2 SIDES: Father and son discuss 2 sides of Trump and politics
DJ Waldow
22

I’ve read the Puerto Rico discussion (skipped the audio for now).

This discussion showcases the 2 SIDZ of how Donald Trump and his Administration handled the crisis before, during, and after.

Are you sure?

My observations (from what I’ve read, I don’t know those people):

  • You were discussing two different things! DJ is criticising the Trump’s response to the crisis. Warren dodges discussing the Trump’s response, but makes it all about criticising Puerto Rico itself.
  • DJ interprets “handled the crisis” as “public appearances” (including Twitter). Warren takes it as “help given to Puerto Rico”. DJ interprets “administration” as “Trump”. Warren understands it as “the executive branch”.
  • Neither one is actually discussing the topic as stated.
  • Neither one seems to have googled and researched their answers.
  • Looking at the questions themselves, my guess is that questions 1–3 were from DJ and the 4–6 were from Warren. DJ’s questions pertain to the Trump’s public response. Warren’s questions are not about the Trump’s response but the purpose seems to deflect the criticism of the response.
  • Each participant enjoys answering their own questions but lacks detail and goes defensive answering questions of the opponent. DJ doesn’t really answers Warren’s questions about the PR conditions but keeps repeating “it shouldn’t justify the poor response!”. Warren tells that the issue is confusing and politicised, he can’t see things from far away, which would make sense. However, the confusion seems to be feigned as his attitude changes completely in the “Counters”.
  • DJ sees President as a leader and a political figure whose public statements are important. Warren sees Trump as a businessman whose public statements are just some info. His bar is low, Trump showed up at PR and let agencies do their job, it’s good enough. But the mayor of San Juan is a leader and a political figure according to him… apparently, responsible for the entire Puerto Rico. I wonder what your father used to do for a living. Businessmen are those gods who play golf and create miracles by their mere presence, working in mysterious ways…
  • DJ probably estimates (rightfully) that Trump’s tweets are seen by the entire world and as such come embarrassing. Warren thinks that Trump’s tweets are for his supporters like him and as such come useful.
  • DJ uses strong words criticising Trump but doesn’t bring partisanship into the discussion. Warren is trying to sound “balanced” but still comes divisive.
  • For DJ the issue is the Trump’s response to the crisis. For Warren the issue in the crisis are those criticising Trump, but the PR crisis could be just “explained away”.
  • DJ uses quite a bit of loud rhetoric, emotion and outrage (is there any need to repeat 11 times that Puerto Ricans are Americans? and what the PR crisis has to do with the Moon?). Warren contradicts his own statements but it doesn’t bother either of them. DJ thinks that it’s all about public appearances and flashy words and ignores practical aspects to en extent of being unreasonable (like claiming money and people as an unlimited resource). Warren sounds pragmatic but then slips into moralizing and subtle racism.
  • The “Counters” part is quite interesting, as the participants have been able see each other’s answers. However, in the end of the day, they didn’t hear each other. DJ reiterates his own opinion. Warren completely loses his “confusion”… he makes a full circle repeating the Trump’s tweets provided with the DJ’s answer and answers the first question again forgetting his old answer. Weird, isn’t it? Did he just get the idea or was it his “story” from the start but he wouldn’t reveal it?
  • DJ thinks that the result of this discussion was learning about each other. Warren probably thinks that he’s completed a game.
  • The winner is Warren! Just kidding. It looks like Warren used a good strategy to “beat” DJ — with his set of questions (he uses “Texas & Florida” 11 times on the page), declining to state an opinion before reading the opponent's answers, then boom — the last killer argument, counterpunch! Did he learn it from some TV host or Trump himself? His opponent noticed only in the end that talking about Texas and Florida was missing the point. Too late!
  • Warren reads like a split personality. One “person” recognizes that he’s confused and is trying to explain things he understands. The second one is overconfident, irritated at those annoying inferior people who “politicise” everything and explains things using some TV picture. The trigger? Trump’s tweets! Maybe, the second “person” is Trump himself.
  • Well, the conclusion… a Trump’s fan is a Trump’s fan.

Next time you may try to fully agree on a topic and set a rule not to deviate from it. It probably would be better to “counter” one question at a time and the “rebuttal” should be relevant to the answer, not answer the question again. Maybe, limit the number of characters in the “counter” form.

It might be also useful to have a third party to make a list of questions, so the participants don’t create their questions in the way to get ahead arguing their position.