen to this video, Sam isn't putting the word "dangerous" on the same pin I am, but we are both in agreement that he is dangerous, and in the following video Sam even says, which even Shark Tank host has said about Trump, which is what sane people respond regardless of party, "What the fuck?" Meaning the as Sam has put it, "bluster and bombast" demonstrates nothing deep.
I don't think Trump is a liberal in the least, I do think he is merely an opportunist.
I would disagree with Sam in saying that his Jerry Springer act, is just an act. It is, but the problem is regardless it holds impact, and when a politicians words hold that much impact, which Trump has proven, it is should no longer be treated as a mere "act" even if the politician himself wants to make excuses and say "I was just joking".
It is no better an argument to me than when Christians claim Hitler was an atheist. I could give a shit less if he was, it is still the same political tactic of playing off hate and fear and hyper nationalism, and Hitler too was bombastic and had really nothing more than an act too, but it was an act people unfortunately took seriously. So I do take issue with Sam in this video downplaying the word "demagoguery" in describing Trump. But regardless we still agree that Trump is dangerous, we would disagree on what it is that is most important that defines that rightful conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az1JyDJ_iKU
