Don Lemon And CNN Panel Lose It

[Chris]

This is why I cannot bear to watch CNN anymore. The PC and SJW crapola is too much. News is replaced by agenda.

Background: CNN’s Jeffrey Lord: Think of Trump as ‘Martin Luther King of healthcare’ (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/328616-cnns-jeffrey-lord-think-of-trump-as-martin-luther-king-of-healthcare):


CNN political commentator and President Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord on Thursday called the president the "Martin Luther King of healthcare," arguing that Trump has worked to rally support around healthcare reform like King rallied support around the Civil Rights Act.

"Think of President Trump as the Martin Luther King of healthcare," Lord said during an appearance on CNN.

"When I was a kid, President Kennedy did not want to introduce the civil rights bill because he said it wasn't popular, he didn't have the votes for it, et cetera," he added. "Dr. King kept putting people in the streets in harm's way to put the pressure on so that the bill would be introduced. That's what finally worked."

He was comparing tactics, strategy.

Now here is Don Lemon losing it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=517&v=OSStdkonSU0

[Crepitus]

LMf'nAO!

That anyone could be presumptuous enough to compare tRump to a person like Martin Luther King is so totally laughable I can't believe anyone would try to defend it.

And Ghandi too?

What a freaking joke.

tRump compares better with P.T. Barnum. Or better yet his leading clown.

[Chris]

LMf'nAO!

That anyone could be presumptuous enough to compare tRump to a person like Martin Luther King is so totally laughable I can't believe anyone would try to defend it.

And Ghandi too?

What a freaking joke.

tRump compares better with P.T. Barnum. Or better yet his leading clown.


Like Lemon et al you miss Lord's point of comparing tactics not people. Do you do this deliberately--do you think Lemon et al did it deliberately?


(Note this is a thread on On the Serious Side. Treat it as such.)

[Ravens Fan]

It looks like the black people in that segment heard MLK and Trump in the same sentence and then shut their brains down after that. They refused to even address the meat of the comparison he was making, which had nothing to do with the men themselves, but rather their tactics. Reminds me of the tactics that were used the minute anybody had anything negative to say about Obama's policies. How are we supposed to move beyond race when valid discussions are shut down in this way?

[decedent]

It looks like the black people in that segment heard MLK and Trump in the same sentence and then shut their brains down after that. They refused to even address the meat of the comparison he was making, which had nothing to do with the men themselves, but rather their tactics. Reminds me of the tactics that were used the minute anybody had anything negative to say about Obama's policies. How are we supposed to move beyond race when valid discussions are shut down in this way?


Lord started his argument with: "I want to say something here that I know will probably drive someone crazy..." He never intended to have a civilized conversation.


Words carry emotion. There's an entire science (pragmatics) about how meanings of words change based on context. Comparing a civil rights hero -- from Abraham Lincoln to JFK -- to anyone is dangerous... unless they're trying to stir the pot.

[Chris]

Lord started his argument with: "I want to say something here that I know will probably drive someone crazy..." He never intended to have a civilized conversation.


Words carry emotion. There's an entire science (pragmatics) about how meanings of words change based on context. Comparing a civil rights hero -- from Abraham Lincoln to JFK -- to anyone is dangerous... unless they're trying to stir the pot.

There was that, so he was aware the possible reactions.

They still went overboard.

[Common Sense]

Where specifically did Lemon lose it?

[Ravens Fan]

Lord started his argument with: "I want to say something here that I know will probably drive someone crazy..." He never intended to have a civilized conversation.


Words carry emotion. There's an entire science (pragmatics) about how meanings of words change based on context. Comparing a civil rights hero -- from Abraham Lincoln to JFK -- to anyone is dangerous... unless they're trying to stir the pot.

So acknowledging that your position will drive some crazy means that your not serious? On what planet?

He was comparing the tactics used by MLK to the tactics being used by Trump. He was not comparing the men themselves. Don't do like the people in the OP did, be honest about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[decedent]

So acknowledging that your position will drive some crazy means that your not serious? On what planet?



I said "civilized," not "serious."

I doubt anyone can have a serious conversation unless it's civilized.

[Chris]

Where specifically did Lemon lose it?

You could watch the video. 7:38 he gets condescending. 8:12 following he completely loses it. He's not about to let his missing Lord's point get in the way of his SJW agenda.

[Chris]

I said "civilized," not "serious."

I doubt anyone can have a serious conversation unless it's civilized.

I think his prelude was aim at keeping the discussion civilized. It didn't help.

[Ravens Fan]

I said "civilized," not "serious."

I doubt anyone can have a serious conversation unless it's civilized.

So, pointing out that your position may make some other crazy is uncivilized? How so? I see it as acknowledging reality, myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Safety]

Lord started his argument with: "I want to say something here that I know will probably drive someone crazy..." He never intended to have a civilized conversation.


Words carry emotion. There's an entire science (pragmatics) about how meanings of words change based on context. Comparing a civil rights hero -- from Abraham Lincoln to JFK -- to anyone is dangerous... unless they're trying to stir the pot.

Just like I heard someone say the guy that go thrown off the united flight is like rosa parks. Just because someone, that shares one's ideology, says something, doesn't make it relevant.

[Chris]

Just like I heard someone say the guy that go thrown off the united flight is like rosa parks. Just because someone, that shares one's ideology, says something, doesn't make it relevant.

Lord was comparing strategy not people.

Do people really just hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?

[Peter1469]

Lord was comparing stratgy not people.

Do people really just hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?

yes, they often do

[Dr. Who]

I'd say that Lord chose a rather poor analogy to make his point. I also don't see how any of Trump's tactics are remotely similar to MLK, who was not a President, but a preacher and one associated with bringing the change in civil rights legislation for blacks in America. Trump is not out on the street leading marches to get the government's attention. He is the government.

[Ravens Fan]

I'd say that Lord chose a rather poor analogy to make his point. I also don't see how any of Trump's tactics are remotely similar to MLK, who was not a President, but a preacher and one associated with bringing the change in civil rights legislation for blacks in America. Trump is not out on the street leading marches to get the government's attention. He is the government.

Had the panelists or Don made a similar argument, no one would be talking about it. Instead, they lectured and ridiculed the guy for even daring to make the comparison.

They could have had a great discussion, but chose to shut it down because they refused to grasp what he was trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mister D]

I think his prelude was aim at keeping the discussion civilized. It didn't help.
Exactly. Basically, he said that this might sound outlandish to you but listen carefully to what I'm saying.

[Chris]

I'd say that Lord chose a rather poor analogy to make his point. I also don't see how any of Trump's tactics are remotely similar to MLK, who was not a President, but a preacher and one associated with bringing the change in civil rights legislation for blacks in America. Trump is not out on the street leading marches to get the government's attention. He is the government.


Well, Lord explains in detail why he chose that analogy, and gave examples of half a dozen others, Kennedy, Gandhi, I forget who else used the same strategy. The strategy was creating stress in the system so action had to be taken to remedy it.

But you too choose to focus instead on the personalities involved and miss that.

[Chris]

yes, they often do


Indeed, it happens a lot on this very forum, in fact it's happening in this very thread.

[Safety]

Lord was comparing strategy not people.

Do people really just hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?

Doesn't matter, some things are too silly to try and compare. Do people really just accept any analogy as long as they agree with the person speaking it?

[Safety]

You could watch the video. 7:38 he gets condescending. 8:12 following he completely loses it. He's not about to let his missing Lord's point get in the way of his SJW agenda.

So getting condescending is "losing it" or "starting to lose it"? I will remember that for some members here.

[Chris]

Doesn't matter, some things are too silly to try and compare. Do people really just accept any analogy as long as they agree with the person speaking it?

They used the same strategy. Period. Nothing more.

It's like saying FDR, Hitler and Mussolini had mutual admiration for each other's centralized planning, and people getting upset because somehow the comparison extends out past original intent.

[Chris]

So getting condescending is "losing it" or "starting to lose it"? I will remember that for some members here.

Read what I posted again, all of it.

[Peter1469]

Let's imagine MLK with the twitter machine. :smiley:

[Safety]

They used the same strategy. Period. Nothing more.

It's like saying FDR, Hitler and Mussolini had mutual admiration for each other's centralized planning, and people getting upset because somehow the comparison extends out past original intent.

Yea, like saying Trump follows Hitler's strategy will be well received here.

Laughable.

[Dr. Who]

Well, Lord explains in detail why he chose that analogy, and gave examples of half a dozen others, Kennedy, Gandhi, I forget who else used the same strategy. The strategy was creating stress in the system so action had to be taken to remedy it.

But you too choose to focus instead on the personalities involved and miss that.
Please do explain how Trump is creating stress in the system - which system is that? The insurance companies? That isn't a system. That is private enterprise that knows exactly what it can afford and what it cannot. It can't be pressured into some kind of negotiation that results in a profit picture that doesn't justify supporting that line of business. Either it is allowed to cut some people out on the basis that some medical treatments are so expensive that they will eat up the insurers' profit margins or they will walk away.

[Safety]

Read what I posted again, all of it.

I read it once, no need to waste anymore time on it.

[resister]

Doesn't matter, some things are too silly to try and compare. Do people really just accept any analogy as long as they agree with the person speaking it?
Only hard leftys, like safety!

[Safety]

Please do explain how Trump is creating stress in the system - which system is that? The insurance companies? That isn't a system. That is private enterprise that knows exactly what it can afford and what it cannot. It can't be pressured into some kind of negotiation that results in a profit picture that doesn't justify supporting that line of business. Either it is allowed to cut some people out on the basis that some medical treatments are so expensive that they will eat up the insurers' profit margins or they will walk away.

In my opinion, it was just a way for Lord to equate Trump with something positive. As you can see, his supporters think it was apropos. But, someone using the same "strategy" comparison of Trump to Hitler, and the Godwin card would be thrown out.

[resister]

Yea, like saying Trump follows Hitler's strategy will be well received here.

Laughable.
Huge ass lol!

[Safety]

Only hard leftys, like safety!

Find any more scratch off treasure today?

[Safety]

Huge ass lol!

Sounds like a personal issue, try portion control.

[Dr. Who]

In my opinion, it was just a way for Lord to equate Trump with something positive. As you can see, his supporters think it was apropos. But, someone using the same "strategy" comparison of Trump to Hitler, and the Godwin card would be thrown out.
Some analogies simply don't work. There is nothing remotely similar between what Trump is doing and what MLK was doing. One was using a big business strategy that depends on the inherent greed of an investor and the other was a human campaign for social justice. The former failed because it was a strategy that doesn't work in politics. So the new strategy is to let it all fall apart, scream I told you so and then try to strongarm the insurance companies. It won't work. What MLK did was cause people to recognize the inequities in society by bringing it into people's living rooms and sharing his message of love and basic human rights with America.

[Common]

Some analogies simply don't work. There is nothing remotely similar between what Trump is doing and what MLK was doing. One was using a big business strategy that depends on the inherent greed of an investor and the other was a human campaign for social justice. The former failed because it was a strategy that doesn't work in politics. So the new strategy is to let it all fall apart, scream I told you so and then try to strongarm the insurance companies. It won't work. What MLK did was cause people to recognize the inequities in society by bringing it into people's living rooms and sharing his message of love and basic human rights with America.
Unfortunately MLK was only one man, now we have Al Sharpton and BLM

[Chris]

Yea, like saying Trump follows Hitler's strategy will be well received here.

Laughable.

The same thing might well happen. Emotions crowd out reason and blind people to the point of the comparison--like we're seeing here.

[Chris]

Please do explain how Trump is creating stress in the system - which system is that? The insurance companies? That isn't a system. That is private enterprise that knows exactly what it can afford and what it cannot. It can't be pressured into some kind of negotiation that results in a profit picture that doesn't justify supporting that line of business. Either it is allowed to cut some people out on the basis that some medical treatments are so expensive that they will eat up the insurers' profit margins or they will walk away.


You could listen to the video--hard to believe you haven't bothered to date. Instead you conger up a straw man to argue with.

Trump issued an executive order to the administration to fight the ACA in every way possible.

[Chris]

I read it once, no need to waste anymore time on it.

You misspelled misread. I was asked where in the video Lemon lost it and I gave that.

[Chris]

In my opinion, it was just a way for Lord to equate Trump with something positive. As you can see, his supporters think it was apropos. But, someone using the same "strategy" comparison of Trump to Hitler, and the Godwin card would be thrown out.

Again, yes, there are people who react with emotion rather than reason.

[Chris]

Some analogies simply don't work. There is nothing remotely similar between what Trump is doing and what MLK was doing. One was using a big business strategy that depends on the inherent greed of an investor and the other was a human campaign for social justice. The former failed because it was a strategy that doesn't work in politics. So the new strategy is to let it all fall apart, scream I told you so and then try to strongarm the insurance companies. It won't work. What MLK did was cause people to recognize the inequities in society by bringing it into people's living rooms and sharing his message of love and basic human rights with America.



Agree. An analogy between Trump the man and MLK the man wouldn't work. But no one made that analogy.

Both use the same disruptive strategy to get something done. But you refuse to listen to the video or listen to explanation of what Lord actually said.

Analogy implies only points of comparison without implying complete similarity. If I say Trump is a man just as MLK was, that's all I imply, I don't imply Trump is black, that would be ridiculous--to read it that way.

[Dr. Who]

You could listen to the video--hard to believe you haven't bothered to date. Instead you conger up a straw man to argue with.

Trump issued an executive order to the administration to fight the ACA in every way possible.

I have watched the video. There is no way Trump's work to rally support around healthcare reform is remotely comparable to the efforts of King to rally support around the Civil Rights Act. King worked tirelessly from 1955 through 1963 organizing and leading civil rights marches. He was arrested 29 times, had his house bombed and ultimately was assassinated for his efforts. Comparing MLK's level of commitment and personal sacrifice to Trump's paltry efforts over what amounts to three or four months in office trivializes MLK's life and memory. Lord was attempting to attribute greatness to Trump by comparing him to someone who was actually great by suggesting that he is the Martin Luther King of health care. Lord was wrong to invite the comparison.

[Chris]

I have watched the video. There is no way Trump's work to rally support around healthcare reform is remotely comparable to the efforts of King to rally support around the Civil Rights Act. King worked tirelessly from 1955 through 1963 organizing and leading civil rights marches. He was arrested 29 times, had his house bombed and ultimately was assassinated for his efforts. Comparing MLK's level of commitment and personal sacrifice to Trump's paltry efforts over what amounts to three or four months in office trivializes MLK's life and memory. Lord was attempting to attribute greatness to Trump by comparing him to someone who was actually great by suggesting that he is the Martin Luther King of health care. Lord was wrong to invite the comparison.


On the one point their efforts are similar, at least that was Lord's point, and his only point.


CNN political commentator and President Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord on Thursday called the president the "Martin Luther King of healthcare," arguing that Trump has worked to rally support around healthcare reform like King rallied support around the Civil Rights Act.

"Think of President Trump as the Martin Luther King of healthcare," Lord said during an appearance on CNN.

None of which had anything to do with other things MLK did, that you yourself ramble on about, tirelessly, organizing, arrested. Lord may or may not have been wrong had he made all those comparisons you're making, but he didn't. Lemon and the other talking heads took it even further, took their exaggerations and then got mad about them, Lemon castigating Lord...for the strawman Lemon imagined.

[Safety]

You misspelled misread. I was asked where in the video Lemon lost it and I gave that.

Cute. You explained why you thought Don lost it, you mentioned him getting condescending as one point. Do you wish to say you misspoke about me misreading?

[Chris]

Where specifically did Lemon lose it?


You could watch the video. 7:38 he gets condescending. 8:12 following he completely loses it. He's not about to let his missing Lord's point get in the way of his SJW agenda.


Cute. You explained why you thought Don lost it, you mentioned him getting condescending as one point. Do you wish to say you misspoke about me misreading?

You keep circling back and missing the direct answer highlighted in bold red.

[Safety]

Agree. An analogy between Trump the man and MLK the man wouldn't work. But no one made that analogy.

Both use the same disruptive strategy to get something done. But you refuse to listen to the video or listen to explanation of what Lord actually said.

Analogy implies only points of comparison without implying complete similarity. If I say Trump is a man just as MLK was, that's all I imply, I don't imply Trump is black, that would be ridiculous--to read it that way.

Yet, there would be absolutely zero reason to make a comparison between Trump as a man and MLK as a man, unless one is trying to tie something together deeper than just saying they were men. So, when someone invokes MLK's name in a conversation, then says it was only in comparison to his strategy, and there is absolutely no similarities to that strategy, the only logical conclusion an intelligent person can arrive at, is Lord was name dropping MLK as a way to lift Trump to a level higher than he is.

[Safety]

Again, yes, there are people who react with emotion rather than reason.

Sure, and there's people who only seem to care to point out emotional reasoning when it's against their ideology.

[Safety]

You keep circling back and missing the direct answer highlighted in bold red.

Missing, or not giving it the importance you wish I would give it? Would you like that I only focus on one part of your reply? That seems to run counter to what you were complaining about earlier.

[Chris]

Missing, or not giving it the importance you wish I would give it? Would you like that I only focus on one part of your reply? That seems to run counter to what you were complaining about earlier.

This thread's On the Serious Side. Do you think you could address the topic?

[Chris]

Sure, and there's people who only seem to care to point out emotional reasoning when it's against their ideology.

Again, could you address the topic?

[Chris]

Yet, there would be absolutely zero reason to make a comparison between Trump as a man and MLK as a man, unless one is trying to tie something together deeper than just saying they were men. So, when someone invokes MLK's name in a conversation, then says it was only in comparison to his strategy, and there is absolutely no similarities to that strategy, the only logical conclusion an intelligent person can arrive at, is Lord was name dropping MLK as a way to lift Trump to a level higher than he is.

No one compared Trump the man to MLK the man, well, except some members above and, obviously, the host and talking heads in the video, who completely lost it.

[Dr. Who]

On the one point their efforts are similar, at least that was Lord's point, and his only point.



None of which had anything to do with other things MLK did, that you yourself ramble on about, tirelessly, organizing, arrested. Lord may or may not have been wrong had he made all those comparisons you're making, but he didn't. Lemon and the other talking heads took it even further, took their exaggerations and then got mad about them, Lemon castigating Lord...for the strawman Lemon imagined.

You have the most delightful way of using expressions like "ramble on" to add that personal touch to your responses.

Their efforts are absolutely not similar unless you think three months of talking to members of Congress or cutting off payments to insurance companies is the same as many years of full-time organizing, marching, preaching, getting arrested and then ultimately being assassinated is remotely similar. MLK died a martyr to his cause. Trump is no martyr so unless Lord's expectation is that Trump will be assassinated over health care, the comparison was most ill-advised. His mistake was asking that people think of Trump as the MLK of health care, rather than just saying, that whether he knows it or not, Trump was employing a strategy advocated by MLK in his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail. That might also be arguable, but at least it is not attributing the qualities of MLK to DJT.

Now perhaps the panel might have better restrained their indignation and let the man get a word in edge-wise, but the reason for their indignation was legitimate. Then again, perhaps the whole thing was purposefully staged since they are all CNN employees and Lord's job is to be a Trump defender. It makes for good TV. The interview with Anderson Cooper was much more restrained although still critical of Lord.

[Chris]

You have the most delightful way of using expressions like "ramble on" to add that personal touch to your responses.

Their efforts are absolutely not similar unless you think three months of talking to members of Congress or cutting off payments to insurance companies is the same as many years of full-time organizing, marching, preaching, getting arrested and then ultimately being assassinated is remotely similar. MLK died a martyr to his cause. Trump is no martyr so unless Lord's expectation is that Trump will be assassinated over health care, the comparison was most ill-advised. His mistake was asking that people think of Trump as the MLK of health care, rather than just saying, that whether he knows it or not, Trump was employing a strategy advocated by MLK in his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail. That might also be arguable, but at least it is not attributing the qualities of MLK to DJT.

Now perhaps the panel might have better restrained their indignation and let the man get a word in edge-wise, but the reason for their indignation was legitimate. Then again, perhaps the whole thing was purposefully staged since they are all CNN employees and Lord's job is to be a Trump defender. It makes for good TV. The interview with Anderson Cooper was much more restrained although still critical of Lord.


True, one used, let us say, civil disobedience to stress the system, the other executive orders to stress it. But even under this microscope both use a strategy of stressing the system.

Everything else is, as I said, rambling on about matters not raised by Lord's comparison.

Indeed the indignation of the panel at the time Lord said it, and later in the panel in the video is the point here. The panelist read something into the comparison and what they read into it angered them. But they did not see it came from them.

I don't really criticize the black female panelist, as she was brought on to express her opinion. I criticize Lemon for losing it as he's the host and ought to remain neutral if for no other reason than maintaining the integrity of CNN.

[Dr. Who]

True, one used, let us say, civil disobedience to stress the system, the other executive orders to stress it. But even under this microscope both use a strategy of stressing the system.

Everything else is, as I said, rambling on about matters not raised by Lord's comparison.

Indeed the indignation of the panel at the time Lord said it, and later in the panel in the video is the point here. The panelist read something into the comparison and what they read into it angered them. But they did not see it came from them.

I don't really criticize the black female panelist, as she was brought on to express her opinion. I criticize Lemon for losing it as he's the host and ought to remain neutral if for no other reason than maintaining the integrity of CNN.

It wasn't reading into the comparison, it is offense taken at the comparison on the face of it. Here is a famous quote by MLK: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” Now the expectation is that the health care gains of some of the least well-off working citizens will be forfeit if Trump gets his way.

There are virtually no ideological similarities between Trump and MLK. Just associating MLK's name with Trump or anyone like Trump is offensive, particularly to those whose current freedoms are directly attributable to MLK's efforts. To compare someone who is so revered by so many to a person who is so reviled by those same persons can't be anything other than offensive. To ask them to think of Trump as the MLK of anything gives offense.

MLK to you may not have any personal meaning. He brought no difference to your life, but he made a huge and lasting difference to the lives of black Americans. For all intents and purposes he is the non-Catholic equivalent of a saint in the eyes of many people. How would Catholics react if Trump were ever in any way compared to a saint? Wouldn't that be offensive?

[Chris]

It wasn't reading into the comparison, it is offense taken at the comparison on the face of it. Here is a famous quote by MLK: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” Now the expectation is that the health care gains of some of the least well-off working citizens will be forfeit if Trump gets his way.

There are virtually no ideological similarities between Trump and MLK. Just associating MLK's name with Trump or anyone like Trump is offensive, particularly to those whose current freedoms are directly attributable to MLK's efforts. To compare someone who is so revered by so many to a person who is so reviled by those same persons can't be anything other than offensive. To ask them to think of Trump as the MLK of anything gives offense.

MLK to you may not have any personal meaning. He brought no difference to your life, but he made a huge and lasting difference to the lives of black Americans. For all intents and purposes he is the non-Catholic equivalent of a saint in the eyes of many people. How would Catholics react if Trump were ever in any way compared to a saint? Wouldn't that be offensive?

Lord wasn't making a "comparison on the face of it" but was comparing strategies. That's reading into it more than was intended. Your criticism is of what you read into it.

The quotes the same thing one of the panelists brought up. He was reading into it as well.


Now the expectation is that the health care gains of some of the least well-off working citizens will be forfeit if Trump gets his way.

That's your expectation and it too is based on what you bring to the table, not Lord.


MLK to you may not have any personal meaning.....

And now you read that into my words. Ramble on, I give up. But this xis one of the major causes of many disagreements in politics including this forum.

[Dr. Who]

Lord wasn't making a "comparison on the face of it" but was comparing strategies. That's reading into it more than was intended. Your criticism is of what you read into it.

The quotes the same thing one of the panelists brought up. He was reading into it as well.



That's your expectation and it too is based on what you bring to the table, not Lord.



And now you read that into my words. Ramble on, I give up. But this xis one of the major causes of many disagreements in politics including this forum.

I read nothing into your words. It was pretty clear that you don't understand how invoking MLK's name with Trump's name as in "the MLK of health care" makes a comparison and one not favorable to MLK. People's sensibilities and emotions are part of their makeup and how they see things. You cannot discard them as you would a hat. If you cannot see that it wasn't the notion of Trump perhaps employing a strategy advocated by MLK, but the opening statement drawing the comparison that was offensive it must be because you cannot identify with the sensibilities of those who do.

[Chris]

I read nothing into your words. It was pretty clear that you don't understand how invoking MLK's name with Trump's name as in "the MLK of health care" makes a comparison and one not favorable to MLK. People's sensibilities and emotions are part of their makeup and how they see things. You cannot discard them as you would a hat. If you cannot see that it wasn't the notion of Trump perhaps employing a strategy advocated by MLK, but the opening statement drawing the comparison that was offensive it must be because you cannot identify with the sensibilities of those who do.


It was pretty clear that you don't understand how invoking MLK's name with Trump's name as in "the MLK of health care" makes a comparison and one not favorable to MLK.

Agree, it is clear that some, like the Lemon panel, and you, do think that way. And it should be equally clear that Lemon did not do that, did not have that intention.


Right, but those are your sensibilites and emotions. To assume they belong to others is projection and it is unwarrarented.


But Lord's words, and his several explanations, clarified what you cannot or refuse to see, all he was doing was comparing strategies.


Yes, right, there's something wrong with me because I dont share your feelings and don't allow them to cloud rational views. Nice ad hom--in fact typical of your and many a liberal's approach to arguing. It's what the Lemon panel tried to do, rather than argue the point rationally make emotional pleas against the messenger. The fallacy is rejected.

[Dr. Who]

Agree, it is clear that some, like the Lemon panel, and you, do think that way. And it should be equally clear that Lemon did not do that, did not have that intention.


Right, but those are your sensibilites and emotions. To assume they belong to others is projection and it is unwarrarented.


But Lord's words, and his several explanations, clarified what you cannot or refuse to see, all he was doing was comparing strategies.


Yes, right, there's something wrong with me because I dont share your feelings and don't allow them to cloud rational views. Nice ad hom--in fact typical of your and many a liberal's approach to arguing. It's what the Lemon panel tried to do, rather than argue the point rationally make emotional pleas against the messenger. The fallacy is rejected.
Great, so if I said Trump is the Huey Long of 21st century American politics because they have used many of the same tactics, I'm sure no one should object.

[Safety]

Yea, I'm sure accusing someone of rambling is not considered an ad hom...

[Dr. Who]

Yea, I'm sure accusing someone of rambling is not considered an ad hom...
Of course not, but suggesting that someone does not identify with the sensibilities of those who see a situation differently is an accusation of some kind of disorder, rather than just a statement of fact based on the argument being made. Also, apparently suggesting someone is irrational because they disagree and recognize someone like MLK's historical impact and can understand how drawing certain comparisons could be offensive to many, is also not an ad hom. Shrug.

[AeonPax]

`
Comparing Trump and Martin Luther King is a dichotomy.

[Safety]

`
Comparing Trump and Martin Luther King is a dichotomy.

But to speak on that difference is evidently taboo.

[DGUtley]

Again, yes, there are people who react with emotion rather than reason.




Again, could you address the topic?



So, answering your post is now off-topic? Is this supposed to be a monologue?



Ok.
Notice @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) TB for trolling

[Chris]

Great, so if I said Trump is the Huey Long of 21st century American politics because they have used many of the same tactics, I'm sure no one should object.

As I said earlier I'm sure there are many who would do what you did, read more into it than intended and be offended.

[Chris]

Of course not, but suggesting that someone does not identify with the sensibilities of those who see a situation differently is an accusation of some kind of disorder, rather than just a statement of fact based on the argument being made. Also, apparently suggesting someone is irrational because they disagree and recognize someone like MLK's historical impact and can understand how drawing certain comparisons could be offensive to many, is also not an ad hom. Shrug.

Rambling is a description of prose, prose that rambled on with a strawman.

Telling people who disagree with you that there's something wrong with them is ad hom and fallaciious.

Irrational is a description of an argument based on emotion.

Distinguish between post and poster.

This topic has nothing to do with MLK's impact. I suggest, since it's On the Serious Side, you stick to and contribute to the topic.

[Chris]

`
Comparing Trump and Martin Luther King is a dichotomy.

Right, what's has been done by Lemon and panel is to lose it and argue a strawman false dichotomy.