Am I reading here that running ads which enumerate a candidate's positions and actions is immoral, kneecapping allies, and shooting prisoners? These ads - did they offer lies as truth? Did they paint their opponents as evil and sub-human?
Exploiting your opponents' weakness is not immoral. Republicans are the opponent. We live in the postMAGA world now. You can say it's stupid, or counter-productive to promote the weakest candidate, but the (to me, petty) moral outrage belongs in yesterday, before MAGAtimes.
I think the issue is a little different. The adds pushing Gibbs were targeted not at the general electorate which might be moved thereby toward the non-coup party, but at the deepest red meat-eaters in the MAGA-addled Republican base. The intent and effect was to get them fired up, into their pickups and out to the polling places.
In short: the Dems effectively donated money to amplify MAGA enthusiasm and committment --with negligible countervailing benefit in the general election. Those Gibbs voters are not going to stay home in November, and they aren't going to be lukewarm about their guy.
Effectively all the DNC did with that money was poke a stick into the hornets' nest.
This basically is helping Trump punish his political enemies тАФ and it only cost him $5000! ThatтАЩs a deal. It sends a message that just like Republicans, Democrats will do anything to win. Poof goes any swing voters who want to argue that dems have the moral high ground - plus some of their votes across the country. Also, one more Republican impeached punished тАФ giving MAGA one more win. How is any of this smart? Plus what if Gibbs wins? Crazy candidates win surprisingly. Like in recent memory.
Hmm, it's a tough call and you seem to be acting the purist in a very impure environment. What's the point of leading by example when there's a 0% chance that the folks that need to take heed will do so? Yes, one's own moral choices should be internally driven, but we're talking about politics and the broader country, not whether you should steal that cookie when no one is watching.
If you could go back in time and kill 18-yr-old Hitler, would you?
You are very close to the same argument evangelicals made about supporting Trump, as in yes, one's own moral choices should be driven by a desire to emulate Christ, but we are talking about politics.
To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".
I certainly respect your view. It's also my default starting point for most things.
OTOH, the joke about the driver of the Pinto asserting his right-of-way against the double semi comes to mind. Principles won't do you much good if you're dead.
This is dishonest of you. Who are you trying to fool, dude? From MSNBC: "The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home GibbsтАЩ own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that heтАЩll continue to back TrumpтАЩs policy agenda in Washington тАФ all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him тАЬtoo conservativeтАЭ".
... said every Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 who thought Democrats didn't play fair and were happy to have an orange vulgarian take over the party because he could fight. This is just dumb strong man ethics pretending to be virtuous. You're better than this, Max.
Cunning is what Joe Manchin just did. This is more like giving Trump lots of free ad time on major news networks based on the idea that a crazy Republican candidate can only be good for Dems.
"It's called politics"? So ... everything Trump and Republicans do is okay because it's called politics. You've lost your way my friend. I feel bad for you.
Am I reading here that running ads which enumerate a candidate's positions and actions is immoral, kneecapping allies, and shooting prisoners? These ads - did they offer lies as truth? Did they paint their opponents as evil and sub-human?
Exploiting your opponents' weakness is not immoral. Republicans are the opponent. We live in the postMAGA world now. You can say it's stupid, or counter-productive to promote the weakest candidate, but the (to me, petty) moral outrage belongs in yesterday, before MAGAtimes.
I think the issue is a little different. The adds pushing Gibbs were targeted not at the general electorate which might be moved thereby toward the non-coup party, but at the deepest red meat-eaters in the MAGA-addled Republican base. The intent and effect was to get them fired up, into their pickups and out to the polling places.
In short: the Dems effectively donated money to amplify MAGA enthusiasm and committment --with negligible countervailing benefit in the general election. Those Gibbs voters are not going to stay home in November, and they aren't going to be lukewarm about their guy.
Effectively all the DNC did with that money was poke a stick into the hornets' nest.
This basically is helping Trump punish his political enemies тАФ and it only cost him $5000! ThatтАЩs a deal. It sends a message that just like Republicans, Democrats will do anything to win. Poof goes any swing voters who want to argue that dems have the moral high ground - plus some of their votes across the country. Also, one more Republican impeached punished тАФ giving MAGA one more win. How is any of this smart? Plus what if Gibbs wins? Crazy candidates win surprisingly. Like in recent memory.
Hmm, it's a tough call and you seem to be acting the purist in a very impure environment. What's the point of leading by example when there's a 0% chance that the folks that need to take heed will do so? Yes, one's own moral choices should be internally driven, but we're talking about politics and the broader country, not whether you should steal that cookie when no one is watching.
If you could go back in time and kill 18-yr-old Hitler, would you?
You are very close to the same argument evangelicals made about supporting Trump, as in yes, one's own moral choices should be driven by a desire to emulate Christ, but we are talking about politics.
To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".
Hitler? You just did that? Seriously?
It's not an argument until someone brings Hitler in, right? :-)
Heh, no, the point was where's the tipping point between personal morals and societal utility?
I think if there is that sense that Dems have to justify that sense of bad faith they feel deep down in terms of the wickedness of the other guys, then that's too far. I think this is a pretty good compass to go by. But also if the phrase 'two clever by half' is in any way applicable, we have also probably gone too far. Check it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/03/democrats-face-blowback-after-boosting-far-right-michigan-candidate/
I certainly respect your view. It's also my default starting point for most things.
OTOH, the joke about the driver of the Pinto asserting his right-of-way against the double semi comes to mind. Principles won't do you much good if you're dead.
That isn't the situation we're in. That's why you aren't allowed to jump to "what if they were Nazis". They aren't.
Basically the ad: John Gibbs - Pro-insurrection, pro-mass shooting, pro-dead mothers.
That's an attack ad. It's not a pro-Gibbs ad.
Please read today's JVL newsletter. He goes deep into the Meijer situation.
This is dishonest of you. Who are you trying to fool, dude? From MSNBC: "The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home GibbsтАЩ own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that heтАЩll continue to back TrumpтАЩs policy agenda in Washington тАФ all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him тАЬtoo conservativeтАЭ".
... said every Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 who thought Democrats didn't play fair and were happy to have an orange vulgarian take over the party because he could fight. This is just dumb strong man ethics pretending to be virtuous. You're better than this, Max.
Cunning is what Joe Manchin just did. This is more like giving Trump lots of free ad time on major news networks based on the idea that a crazy Republican candidate can only be good for Dems.
Nothing cunning about this. Not cunning, immoral, publicly ugly, and highly risky are all red flags for things not to do in politics.
"It's called politics"? So ... everything Trump and Republicans do is okay because it's called politics. You've lost your way my friend. I feel bad for you.
last wird