- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,163
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
When there's no "there" there:
When there's lots "there" there:
Example:
What is it about so many people these days that they rail against empty personal barbs, or personal barbs they believe baseless? At least once every month since I joined DP I have at least remarked upon the notion of not dignifying insipid or baseless remarks by responding to them.
Almost weekly we see instances of Donald Trump responding directly to refute brickbats wherein part of his response is that the charge is baseless or untrue, which, frankly, is no more or less demonstratively probative than is the epithet to which he responded. Well, if the charge is indeed baseless, there's no need for one to respond to it, for its banality and inaccuracy -- that there's no "there" there -- will be endogenously and exogenously manifest.
All those vociferous vituperation does nothing but give life to something that deserves none.
Almost weekly we see instances of Donald Trump responding directly to refute brickbats wherein part of his response is that the charge is baseless or untrue, which, frankly, is no more or less demonstratively probative than is the epithet to which he responded. Well, if the charge is indeed baseless, there's no need for one to respond to it, for its banality and inaccuracy -- that there's no "there" there -- will be endogenously and exogenously manifest.
All those vociferous vituperation does nothing but give life to something that deserves none.
When there's lots "there" there:
What is it about so many people these days that they have no better sense than to publicly and vituperatively deny things of which they know there's plenty of "there" there? Why not just own "the ****" and move on, which, furthermore, allows "everyone else" to move on too? The fact of the matter is that when a charge has gravitas and can be deductively or inductively shown to be legit, there's no getting around it. Why prolong the agony?
Example:
On the matter of Trump and/or his campaign team's having colluded/conspired with Russian state actors.
[*=1]Trump (and/or his emissaries) weekly, if not daily, makes unsubstantiated assertions wherein he denies that there was collusion and disparages anyone, everyone, and everything brought into the quest to obtain a definitive and strongly corroborated answer to the question of whether any such comportment occurred.
[*=1]Bob Mueller, in contrast, says nothing -- either way -- and has said nothing about the matter since the day he was appointed. He just goes about his job of trying to find out whether there was or was not criminally culpable conspiring and, if there was, who, if anyone, was party to it.
Is there any "there" there? The general public doesn't know. We'll find out when Mueller issues his report.