Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face

[vraiblonde]

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...ls-right-back-in-the-lefts-ugly-face-n2284892

The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky’s book isn’t some dusty old commie tome – it’s a lifestyle.

Besides that they're mentally ill, this is what's really pissing the progs off: Trump stole their playbook and is using it to beat them.

 

[stgislander]

A discussion on Alinsky... hmmmm. Let's see if this brings Larry out of his self-imposed exile.

 

[This_person]

A discussion on Alinsky... hmmmm. Let's see if this brings Larry out of his self-imposed exile.

To be fair, Larry was right: The Alinsky rules are not based on political ideology. Any side can use them. In the past, the right has not used them much because they inherently are dishonest and dirty fighting. To say Trump is using them is to say Trump is a dirty fighter.

That's not always wrong. However, the ends do not always justify the means, and personal attacks against someone who disagrees is not really demonstrating a problem with their argument which proves a weak arguing position (if you had a strong one, why would you bypass it and go for the cheap shots).

I'm not convinced Trump is an Alinsky-ite. I think he just doesn't pull the punches due to fear of political backlash from not being "politically correct". He does attack people personally, but in doing so he ALSO attacks their argument (not necessarily an Alinsky tactic).

So, he works with the methods that work for him, and rejects the ones that do not.

:shrug:

I think that's kind of a good thing.

And, I fully agree with Vrai, the progressives have no idea how to fight the guerrilla warfare they started when it is used against them. My goodness, how much more could Trump possibly control the narrative!?!

 

[vraiblonde]

To say Trump is using them is to say Trump is a dirty fighter.

I think it's clear that Trump is a dirty fighter. You're either okay with that or you're not. I'm okay with it.

The Left hasn't come up with anything reasonable in terms of why they don't like Trump. "He's Hitler!" isn't a reasonable discussion point. All they know how to do is scream and throw themselves on the floor and call people filthy names and threaten their children. I think Trump has been correct in his response to them, which is to spank their ass and send them to be without dinner.

Note that Trump has NEVER thrown the first punch. He merely throws the last punch. So that probably makes him not a dirty fighter, but the fact that he fights at all is something new when it comes to dealing with these schmucks. In the past the nansy pansy GOP has just bent over and taken it.

 

[This_person]

I think it's clear that Trump is a dirty fighter. You're either okay with that or you're not. I'm okay with it.

The Left hasn't come up with anything reasonable in terms of why they don't like Trump. "He's Hitler!" isn't a reasonable discussion point. All they know how to do is scream and throw themselves on the floor and call people filthy names and threaten their children. I think Trump has been correct in his response to them, which is to spank their ass and send them to be without dinner.

Note that Trump has NEVER thrown the first punch. He merely throws the last punch. So that probably makes him not a dirty fighter, but the fact that he fights at all is something new when it comes to dealing with these schmucks. In the past the nansy pansy GOP has just bent over and taken it.

The very next sentence after the term dirty fighter was that is not always wrong. :shrug:

I've never understood why being a dirty fighter was considered bad, especially when you're not the one who initiates the fight. All fights are dirty, because they show an inability to use intelligence instead of brute force. Wars are not won by those who are right, they're won by those who are stronger. Same with fights.

He rarely, if ever, picks the fight. He responds, as you say. If someone else is going to start it, I'm fine with most things people have to do to end it. The difference is, most people say they are above things like kicks to the crotch. It's morally wrong, and you have to be better than those you are fighting. The problem with that is, most times people lose fights not because they couldn't win, but because they refused to win except by the standards they set for themselves, when those are not the standards that got them in the fight in the first place.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's morally wrong, and you have to be better than those you are fighting.

You're better if you win, period. I'm sure all those Holocaust victims felt morally superior to the Nazis.

 

[Gilligan]

You're better if you win, period. I'm sure all those Holocaust victims felt morally superior to the Nazis.

There it is. Dying, but with the certain knowledge that you are in the right as you do so, does not appear to be a particularly great life strategy to me.

 

[Merlin99]

The very next sentence after the term dirty fighter was that is not always wrong. :shrug:

I've never understood why being a dirty fighter was considered bad, especially when you're not the one who initiates the fight. All fights are dirty, because they show an inability to use intelligence instead of brute force. Wars are not won by those who are right, they're won by those who are stronger. Same with fights.

He rarely, if ever, picks the fight. He responds, as you say. If someone else is going to start it, I'm fine with most things people have to do to end it. The difference is, most people say they are above things like kicks to the crotch. It's morally wrong, and you have to be better than those you are fighting. The problem with that is, most times people lose fights not because they couldn't win, but because they refused to win except by the standards they set for themselves, when those are not the standards that got them in the fight in the first place.

Why do you think it is never intelligent to use force? I can think of several instances that the proper use of force is the exact right response.

 

[This_person]

You're better if you win, period. I'm sure all those Holocaust victims felt morally superior to the Nazis.

I should have put a semi-colon between that sentence and the one before it. The point was to show that many people feel fighting that way is morally inferior.

To an extent, I agree. For example, I would not have used a nuke against Iraq, nor would I outright lie to make a point against a liberal. If I'm going to do that, I might just as well be a liberal.

No, I would be fine with pointing out their hypocrisy instead of fighting back against their argument when I know they can't handle the truth and will be defeated by showing they're as bad as they claim others are. But, I'm not going to use pictures of Trump with intentional halos added in to make him look like a messiah, the way they did with Obama. I'm above that. I won't claim something is factually proven when it is not.

WRT the Nazi reference, yes, I would have liked to have seen the Jews fight back and win. But, what about the other way around? Let's say the south won the Civil War, and kept slavery for at least a few decades longer (before it was no longer a good business model for them)? If they won, would that have made their position "right"? No. Winning does not make one right, just alive.

 

[vraiblonde]

I should have put a semi-colon between that sentence and the one before it. The point was to show that many people feel fighting that way is morally inferior.

To an extent, I agree. For example, I would not have used a nuke against Iraq, nor would I outright lie to make a point against a liberal. If I'm going to do that, I might just as well be a liberal.

No, I would be fine with pointing out their hypocrisy instead of fighting back against their argument when I know they can't handle the truth and will be defeated by showing they're as bad as they claim others are. But, I'm not going to use pictures of Trump with intentional halos added in to make him look like a messiah, the way they did with Obama. I'm above that. I won't claim something is factually proven when it is not.

WRT the Nazi reference, yes, I would have liked to have seen the Jews fight back and win. But, what about the other way around? Let's say the south won the Civil War, and kept slavery for at least a few decades longer (before it was no longer a good business model for them)? If they won, would that have made their position "right"? No. Winning does not make one right, just alive.

A couple of things:

You don't have to lie to beat a progbot in a debate. All you have to do is use truth, history, and logic. Prog arguments are always emotion-based and fantasy land scenarios. It takes next to nothing to shut them down fair and square.

Also, speculating on "if the South had won the Civil War" is pointless. The South wasn't going to win that war. They just weren't, for a number of reasons that the rabble were too roused to consider.

 

[Hijinx]

I should have put a semi-colon between that sentence and the one before it. The point was to show that many people feel fighting that way is morally inferior.

To an extent, I agree. For example, I would not have used a nuke against Iraq, nor would I outright lie to make a point against a liberal. If I'm going to do that, I might just as well be a liberal.

No, I would be fine with pointing out their hypocrisy instead of fighting back against their argument when I know they can't handle the truth and will be defeated by showing they're as bad as they claim others are. But, I'm not going to use pictures of Trump with intentional halos added in to make him look like a messiah, the way they did with Obama. I'm above that. I won't claim something is factually proven when it is not.

WRT the Nazi reference, yes, I would have liked to have seen the Jews fight back and win. But, what about the other way around? Let's say the south won the Civil War, and kept slavery for at least a few decades longer (before it was no longer a good business model for them)? If they won, would that have made their position "right"? No. Winning does not make one right, just alive.

Winning is better than losing . That's a fact.
When the North won the Civil war they fought dirty, as dirty as they could.
Arguments about the Civil War always bring out the so called experts.
But the North totally avoided the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in that war.
They fought as dirty as they had to to win.

Winning is always better. The Democrats know that.
Dirty fighting doesn't bother them in the least.
I only wish the republicans could figure that out and learn to use it.

 

[GURPS]

The point was to show that many people feel fighting that way is morally inferior.

To an extent, I agree. For example, I would not have used a nuke against Iraq .....

Fair Fights are for Suckers ... if you find yourself in a Fair Fight you are doing it wrong

I would have Used Tactical Nukes on Saddam's Palaces and saved the loss of American Lives

 

[GURPS]

Winning is always better. The Democrats know that.
Dirty fighting doesn't bother them in the least.

just look at the name calling that starts - Moron, Racist, Homophobe,

 

[This_person]

Why do you think it is never intelligent to use force? I can think of several instances that the proper use of force is the exact right response.

The key word is "response".

My point is that when people who differ can not work out their differences, the one who throws the first punch (verbal/figurative or literal) is the one who lost and showed their lack of intelligence. Response is entirely different.

 

[vraiblonde]

Fair Fights are for Suckers ... if you find yourself in a Fair Fight you are doing it wrong

I would have Used Tactical Nukes on Saddam's Palaces and saved the loss of American Lives

You either want to win or you don't. Any fight worth waging is worth winning.

As far as "morality" goes: there's right, and there's dead right.

 

[Sapidus]

A couple of things:

You don't have to lie to beat a progbot in a debate. All you have to do is use truth, history, and logic. Prog arguments are always emotion-based and fantasy land scenarios. It takes next to nothing to shut them down fair and square.

Also, speculating on "if the South had won the Civil War" is pointless. The South wasn't going to win that war. They just weren't, for a number of reasons that the rabble were too roused to consider.

Wrong.

You clearly lied above when you said Trump doesn’t pick fights.

He has picked dozens of fights in the last year alone.

 

[GURPS]

He has picked dozens of fights in the last year alone.

:shrug:


and YOUR Assertion is ?

 

[Merlin99]

The key word is "response".

My point is that when people who differ can not work out their differences, the one who throws the first punch (verbal/figurative or literal) is the one who lost and showed their lack of intelligence. Response is entirely different.

I'm not going to agree with this, but I'm also not going to argue the point because it's to easy to get caught in the circular reasoning of response. If you respond to a previous incident, that incident had a previous encounter which had a previous encounter... We could go back hundreds of years to the initial incident.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wrong.

You clearly lied above when you said Trump doesn’t pick fights.

He has picked dozens of fights in the last year alone.

Name one.