|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
That is definitely true. What do you think is a good way to test the list?
The tool I've adopted to test the list is to test the most egregious of the grievances. If that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then almost certainly the others don't as well. However, if it does stand up to scrutiny, then it's looking like the others have a solid leg to stand on as well.
Do you think that's a helpful way of going about it?
I don't think this is a bad heuristic to layer on the laundry list heuristic, but this still misses the habitual line steppers, pathological liars, emotional bullies, etc.
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Every exposure you have to someone leaves you with some kind of impression. It's unlikely you'll remember each of these exposures in detail, and so unlikely you'll be able to articulate what exactly they did or said that turned you on or off. They eventually just become the sum of the impressions, good and bad.
In Trump's case, he's in the news every day, and I'm sure I can't even remember 90% of the shit he's done or said that made me throw up in my mouth a little. Sometimes I watch an old clip on youtube and then remember, 'oh yeah, he told the Russian ambassador some classified shit 3 years ago. Wtf.' I'd forgotten about that, so it wouldn't even make my laundry list if you asked me.
Some of the stuff he does amuses me too. It just doesn't outweigh the bad. So asking me what's the worst thing he's done is (in my mind at least) not helpful. Because even if you can convince me that putting kids in cages (let's say) is ok (and you never will), I'm still going to have the same general impression of him. Trump going from a -100 to a -95 in my mind, that is not going to turn me into a fan.
Well said. I'm not limiting my critique of the president to this, but I think it's a sufficient critique to say he's committed original sins that cannot be overcome. And that's no fault of the detractors.
|