Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
Right now, you've got a racist and probably a rapist as the elected president and in any case a mysogynistic dick. That he was a racist and a misogynist was known when he got elected. There's no amount of good policies that should excuse such character so we already know it wholeheartedly isn't anything to do with Trump's policies that got him elected. Thinking the "right" policies are going to defeat him just misses the point entirely how US elections are decided.
Funny, while Trump's minions are out there pretending he hasn't been openly racist, one was asked by Chris Cuomo: "Well, what if he said he was actually a racist? Would you support him then?" The poor guy was stumped. "That's a tough one" was the best he could he manage.
But, yeah, Trump warned us he could take a gun out on the street and shoot someone (preferably a black or brown person, apparently) and his supporters would still cheer him on. I think his ego is leading him to test that theory re racism. He's wondering how far he can take it before Republicans refuse to continue to walk the goose-step behind him. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
If the vast majority of people do not experience racism in THEIR day to day lives, then by definition , by sheer common sense, the race issue is leftist propaganda and in fact promoting racism by continuing suggest the idea.
Please take note that what you hear or see on television does not count, as television does not equal reality since information is deleted, ignored , focused or not focused on, or taken out of proportion.
So when the vast majority of people see Trump encouraging racism on TV, this does not count as "day to day life" because it's not reality? I suppose you think that the film's been edited to make Trump look like he encourages racism when he really does not. Regardless, I think most of us do experience racism, outside of what we see on TV, most of us not every day, but how much is too much? And if it is observed to be on the increase, this is cause for concern.
Quoting Relativist
You are assuming this. I'm sure some may say that to themselves. I'm sure, myself included, have said that regarding Muslims when several terrorist attacks were happening around the country and the world a few years ago. I was angry and therefore had angry thoughts. However, a passing thought does not define somebody. I like most Muslims I meet and think they add flavor to our already diverse society. But, yes, we are only human and when we see our neighbors die in vein, then its only human to be angry.
I've strayed off the subject a bit. To your point, I suppose expressing an idea that may be dormant in the collective consciousness could feed that idea , which is a dangerous and inappropriate idea, one that should not be voiced by a leader.
However, isn't it the media and the democrats that are really spreading the idea. I mean, to take a phrase, such as 'go back to where you are from' out of a sentence, out of an entire speech, out of hundreds of speeches is taking it out of proportion. They are completely taking it out of context. Not to mention, why is it that when AOC, for example, attacks Trump, she is not accused of being racist? Why are they not held to the same standard? And since it's the left that continues to voice the idea of racism, not Trump, isn't it them who are at fault if anybody?
Like I said, TV does not count because yes, its being edited for him to look like a racist. That is exactly what the right is saying!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So your answer to the question 'are you or anyone you know experiencing racism in your life (outside TV) , the answer is no. So my point is that what you are seeing on TV is propaganda because what is being portrayed on TV does not fit your reality.
Really? It was a tweet. Trump doesn't make speeches. He makes sporadic remarks strategically aimed at incite.
As I said, the answer is yes. I see it commonly, in my life, not on TV, not every day, but more times than I can count. And it appears to be on an increase.
Exactly.
I really would not be surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And if he does, I’m afraid our country will never be the same again.
It seems to me that "go back where you came from" or "go back home" has about the same loading as "love It or Leave It." If you don't love the country now the way the taunter does, the taunter in chief, especially, it means you don't share the dominant paradigm. Back in the day, when the Black Panther Party was in the news a lot (even though they were actually pretty small potatoes as organizations go) they incited a lot of hatred. Black activists of all sorts were told to "go back to Africa".
Love It or Leave It, Go Back Where You Came From, Go Back to Africa (or wherever), are taunts to "get with the program". More often than not the taunts come/came from working class whites who were not, when they were taunting long-haired hippies or blacks, in the armed services. Working class whites were drafted at a higher rate than white college students (who might have been working class too). They felt they were bearing an unfair 'class burden'. Their burden was lighter than the black working class who got drafted a lot more often than white working class men.
White working class men end up taking the side they do because they are more or less conventionally patriotic, and even if they have been ill served by the system, they feel they have a stake in it. Working class blacks are conventionally patriotic too, but are generally have no delusions that they have a very deep stake In the system, or that the system is on their side.
The object of Trump's taunt was no congresswoman. It was his electoral base: They, of course, like the attention Trump gives them (that's the most they're going to get out of Trump, too) and they easily respond to the resentment-pandering that Trump does. It's entertaining. "Lock her up" / "Send her back" -- are just obvious chants for Trump audiences to use.
Any speaker who so wishes can coax a crowd into a frenzy with the right suggestions. Different folks need different strokes. A Sanders crowd or a Warren Crowd or a Trump crowd can all be turned on with the right--but quite different--words. Trump seems to have a feel for his people, which is important for him since his whole strategy has been to pander.
Unfortunately, she is now a target who might well need extra protection as a result.
Can you imagine the effect that must have on an individual - being hatefully picked on by a powerful president goading a crowd into a frenzy. It's not just a chant, it's an incitement to oppose and attack.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes. I keep thinking the Democrats should get themselves a good slogan. I liked the quote used by the congresswoman to hit back at Trump. Can't remember it but it's too wordy *
I enjoyed the sense of it - a rising into the air...
A bit like rising above it. And also an awareness arising...
It's strong but not punchy enough.
* Found it:
Quoting Maya Angelou
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46446/still-i-rise
I have a depressing feeling you're right. The Democrats have really got to stop being a rabble and get behind a sensible centrist candidate. From 15,000 miles away it looks awfully like it ought to be a Biden-Warren ticket.
downQuoting Baden
I don't know if you saw this last year, but it's really worth repeating from time to time.
Given that things are going from bad to worse, I am actually waiting for that.
So far, he seems to accept that being racist is wrong.
But being a racist, there may well come a point where he thinks he can get away with telling it like it is:
'I am a racist. So what?'
More funny/sad. But we don't have to go as far as the Guardian to highlight this kind of absurdity. Right here in this discussion you have the asinine suggestion that racism is not a problem because a poster can't see it and therefore those who object to racism are actually promoting it. How do you combat that lobotomized level of stupidity? Someone who insists on believing the 'other side' is the cause of the very thing their side is blatantly espousing or covering for is suffering from more than a defect in IQ, more than run-of-the-mill ignorance, they are on a plane of emotional blindness that regular folks just have no access to. They are beyond help. What can we do but pray for them. :pray:
From what I have read, I would agree.
From what I've read, the only reason he said he was unhappy with the chants was at Ivanka's cajoling. But throwing his supporters under a bus didn't play too well with the Breitbart crowd so he retracted his non-racism and lauded the racists as 'great patriots'. It's a rather random dance of whim and dumb which could lead anywhere at this point.
Here in Australia, we have an exceedingly inept and graceless politician by the name of Pauline Hanson. She too runs on a racist/xenophobe platform and recently managed to get back into the Australian senate for another term after many years trying.
In 1998, when she first got into Parliament, she became instantly notorious by saying in her maiden speech that Australia was being overrun by Asians and making disparaging comments about indigenous Australians. The national press made it a front-page story, there was enormous controversy, and every politician who spoke to the media the next day were asked, very loudly, DID YOU HEAR WHAT SHE SAID? DID YOU? (John Howard, then conservative PM, was wise enough to refrain from saying anything.)
By this means, she was suddenly catapulted from 'independent member for a country electorate' to a national anti-celebrity and figure head for the racist right (which fortunately is far less prominent in Australian politics than in the US). But if her speech had been reported on Page 5, 'new member makes racist comments in maiden speech', then she would probably have faded back into richly-deserved obscurity. That is the problem with these kinds of controversies - they add fuel the fire and play into the hands of those who want to exploit it. As long as the media is monopolised by TRUMP RACIST, then all the really serious questions, like the US defaulting on the national debt, the multiple criminal investigations into Trump, and so on, are all sidelined. Just the way he wants it.
Oh, sure, this has been happening with Trump since the beginning. My objection is to the naughty-three-year-old-with-hand-in-the-cookie-jar response of pointing to his brother and saying "He did it!" when mummy catches him. Although in this case, for Trump and his apologists, it's "He did it" (the Dems) and "Mummy did it" (the "fake!" news media). Anywhere that's not a space for idiocy should immediately disinfect itself of that ideological cockroach poo.
I remember picking up a book in a bookstore once by a conservative pundit, called ‘The Death of Outrage’. Jacket blurb: ‘In this new, updated edition of a book heralded as a clarion call to the nation's conscience, William Bennett asks why we see so little public outrage in the face of the evidence of deep corruption within Bill Clinton's administration (referring to the Lewinsky scandal). ’
Oh, the irony.
I feel for that guy.
It will depend on the performance by all involved.
Sometimes the film is better than the book...
But Trump and his supporters never talk about racism! Only the left does. And racism has never been out front of their agenda, Though I admit Trump did make a stupid remark about Muslims though this was during a time when terrorist acts were happening quite frequently.
Point I’m trying to make is, the race issue today is no different than the abortion issue 10 years ago. It’s a non-issue to begin with! It simply is a simplistic, morality issue promoted by the self- appointed morally superior party to gain support. In fact, it doesn’t even have a place in politics.
It's not a non-issue as long as black men and women are commonly afraid of the police. It would be nice if Trump would acknowledge the problem. But maybe he did and I missed it.
I think he'll be re-elected, so my long term plan involves ignoring the news. The only thing that's mildly interesting to me is the deep interest Europeans have for the American show while Americans know nothing about European politics.
um ok
Quoting Relativist
Right, the Republicans have been using this strategy since Obama was first elected. They called Hilary a socialist. They've been calling progressive "socialists" regardless of actual policy proposals since FDR. They call everyone a socialist to spur their own base. You can only cry wolf for so long until people wise up to it, and there is no justification to suggest that swing voters will automatically be persuaded by such a flagrantly dishonest tactic.
Quoting Relativist
Sure, McConnell is a huge barrier to progressive legislation, but that's a completely different subject.
Quoting Relativist
Ok so the Dems can just charge the GOP with creating racist concentration camps, which they are. Problem solved.
Your argument seems to be that democratic candidates should embrace Republican talking points and accept elements of their policy proposals. This is simply suicidal. Polling clearly shows that the Democratic base is open to progressive policies, and that some of these policies are also popular with independents. And even if they aren't, the GOP managed to get widely unpopular legislation passed and so there is no reason to assume the Dems can't either. ACA only had 40% approval and 50% disapproval in 2010. But guess what happened anyway.
There was an article in the NYT a day or so ago that said it was completely possible for Trump to lose the popular vote by 5M and still win the EC and be re-elected.
Scary
The Platform Committees of the two nominating conventions used to receive attention. Not any more. Who cares what the platform is when you have fascinating personalities?
There are significant differences between the Republic and the Democratic Party, of course. For the last 40 years, the Republicans have paid more attention to their long-term project of reducing government--both in its regulatory guise and in its social services guise. Conservatives have resented the New Deal for the last 85 years. Democrats have tried to maintain and extend it.
It was under a Democrat (Bill Clinton) that "Welfare as we know it" was ended (i.e., reduced). It was under a Republican (Ronald Reagan) that the government response to the AIDS epidemic was poor. It was under a Republic (Bush II) that we became mired in a middle east war, and it was under a Democrat (Obama) that we stayed there.
Trump illustrates two personal characteristics that are relevant: First, as a CEO, he behaves in the presidency as if was a CEO--with lots of prerogatives, and not part of a government. Secondly, as has been noted, he doesn't deal with specific issues as much as incite political arousal toward easy targets.
And it isn't just Trump, of course. There are also many millions of voters who find in his incitements an answer to their many (some quite justified) resentments. How many millions? Enough in the right states to get him elected in 2016 by an Electoral College total of 304 electoral votes to 227. One may not like the Electoral College, but until the constitution is changed, there It is.
The Democrats should not compete with Trump in a race to the bottom of the barrel of electoral strategies. They have plenty of good issues and good rhetoric that can incite and inspire their base, and even steal some Trump voters--provided they focus on winning majorities in the crucial states of the Electoral College.
It will be a tricky high wire act.
This is an understandable response, and fairly sensible. The news coverage highlights the steady progress of a malignancy, and who needs that?
Clinton :How can we beat Trump?
A: Economy? National Defense? Domestic Security? Trade? Foreign wars?
Clinton: No, can’t because he’s turned all that around and the country is doing fantastic in those areas.
A:,How about the old way, anti- establishment and against working class people?
Clinton; No. Workers love him and he is the most anti-establishment president in history.
A; Well, how about make him out to be a racist?
Clinton: Maybe. But he’s been in public eye for 50 years and has never been known as racist. Plus, his Palm Beach club is one of the few that allows blacks and Jews and he’s been friends with several black celebrities his whole life and none have ever accused him before of racism. Do you think we can pull it off?
A: Sure, he’s got a big mouth, he’s already said a few things that we can spin as racist and we’ll just wait until he says anything remotely racist or against anyone of color and run along our partners at NBC and CNN a hundred times a day until it becomes truth. It’s worked before..
Clinton: ok, it’s the only chance we have. Good luck!
No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them. In particular, consider Medicare For All. IMO it has near zero chance of passing, but even if it could - it's too big, and too soon. We absolutely need a public option- that should be campaigned for. If successful, it will eventually crowd out the private options. IMO this is smart policy, and smarter politically.
I'm not saying Republican proposals should be embraced, but I definitely reject "no compromise" attitudes, whether it's from the "tea party" Republicans or a progressive mirror image. Even if Dems win the Presidency and the Senate, they won't be able to pass anything significant without compromising with Republicans because of the 60 votes needed for cloture.
ROFL! Right, and he's always been a faithful, loving husband, too.
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
Huh, you mean Hillary didn't write the above from her base in the Ping Pong Pizzeria child sex trafficking hub from which she, to this very day, directs the Democrat anti-Trump smear machine?
Biden-Warren, I’m hoping. I think it will be the winning ticket. Biden the reassuring political persona, Warren the policy engine. I can see it.
Have you had your vision checked recently? (jokey quip)
You might be right. I feel neutral toward Biden, positive toward Warren. Warren is loaded with policy ideas, true enough, and expresses her ideas in a forthright and an articulate manner. However, in order for her to be able to DO GOOD POLICY (outside of executive orders) she would have to have a Democratic majority in the Senate and House, and not just for the first two years. The house/senate limitation applies to everyone, of course, for good or for ill.
The Republican Party has executed a long-term policy of getting control of state houses (where redistricting for Congress is done after the Censes) and has also been working on courts and state legislatures to protect rather old-fashioned methods of voter barriers like gerrymandering and "voter fraud" initiatives. Voter fraud has become a true rarity, so voter fraud is code for barring minorities and the elderly, both of whom are more likely to vote liberal. Poll taxes aren't going to work and neither are literacy tests. What they are using now is restrictive rules to deter minority and elderly voter registration.
This far sighted, patient projected is paying off. It reminds one of the long-term patient, hard working effort to block Roe vs. Wade. The secular right and the religious right have been working on this since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was handed down.
The Democratic Party does not seem to have anything like the same long term, patient, strategy in place like the Republicans have. The Republicans have done well in the research and development department where they have discovered routes to long-term power that had eluded them for quite some time. I have not heard of anything similar in liberal circles.
When differences between parties are so far removed from one another ideologically, compromise as such becomes a major liability. What is there to compromise over when one party is firmly anti-abortion, anti-public healthcare, anti-climate change policy, and are morally content with concentration camps at the border fueled by racist ethno-nationalism? Obama believed in compromising with the GOP despite the outright rejection they received at the polls in 2008, which should have solidified outright dominance for the Democratic party.
Members of the GOP understand this precisely, McConnell most of all. McConnell understands that American politics is split in an ideological way that, maybe outside the 60s, has no historical precedent, and that the GOP is in the far more precarious position given that older generations that vote for the GOP are dying and younger generations are far more liberal, which means that their voter base is shrinking over time. This is also true of shifting ethnic demographics - America is becoming less and less white, and more and more diverse, and ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Dem. It goes without saying that this is very bad in the long term for the GOP, and when they can't win by democratic means, they will resort to fascist control. For major policies, McConnell and his party have no agreements with the Democrats. They don't agree on providing universal healthcare, they want to over turn Roe v. Wade, they don't want a progressive taxation, the GOP senate in Oregon literally fled the state rather than appear for a vote regarding climate change, they are perpetual war hawks, etc. Given this, McConnell understands that any compromise with the Democrats will only damage his own party - what does he have to gain - and so he's jumped head first into Machiavellian politics. He blocked Obama's judicial nominees, the most prominent being a seat for the Supreme Court, which will have huge repercussions for generations, even after the GOP theoretically becomes a defunct political party who citizens don't elect to the legislative or executive branch. McConnell then went on to fill those vacant seats with conservative judges - unelected Government officials who have the power to strike down progressive legislation drafted by members of Congress elected to represent the will of a more progressive American polity.
All this circle-jerking over "compromise" displays a vast ignorance over what modern American politics has become.
The cubans in miami where i’m from are passionately free market republicans (given their experience with communism). In fact, many south americans are pro free market, culturally conservative.
The media cherry picks what they show you. There are hundreds of stories a day thousands of people they can interview on the street. and they pick a the ones that fit their values and beliefs. You are not get a good sample.
Quoting halo
Quoting halo
Quoting halo
Quoting halo
Quoting halo
hmm ok well here's a good sample showing most Latinos lean liberal/Dem
Actual minorities speaking in favor of Trump vs. surveys and polls saying otherwise.
Pardon me for not exactly having much confidence in surveys/polls, given how fucking wrong they were before, and how easily the wording and sample can be - and are - both carefully selected for influencing a particular answer/result.
You do realize that @halo is a random person on the internet, right? And who do you think takes these surveys and polls if not "actual immigrants"? 69% of Latinos voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm vs. 29% who voted GOP.
How many legal immigrants have you interviewed?
Outside of the fact that I simply don't believe for an instant that you are anyone here has "interviewed" immigrants on their views of undocumented immigration, why do polls not matter? Are they not reflective of "real people" responding? Seems that majority of Americans are sympathetic to undocumented immigrants, even fairly split among conservatives.
I curious , if you were president, what would you do with the border issue?
Incidentally, here is Buttigieg saying exactly what I've been saying.
Throw everyone in ICE and CBP in jail and let the immigrants in the concentration camps live in their homes. Easy.
Trump is more of an investor-owner than a CEO. CEO's typically are career professionals that are hired for the job and are responsible for the board, typically other people like himself. An investor that inherited his wealth isn't: it's his money, his wealth. Hence Trump has had the ability of having a multitude of entrepreneurial disasters, thanks to the Russians coming to assist him after American banks wouldn't lend him any more.
Name calling and personal insults.
Brilliant.
As long as I can argue in the affirmative.
That's false.
Ha! Let me ask you this: are you a naturalized citizen or were you born here (assuming you are an American)?
All that based upon... what, exactly?
I've lived and thrived in a multitude of different places, people's, and cultures. I've made lots of friends.
And that was?
With you? None, that I'm aware.
Here, in this thread?
Trump is not the problem. He is a symtom. A consequence. A result.
I agree. Globalism hasn’t helped the average person to the degree it has benefitted the owner class. It hasn’t helped Joe or Jane Blow at all in the good ol’ USA. The Dems need to have a clear plan of how they will make Joe and Jane’s life better, and show that Trump has pulled off a con job.
There is such a thing.
When given no choice but for one to have to fight for their right to self direction, when during a heated confrontation, one is not afforded the ability to escape the situation with their dignity intact, when one's life and livelihood is being carelessly cast aside...
Doesn’t seem like a fitting analogy to compare this situation to Mandela’s, but have at it.
That's way too broad a brush stroke.
I'm not much of a fan of a bi-partisan political system such as the one currently taking place in the US. The intentional and deliberate aim to enter into the US political arena as a primary means to increase one's personal wealth is allowed. As it should be. Everyone has to make a living, after-all. Politicians salaries are paid by means of government collection.
However, if one's sole motivation for entering into US politics was to intentionally use the experience as means to acquire much more wealth than they could foreseeably acquire by any other means...
Well...
That's a problem.
Did I?
Show me where, and when I made such a comparison. One can be doing many things when mentioning one's attitude towards what counts as justified aggression.
We're also cross-posting...
I'll hold off a bit.
That’s the issue as I see it. If you don’t, then I don’t know what to say. I live in a small town in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue here. As you may know, Trump won this state by only a few thousand votes mostly from rural areas with his promise of bringing back “millions and millions” of jobs.
He hasn’t delivered and won’t. That was the con job.
Fair enough. I don’t think Mandela would appreciate your invoking his example in this situation, however. That’s just my opinion.
I do not disagree. That's unacceptable for Trump to have made promises and not kept them.
However...
It quite simply does not follow from that that globalism hasn't helped John and Jane Doe at all. Lot's of people have been helped. Lots of people have been harmed as well. The number of American people who have been harmed was not given the utmost priority in the minds of the legislators long before Trump. Those pieces of legislation are part of the problem.
Trump promised to bring back jobs to places that used to have more of them. Not all of those job losses were avoidable. None of those jobs will ever return. New American Industry is quite possible. Easily attainable actually. It would take a genuine concerted effort and the right steps.
The problem is not globalism. The problem was it's implementation. Legislation originally touted and/or proposed as a means for increasing one's available choices to inexpensive goods and services took people's livelihoods away unnecessarily so. In cases just like the one you're describing, as a result of being financially motivated by profit margin alone, many corporations and/or employers in the building trades and/or manufacturing sectors were legally incentivized to put corporate profit above and beyond the livelihood of the workers and their families by moving operations overseas and/or knowingly hiring immigrant workers(documented and undocumented).
Ohio, for example, has had more than it's fair share of corporations busted for having an entire workforce riddled with undocumented immigrants. Koch Foods comes to mind. I don't think that there is a connection to the infamous Koch Bros.
Many lost their livelihood and future due to trade policies. Some families lost the ability to carry on traditions. Imported goods do not have the same positive monetary benefits to everyday Americans that domestically sourced goods have. They are not a source of American employment opportunity aside from having some profit potential when sold at markup to the right people.
There's nothing wrong with increasing the general populations' available choices.
There's something wrong with a representative government that is not taking actions that could be, and thus ought be, easily taken that would inevitably result in dramatically increasing the overall qualitative state of most Americans. As a bonus, all of those disproportionately negatively affected/effected Americans could also have a return to comfortable lifestyles where people co-exist in harmonious fashion. Infrastructure? American Industry. Building trades. Manufacturing. All of these things have direct positive long term effects/affects on American cities, towns, and people.
We could easily achieve this. We don't. We create the socio-economic landscape.
Trump may lie. Trump's father may have been reported to have signed his name at a KKK sponsored function/event. Trump may say all sorts of shit that's unacceptable to many and/or most Americans. Trump may be making money hand over first as a direct result of being president. Trump may be all sorts of things. Trump may have profit as the sole motive for doing most things he does. Financial gains may be one of the main reasons Trump ran for office... to increase the financial value of his namesake.
Anyone trustworthy seen his personal financial documents. I mean, has anyone looked? Is there any other way to know? Clearly, what's been happening justifies our knowing if actual records clearly show nefarious activities.
Legally, he doesn't have to show such things. Fifth amendment rights.
Legally, I suppose several scenarios are plausible. He's not broken any laws, so there's nothing that can be done to remove him aside from allowing the eligible voters that we allow to be included to do so. Or, perhaps he has, but he's just following in the footsteps of those before him. He's perfectly capable of invoking precedent without penalty.
Trump is a symptom.
Corporate entities writing laws which place corporate interest above the American public's while simultaneously creating the conditions that will require choosing between. Politicians hiring them to write such laws and then adopting/passing them.
Allowing people to decide the fate of public schools who do not care enough about the children to guarantee the best possible education and opportunity for all of the kids that have no better choice.
There are all sorts of problems. Trump is not one of them. He is a symptom. He is the result.
Yet it's obvious that what is infected is the Republican party. It simply cannot shake the Trump disease.
I just came back from a trip with my family to Washington DC and New York (my son wanted to visit the US to the horror of his mother). Visited Capitol Hill and waited in line to see from the gallery the House of Representatives in session. When we got there only a few members were talking their time to the empty seats as it was a Friday, but the message of a Republican member still showed how far US politics has gone. This older Republican politician (don't know his name) started his attack on the FBI on how politicized it has become (yet remembered to mention Hoover as a historical example) and how it's leadership went solely after then the Republican candidate. (Yes, who would remember anymore Comey's October surprise?)
It was sobering to listen (with your own ears) what US politics has become during the age of Trump. Also what was noteworthy how the safety procedures have tightened after 9/11 as I had visited last time the place in the 1990's. At least people, even foreigners, can go and listen to what is said.
I think Mandela and I would get along just fine. I didn't invoke 'his example'(whatever that is supposed to mean).
Trump is not the problem.
The above presupposes new problems. Trump is not the problem.
It's also not the just the US that has these problems. There are farce governments called "democracies" all over the world that share the same despicable amount of monetary corruption.
Quoting Wayfarer
These statements are shocking. Trump is most definitely a huge problem, not merely a symptom, and that's really bad advice from Wayfarer.
Basically corruption has been made quite legal in the US and Americans are totally OK with it. Just like they are with the most expensive health care system in the World. Corruption has likely increased a bit with Trump.
Or at least with inept players as Trump's son-in-law, the corruption is even more evident and straight forward than with others. What was telling is that Trump was himself so surprised that his "drain the swamp" comment got so much response. Trump supporters simply pin totally ludicrous hopes to the guy and are basically unified about their hatred of the democrats. And since any kind of critical view of the doings of the Trump administration is "pinko-liberal media propaganda", anything will go.
Especially if the country stays out of recession.
:clap:
Bookies gave 'hard-left' Jeremy Corbyn odds of 1/100 of becoming leader of the Labour party. He was labeled as unelectable.
Then what happened next? He wiped the floor with all other contenders, and outperformed expectations in the 2015 general election, winning a significantly larger share of the vote than what Tony Blair achieved when he took power in 2005.
The Conservatives failed to secure a majority, and Theresa May faced calls to stand down.
There's no way that any of the other bland and more moderate candidates would have drawn the huge crowds and number of supporters that Jeremy Corbyn has.
So this view that the centrist, moderate candidate is the most electable strikes me as naive. Was Trump centrist or moderate? Hardly.
The Democrats, if they have any sense, should not repeat the failed strategy they employed the last time.
NO ONE is telling in either of the two parties to be more moderate. That (being moderate) is seen as a losing strategy.
Let's face the reality: Trump didn't believe he was going to win and he surely doesn't believe at all that he could enlarge his base. Hence he focuses on his hardcore supporters and hopes (or simply assumes) that other Republicans will have to follow, or that the democrats will push other Republicans to vote for him. Hence the portrayal of democrats being socialists who hate America. The "Send her back"-chant is the new normal, typical Trump with the reverses now, but you'll hear it later. For his hardcore supporters Trump truly needs to be outrageous.
It seems some think that enlarging his base is exactly the point.
Quoting Andrea Douglas
Good point. I think people want, need, to hear a positive message.
One that inspires hope for the present and future, instead of this miserable, regressive and divisive rhetoric.
America Smiles Better :grin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow%27s_miles_better
Except for not one, not two, not three, but at least four, regular NYT Op-Ed columnists written just in the last month or so (and in fact both Bret Stephens and David Brooks had to write immediate follow ups that were just as bad as their originals). Similar articles have been written about in the Washington Post and The Atlantic. This is a fairly wide-spread talking point among a small segment of well-to-do Centrists who despise the GOP's reactionary social views, but (even more so) abhor the Democrat's leftward critique of Capitalism, and Never Trump Republicans, who like most of Trump's policies but believe he's too unrefined and outspoken. Neither should have any say in what direction the Democrats should move towards, given the state of their own houses.
One of the symptoms of genital Herpes (a notable feature of Trump's alternative Vietnam) are small red blisters that break open and cause sores. They are the result of the disease. Funnily enough, like Trump, they are also ugly, painful, and most definitely a problem.
More of the same is enlarging your base? Interesting.
To depict the democrats to be woke socialists who'll ruin the country is very conventional GOP politics, so if Ms Douglas assumes this to be appeasing the moderates... that's a quite an interesting definition on what moderates are.
Quoting Maw
Maw, just look at how the vitriolic discourse has gone and will (in reality) go. To argue about getting the moderates or a democratic candidate getting the Trump voters is theoretically logical, but in real terms I wouldn't be so sure.
Above all, the democratic candidate will have to win the candidacy, and is there the winning strategy be to go lure the moderate Republicans?
Well said. Hopefully that'll shut him up from repeating that silly point [I]ad nauseam[/I].
At least someone is trying...
Blisters are manifestations of the herpes virus. The virus causes blisters. The virus is the problem. The problem can be avoided to begin with, but take this analogy too far(equate Trump to the virus) and one can never be rid of Trump(the virus).
If Trump is the result of contracting the virus(if he's the blistering), then Trump's blistering racial undertones and overtones are manifestations of racist sentiments and thought that have been around since long before the first continental congress. The virus - here - would be racist thought/belief.
Racism is a problem. It's manifested in Trump. It's not the only problem and Valtrex won't help the others.
Trump is not the problem.
Somewhere, out there, is a playground in need of someone to push the merry go round.
Huh? Me? Oh no. You see, I'm not the problem. There are all sorts of problems, but I'm not one of them.
This is better, in terms of direction...
I'm less certain that Americans are ok with monetary corruption in government, and more certain that there is an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not believe that there is anything that can be done about it. Healthcare is part of that corruption. Legislation written and passed by unelected individuals acting on behalf of corporate profits(aka 'big pharma').
The bi-partisan system is corrupt... both sides.
Are they both accused of nationalism?
When people believe nothing cannot be done about something, that is equivalent of being OK with the issue. I can whine about the Finnish summer having too many mosquitoes, but my dislike of mosquitoes isn't going to change anything. And if someone purposes physically draining all swamps in Finland I strongly disagree with that ludicrous idea, even if I'm not a supporter of the green party.
Quoting creativesoul
The stagnant structure of the two party system creates the environment for deeply entrenched corruption as the two parties simply share power in the US: they know that they can at worst be for 8 years in the opposition until the voters want "change". Add to this the revolving door to the private sector, hopping from being a lobbyist to being a government official, being a career politician is a good paying job.
And of course, investment in corruption pays off well, because the price of something stolen is always far cheaper than something legal. What is worse is that the corruption is made totally legal. Your really have to be an idiot or far too greedy to get into trouble in the system.
I didn't argue this. You said that "no one is telling in either of the two parties to be more moderate." I pointed out how this is not true. That's it.
No, it's not. It's equivalent to feeling powerless about the issue. One can feel powerless to change a situation that s/he does not like in the least without ever being ok with it.
This again points in the right direction at least...
The cost of theft is much higher than the purchase price. The theft of a working representative form of government has had high costs. Power over people is attained is one of two ways. It's either gained by consent, or it is usurped. The power of corporations over people has been usurped by means of collaboration with those given consent. The lines are blurred, as your mention of lobbyists above indicates.
Not to the thief. Hence a stolen car has a lower price than a car bought in the dealership.
Quoting creativesoul
Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. Or has the Supreme Court made it illegal to vote for some other party than the two?
If people don't like the two party system, why then vote the parties? You really think that your vote is "wasted" by voting a third party? When there is a will, there's a way. It's simply idiotic to assume that current political situation cannot be changed. Yet when there isn't that will, I guess the simple answer is that you are OK with the system.
I do not. The feeling of powerlessness is not a problem. It's a symptom. A result.
Care to actually address the response about theft that I gave in it's entirety? This question above indicates that you've neglected to carefully consider that answer.
Rubbish. Cliche bullshit. One can try and try and try... and fail anyway. That is always the case if the goal is unattainable to begin with. Not saying that that is true regarding changing what needs changing within the American political landscape. Just saying, it's not so simple as willing it into existence.
Voting a third party is not some magical fix to the American political landscape. Naivety does not even begin to describe such thought.
Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it.
Knowing what the problems actually are would require politicians to admit of knowingly causing unnecessary harm to average Americans while increasing their own personal wealth as a result. It would require admitting to either having lied to the American people or admitting of having been too ignorant of the inevitable consequences of their own actions(the harm caused by certain government action).
All of this requires honest reasonable politicians who place the utmost value upon Americans knowing the truth about how the situation has become what it has. That requires Americans also knowing what they do.
It would require knowing things like how the '08 bailout, agreed to by Bush Jr. and signed into law by Obama was carefully designed - in part at least - by those who stood to benefit the most. It was also based upon false pretense. Chicken little syndrom, as it were. It certainly did not correct the problem causing the crash. In fact, it actually rewarded those responsible, and further punished the average American(and foreigners too) who had been taken advantage of by the predatory lending practices.
The biggest financial sham ever...
Paying off the mortgages would have solved every problem caused by depending upon them being satisfied aside from those who depended upon the future interest. Those people lost out anyway. Those who knowingly created and sold these predatory financial instruments wielded power over people that they did not care about. Dishonesty does not even begin to describe that situation. None of those people were punished for their behaviour.
Will that boulder up the hill...
Please shut up.
A condescending attitude towards your fellow citizens doesn't help. Or you don't believe in democracy?
Reaching for some utopia or what, creativesoul?
In addition, China is the largest importer of US goods. It is also the largest creditor.
Like it or not the two countries' economies are tied to each other and Trump's attempt to hurt China hurt the US. To be fair, it is not just the trade wars. Concern over security is also a factor. And this has global repercussions that may further hurt the US economy.
Timing is everything. Even if the dire predictions turn out to be true if they are not apparent to the average voter before the election Trump will be ahead of the curve, and if he looses the Democrats will be blamed for the downturn.
My apologies for the condescension, even though the charge does resemble pots and kettles.
Edited to add:
I just re-read and realized that you may have been implying that I was being condescending towards those Americans who do not have a good grasp upon how monetarily corrupt the government of the United States of America has become in the past forty or fifty years. That's not condescending. The people ought be able to trust that elected officials will act on their behalf. That is their job. There's nothing wrong with trusting elected officials. That is a requirement for a republican form of government to work. There's something wrong if the politicians cannot be trusted.
Nah, not utopia. Just a situation where those who wield the power over less fortunate people be knowledgable and do so with great care about the consequence that their actions have upon those people's lives and livelihoods. Not utopia. Just honest, forthright politicians doing their job.
The United States of America is not a democracy. Rather, it is a republic.
Sigh...
You're not the boss of me.
All good stuff to consider. Someone earlier - was it you? - mentioned that for whatever reason the average American credits and/or discredits the current president - at that time - for the economy - at that time. Well, this sort of thinking has all sorts of problems inherent to it...
"The economy" is a topic riddled with bullshit irrelevant language to begin with. There is no measure of what ought be done. Most often the language is used to argue for actions based upon profit as the sole motive for action(especially with the sheer number of stocks prevalent). Satisfying stockholders is in direct conflict with having well paid workers/employees where and when this is applicable. The standards of measurement for success/good are suspect to say the least. A different topic in it's own right. That being said...
Timing is everything.
New American Industry. Self-sufficiency. Small business. Sole proprietorships. Employee owned businesses. Larger corporations that reward their workers and the public stockholders. Etc.
Quality American Craftsmanship.
There's never been a better time than the present.
Yes, there is are all sorts of problems inherent to it, but it is a common belief.
Quoting creativesoul
This is something the Federal Reserve is dealing with now. The economy is not behaving according to the common assumption that when employment is high it creates inflation. Contrary to standard practice rather than raise interest rates Powell is lowering them. His idea is to respond quickly to what is occurring at the moment rather than based on predictions of what will happen. Since no one really knows the consequence of whatever action is taken it is hard to say whether his strategy is sound. There are always unintended consequences and unforeseen factors. Quick corrections might be the way to go. But the US is just one player in the global economy. It is not really in control of what happens to the US economy.
Quoting creativesoul
Elizabeth Warren's concerns with income inequality is not egalitarian ideology or anti-capitalism. She thinks that based on past history when there is great disparity between rich and poor the result will be depression. Right now that disparity is greater than it was before the Great Depression. She has a pretty good record on things like this. But again, the economy right now is defying predictions.
That's what happens when a government takes actions that result in foreign entities having power over their own people. Such power is usurped. It is not granted to the foreign entity by the people.
I like Warren, although I do still seriously question her loyalty to what she espouses, especially given the fact of her having endorsed Hillary Clinton despite her words aligning with Bernie Sanders and against Hillary regarding the financial sector...
Given the cause of 08..
Well, I remain reserved. I would like to hear a detailed explanation of that endorsement in light of the above concerns...
In the beginnings of this country, many a founder spoke harshly against a "capitalist" in terms of having no loyalty to his country or countryman(of course this smacks of misogyny). "Her/his/their fellow citizens" works just as well. The only loyalty they have is to profit margin/accumulation of wealth.
This is exactly what has been taking place over the past fifty years - first in the guise of the greater good and now in our faces. Trump's doing little differently aside from not hiding it. Why should he? As I said earlier, he could easily point to many a precedent happening without public attention let alone punishment.
I am going to leave it there. This thread is not the place to discuss economic realities.
Since the topic of this thread is Trump I will refrain from saying more about Warren.
Ethno-centrists are having a wet dream in Europe.
I would concur.
No system can assume that 1) everybody has a clear understanding about the issues and, above all, 2) that they would agree on what issues are right or wrong.
Quoting creativesoul
That is true. Yet it should be noted that 'acting on their behalf' is actually a complicated matter. Serving the country or serving the people is different from serving a customer as in the private sector.
Quoting creativesoul
It's a researched fact that this isn't so in the US, that it's simply 'money talks', yet with the rise of lobbying this isn't a thing only affecting the US, but an universal phenomenon. Just how actually would our representatives take more care about 'less fortunate' people isn't so simple either as it has been a central political issue since, well, antiquity.
Quoting creativesoul
Ah this line again. Cliche b... as you said earlier as those 'pure democracies' without any minority protection basically don't exist.
I can’ t fathom how any self-described Christian could approve of Trump if they know anything about him. I think probably the explanation might be that they don’t read what they call the ‘liberal media’, so they only ever see him through the rose-coloured Fox and Friends glasses. But however it happens, it’s a pretty damning indictment of American Christianity, as Trump is a notorious liar and proven philanderer. (That said, there have been some pretty robust criticisms from Christians also.)
Might have something to do with ushering in the End of Time.
Easy. the white, evangelical/born-again Christians favour 75% the GOP. They just hate the godless Democrats, that's why. Trump is far more better than Hillary for them.
I still know that there are principled Americans, even if they are a small minority perhaps.
Well, I got disappointed at how the Democrat supporters, voters and politicians who were against Bush (or Cheney's) policies after 9/11 had no trouble with Obama continuing Dubya's "War on Terror" and him increasing the drone strikes, even killing underage American citizen just because his father had been a terrorist propagandist.
So the way how Americans change their views once "their man" is in charge is very common and just tells how partisan Americans are.
Self-destruction is worse than being destroyed by something else. Didn't Jesus say something about that when criticized for not washing his hands, focus on the illness which comes from within.
To stem future misguided thought...
All governments ought share this same responsibility to it's citizens. All of the world's citizens deserve to have government made up of the best representation:Thoughtful, considered, knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful representation of their best interests.
That said...
The disproportionate demonstrable harm caused to American industry, lives, and livelihoods is clear. These consequences were not inevitable negative affects/effects of necessary 'trade policy' enacted on behalf of the average American. To quite the contrary, they were not necessary at all.
To stem future misguided thought...
Imported goods are not something to be avoided at all costs. They're not 'bad' in and of themselves. It's all about the method of implementation. The complaint I'm levying, that is.
Imported goods were allowed in the American marketplace. Not an issue - in and of itself. Great idea. How it is implemented is what matters most.
Claims of American Corporations not being able to compete with foreign companies are/were very well-grounded. This becomes undeniably obvious to anyone who compares/contrasts the following two scenarios. All else being equal, the one corporation does all it's manufacturing offshore in places where most - if not all - of American regulations are non-existent. This doesn't make regulations bad. They are necessary and were put into place for good reason. They are often and always ought be kept in place - especially and particularly when they work - as a means to ensure that the government does not have to step in on behalf of it's citizens yet again.
So, all else being equal...
Given products of comparable quality, but actual company costs that do not reflect American standards of living(wages, benefits, worker's rights and protections, etc.) the situation is such that if profit and/or competitive drive is/are the primary motive(s), these foreign companies could bankrupt the American companies and not just by having such a better product(although there are many cases). Rather, even in the cases where the quality is on par, by the ability to intentionally sell - to Americans nonetheless - at a retail cost that the American company cannot continue to operate at, the impending ruin of American industry was inevitable.
To compete, many companies downsized, began lean manufacturing practices, reduced worker pay, deferred much of the financial burden of healthcare onto the workers, etc. Suddenly faced with being required to trim costs by significant sums, there were also retirement benefits to uphold, including healthcare of retirees, and needed improvements in technology as well as facilities. These latest considerations were already there, prior to also being forced to compete with another company that plays by rules long since deemed unacceptable and/or illegal in the States.
The fix?
Trade policies were enacted allowing American owned companies to compete by avoiding American regulations, avoiding paying workers by fair American standards, and as an added bonus legally defer paying certain federal income taxes. That was the solution. These allowances were afforded to American corporations as a means to level the playing field(allow them to be more competitive with the aforementioned foreign companies) in the American marketplace.
So, given this we have no choice but to see it for what it was. Policy created impossibility. Rather than correct the problem by demanding equally humane conditions be provided for foreign workers; rather than demanding that foreign governments guarantee the same qualities, standards, and protections for their workers; rather than demanding that those people's lives be improved as a pre-requisite to being able to take part in the American marketplace; rather than doing all these sensible humane things...
We allowed our companies and our corporations to leave American citizens high and dry and treat foreign workers and foreign lands in unacceptable illegal ways if we were talking about how to treat American workers and American lands. Double standard doesn't even begin to describe this greed based hypocritical action.
All the while... there was talk of 'raising standards around the world', being a global citizen, increasing American access to cheaper goods, etc. The blame for large American companies closing was two-fold. First there arose a common belief that imports were better, and that the poor quality of American products was a result - either direct or indirect - of the American worker themselves. They were characterized as being lazy/careless or too expensive for the company to keep and keep the quality up. The cost of American workers was widely believed to be the driving force behind companies beginning to use cheaper(inferior quality) materials.
American workers are more expensive than those foreign workers. That was never in doubt, was it? That is not the only driving force behind the collapse of American Industry. That's not the whole story. Those companies also faced costs of benefits to retirees. Upgrading. Healthcare costs increasing, etc. Normal operating costs.
So we fix the results of policy that allowed such unacceptable practices(ilegal in the States) to create an impossible marketplace for American Industry by virtue of allowing American companies to treat those people, and that land in ways that are unacceptable/illegal in America?
That's the fix?
And then there's the cost of American healthcare, and I'm not just talking about individual consumer price for some policy or another. I'm talking about the pharmaceutical industry. The healthcare costs for companies were influenced/effected here as well.
The tragedy here is that Americans - most anyway - either don't seem to know these things or are comfortable enough to remain compliant.
Trump's not the problem. He is a symptom.
Yes I am.
Yes.
Quoting ssu
The collective will for a third party is far too miniscule for it to be considered a serious possibility. There's no appetite for a third party. So, you're right, in a sense: there's no will, and therefore no way.
Or, on a different interpretation, you're not just wrong, but foolishly mistaken. You keep on willing, and see where it gets you. You think a third party will be a serious contender anytime soon? Pie in the sky!
I agree. To fill it out a bit. Based on Revelations a "new Jerusalem" is one of the signs of the Apocalypse according to Evangelicals. One of Trump's promises was to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
A few other points:
Trump is a man and even if he is, as some believe, sent by God, he is a man and has human foibles, he sins and is deserving of forgiveness no matter of how many pussies he grabs and how many women he cheats on his wives with.
He claims to be anti-abortion and has promised to overturn Roe, packing the courts with anti-abortion judges.
Evangelicals favor small government and the dismantling of the administrative state because they see the government as a threat to freedom, specifically religious freedom, and more specifically their religious freedom. Trump has positioned himself as a champion of religious freedom, even if they see through his phony religious piety.
...to which end, Trump is about to sign off on the all-time record for Government deficits.....
Once upon a time, long, long ago, before Trump that was supposed to have mattered to Republicans, although the truth is that the Democratic administrations have done much better at lowering the deficit. In any case, I don't think it has ever been much of a concern for the Evangelicals, since for them small government means staying out of their business, the business of religion.
For whatever reason(ancient corrupted laptop) I cannot access the links you've been providing. Could you provide germane excerpts? I'm curious to see the language use regarding trade, assuming it's discussed.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. Thanks for picking up my lazy point and expanding.
Pretty damn scary. Combined with reports of how well Trump's stance on immigration seems to go with swing-state voters, it seems like the most ugly kind of nationalism gains traction in the US. The deadly kind.
While the Republicans are anxious to declare the end of the investigation, I do not think that Mueller's testimony accomplished what needs to be done. My not rendering conclusions he left it up to Congress, but Congress is so divided along partly lines that it will not render impartial conclusions. The Democrats must do what Mueller did not. They must present the investigation's findings in a clear and persuasive manner. They may not be able to convince their colleagues to impeach but they can bring the truth to the American people.
And you believe the American people care about the truth because...?
Because I am not yet that cynical. Perhaps four more years of Trump and I will be.
I don't think it is because people don't care about the truth, it is rather what they believe the truth to be. But it is also about priorities. Some may not care that Trump obstructed justice or has questionable dealings with the Russians or whatever unless they think I will hurt them in some way.
You're watching America being destroyed from within.
John Cassidy, The New Yorker
John Cassidy, The New Yorker
Just a guess, but I’ll go out on a limb and posit that Stalin’s crowd would’ve eschewed the due-process based exchanges in the agora and readily escorted Mueller to the gulag, alongside the other 15-20 million sent there during Stalin’s reign.
Perhaps the GOP needs a tutorial on what it means to mimic Stalin.
My hope is that there are still enough people who value the truth and can distinguish truth from lies, and, and this is important, they reside and will vote in one of the states that will determine the election.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is a big problem. Unfortunately, the Republican politicians are putting their own interests ahead of the country's and together with Fox News have convinced a large portion of the country not to believe Mueller while at the same time convincing them that Mueller did not find that Trump did anything wrong.
There's a saying, "it falls on deaf ears". I think it means that if they do not want to ear it, they will not hear it.
Your guess is wrong. Even Stalin could not just take out anyone without discussion. Just look at the conflict with Trotsky.
The point of such comparisons is to draw attention to where we the US is headed if that behaviour is the new normal.
Those are national polls. On MSNBC tonight, a poll showed that the only candidate who was ahead of Trump in Ohio was Biden. They say that as Ohio goes so goes the country (or at least a Republican hasn’t won the electoral college in the modern era without winning Ohio).
The nation elects the president, not Ohio.
There are 50 state elections. How much of the Dems support is coming from CA and NY? It’s the polls in the battleground states that we should be looking at.
Apophasis can be used to discuss a taboo subject, as in, "We are all fully loyal to the emperor, so we wouldn't dare to claim that his new clothes are a transparent hoax." (Wikipedia)
An example from the Mueller hearing:
“Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference you explained that, quote, ‘the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,’ end quote,” Representative Veronica Escobar said. “That process other than the criminal-justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?”
Mueller dodged: “I’m not going to comment on that.”
Escobar forged on: “In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, ‘potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,’ end quote. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by ‘potentially preempt constitutional processes’?”
“I’m not going to try to explain that,” Mueller dodged again.
“That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume 2 in the footnote is the reference to this,” Escobar said. “What are those constitutional processes?”
This time, Mueller deadpanned an answer: “I think I heard you mention at least one.”
“Impeachment, correct?” she pressed. But Mueller had given as much as he was going to give, and he reverted to form: “I’m not going to comment.” 1
Sure, but that outcome isn't true of several key states that Trump previously won including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, etc. So while Ohio may currently be edging slightly towards Trump outside of a Biden nomination, what's being indicated by Trump's consistently low approval rating is a tepid response at the polls particularity within swing states, as also exemplified by the Blue Wave of 2018.
I appreciate the optimism. I know who I’m going to vote for (not Biden) but will vote for Biden if he’s the nominee. It’s still very early.
It's not optimism; I have no idea how any of the Democratic candidates will actual fair against Trump when it comes down to election day, and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. I'm just pointing out how inane it is to argue, at this point in time, that the Democrats will need to nominate a moderate in order to beat Trump, when current polling suggests otherwise. My point is that people should just vote for who they think will be best for America, as oppose to voting for who they think is "most electable" or who can "beat Trump". No one thought Trump was going to get the nominee, and at this point in time relative to the 2016 election, Trump was polling low single digits. Even Obama didn't pull ahead of Hilary until several months prior to the Primary. So no one actually knows. Just vote for who you think will offer the greatest material interests for Americans.
Oh, please. The point of such comparisons is to introduce (knee-jerk) well poisoning to compensate for a mindless argument. Trump’s deficiencies are ample enough to excoriate him sans the silly Hitler, Stalin, Lucifer noise.
The regimes of Hitler and Stalin were the result of long processes. Trump does not need to be "like Hitler" or "like Stalin" in order to lead the US towards such a regime. Refusal to accept comparisons is refusal to learn from history. In 1930s Germany, Jewish immigrants were put into concentration camps, for much the same reasons immigrants are being interned in concentration camps in the US right now (by a left wing government, by the way). in Germany, this would eventually lead to death camps. Does this mean the same is going to happen in the US? Of course not. But it's still valid to bring up the similarity.
The moment you can provide a factual analogue between his reign of terror and the GOP qua Trump ( or the reverse)-get back to me. Until then, any historical or rhetorical nexus of the two is at best risible and suited to the empty bark of an ideologue.
Because things are only bad when you're literally as bad as Stalin or Hitler, right? No such thing as heading down a dangerous path.
They didn't put him in charge, he put himself in charge.
He has the keen ability to manipulate, which is a sign of intelligence at least in one forum.
Also for the record, If I was American, I would not vote for Trump.
I didn’t take it that you would.
Conflict does help me to understand things better. It’s just that so many people take it personally or get personal. I’m not immune to that myself.
The politics of difference is of interest to me as well as your normative implication. I think that would be an awesome topic, but I wouldn’t know where to start.
Let me mull it over and see what I can come up with.
https://www.push4words.com/post/of-the-concern-in-being-good
There are several reasons Trump got the vote, none of them have to do with him being smart or understanding people.
First, Hillary was not a good candidate. Even though she won the popular vote, she was not well liked even by Democrats and because of all the rumors and accusations she was not trusted. Trump on the other hand, was unknown outside of the New York area, except as a TV personality with a fictional history of business success. Those in the New York area have known for years that he is a con artist who cannot be trusted. New York banks refused to lend money to him.
Second, he resonates with those whose political sentiments are based on fear and resentment. It is not that he understood this, but rather that these are his political sentiments too. They range from his opposition to government regulations which force him to comply with safety and environmental codes when building, to being forced to rent to blacks, which he fought in court and lost, to scapegoating Muslims and minorities even though his businesses hire many illegal immigrants.
Third, he made a deal with Evangelicals. Trump, who until recently favored abortion rights, became a anti-abortion champion. I do not recall ever expressing strong pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem views before the Evangelicals made a deal with the devil. Why they are pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem is something I discussed in this topic not too long ago. Why he is is because of their political power. Like his attraction to ostentatious displays of wealth, he is drawn to power like a moth to a flame.
I don’t believe Trump actually believed the birther bullshit. He just knew it would be widely popular. Also, your second paragraph which I quoted above furthers the argument that Trump understands people (at least a lot of people).
Also he is probably my "unfavourite" person, because he is the reflection of the opinions/thoughts(or absence of them)/culture(same as previous) of US population. Ignoring his preponderance might be more dangerous than acknowledging his outstanding ability.
Perhaps not, maybe he just did not want a black president and wanted to cause trouble and plant seeds of doubt. But maybe someone told him that and he wanted to believed it.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
If these are his beliefs then I do not see how it furthers the argument that he understands people, it just means that they are all motivated by fear and resentment, including Trump. Trump knows it plays well, but that does not mean he understands people, just that he is encouraged by their approval.
Maybe. Or maybe it’s both? I tend to think it’s both that he’s a racist prick and that he understands that there is a large proportion of the country that he can string along.
There are plenty of people who know him well from their time in his administration who would strongly disagree with that.
Quoting James Pullman
Some people like him others do not. An election is not a popularity contest, but Clinton received 48.2% of the votes to Trump's 46.1%.
I do think he may win the 2020 election. I will give him credit for being a successful liar, but I think this has more to do with his lack of integrity and moral vacuity. He was mentored by Roy Cohn and learned a few things from him - If you are attacked strike back harder. If you are caught in a lie double down, never back down, and never admit you are wrong.
Trump has always surrounded himself by people who work to make him look good and keep him out of trouble. Anything he says that sounds intelligent is probably something that someone wrote for him. When he first became president he read his speeches as if he were a third grader. He seems to have spent a lot of time practicing, now he sounds like an ill prepared sixth grader. At his rallies its a different story. He sounds like someone doing a bad comedy routine.
"
I think he was as surprised as everyone else that he won the election. He has no filter and says whatever comes out of his mouth. It plays well with his base and encourages him.
And every day he demonstrates how unsuited he is for the job.
By signaling encouragement to Syrian rebels, Obama played a significant role in the emergence of war in Syria. The suffering that followed can't really be quantified, but let's do it anyway.
With early 20th Century Soviet Union at 10
The holocaust at 6
And the middle of nowhere on the Appalachian trail at 0
Where do we put Syria? I say around 3 or 4.
What has Trymp done that created that much hell? I'm not saying you should support him. I'm suggesting that a lot of the criticism I see is actually is a matter of style. To give Obama a pass on Syria is reprehensible. He doesn't give himself a pass.
Holding Obama as a standard that Trump doesn't measure up to is likewise wrong. At least admit that it's not that simple.
I do not think a neutral stance is arrived at by looking at Obama.
On the international front, we still do not know what the consequences of Trump's breaking the Iran nuclear deal will be. It does show that he is untrustworthy and does not honor agreements. His strategy of increasing sanctions makes Iran increasingly desperate. He believes they will bend to his will, but desperate people do desperate things.
And speaking of desperate he thinks the same tactics will solve the immigration problem. He is either blind or indifferent to the plight of thousands of people desperate to escape intolerable conditions.
At home he is fanning the fires of divisiveness, showing a disregard for all who do not agree with or dare criticize him. His lack of civility and basic decency is not a matter of style, it is corrosive, a manifestation of his moral vacuity and lack of integrity.
He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.
From day one he has refused to be briefed on what is happening nationally and internationally.
He is ignorant of environmental threats, rolling back regulations, and suppressing the findings of the government funded environmental research. He claims that windmills cause cancer, backs coal and oil, and ignores alternative energy.
So far they're acting like children. "Look, I seized your boat!" That doesn't show up on the Hell scale. Yes, Trump has diminished the standing of the US in the world. How is that a bad thing?
Quoting Fooloso4
Again, not on the Hell list.
Quoting Fooloso4
No he isn't.
Quoting Fooloso4
He's not leading an effort to protect the earth, true. You'd have to make an impressive case that he's capable of making a significant impact there. Do that and you could chart somewhere on the potential Hell scale.
(Always enjoy discussions with you, btw)
He's the president (with significant administrative and legislative authority) of the world's largest economy with some of the largest per capita emissions.
In terms of effective power he is the most powerful politician in any western country. If he cannot make a significant impact, who can?
The potential is there for things to escalate. Wars have been started over more trivial things than seizing a boat. It is not clear how close Trump came to bombing Iran. It may have been minutes, it may have been bluster and bluff.
Quoting frank
It the allies of the US can no longer trust it then yes that is a bad thing.
Quoting frank
Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Just because it has not fallen that does not mean that there are not cracks in the foundation. Rather than repair them Trump is widening them.
Quoting frank
Oh, but he is. He is not alone. The Republican party, the Department of Justice, and others are all complicit. When law thwarts power they trample the law. Fortunately for Trump there are people in the administration who have stood up to him. Unfortunately, many of them have resigned. Trump refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and with the House inquiries, blocking key witnesses from testifying. He has cast a shadow over the FBI, the CIA, and any other agency that has seen fit to investigate his questionable activity. He has questioned the integrity of the courts, attacking them when he thinks they will rule against him. He has personally attacked Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib. And more recently Elijah Cummings. While not illegal, these are dictatorial tactics.
Quoting frank
It is not simply that he is not leading an effort, he is undermining efforts to protect the earth, putting plutocratic interests ahead of all else.
Quoting frank
Do you think that rolling back environmental protections does not have a significant impact? Look at what is happening to rivers and streams since he rescinded regulations on coal, it is having a noticeable impact on wildlife and human health. His rollback on regulations on gas consumption would have an impact but California effectively blocked it. Automakers would rather improve gas mileage than not be able to sell cars in California. So, why would Trump do this? The answer is simple, the more gas cars and trucks consume the more gas the oil companies can sell. And speaking of oil companies, who benefits from the US becoming an oil exporter? The plutocrats prosper and the environment suffers. It is well established that a continued reliance on oil negatively effects the environment. Environmental protection is a global problem but Trump walked out on G-20.
Quoting frank
Unless something is done there will be no Hell scale for earth will become Hell,at least for humans.
Evidence, please.
Fight back.
Media and Democrats lead response to Trump’s racist Cummings attack
Quoting Martin Pengelly and Edward Helmore
Your call for evidence is selective. You "double-yawned" when I pointed out that you were applauding a racist, in spite of all the evidence of his racism - evidence previously submitted in this discussion. When the evidence is there for all to see, funnily enough, you don't seem to care. You're just a Trump apologist, aren't you?
Quoting Fooloso4
There's no reason to think human extinction will be a result of global warming. If Trump was on your side, that's exactly the kind of exaggeration he would engage in. So you actually approve of his methods. You just dont like his goals.
What could he do to stop global warming?
For example, put competent and knowledgeable (about the climate) people in charge of environmental protection agencies. Support the work of these agencies via administrative orders. Support legislation aimed at protecting the climate.
How specifically would any of that stop global warming?
I am not going to answer that, since insofar as the question does not require expert knowledge that I do not possess, the answer is obvious.
If your point is that no-one can have a "significant impact" then you bringing the question up with respect to Trump is, at best, a diversion.
These are two different things. Cracks in and the undermining of the foundation do not mean that the house is falling. If nothing is done, however, the house may fall. Warning of consequences are not negated by pointing out that they have not yet occurred.
Quoting frank
I did not say extinction, although that is certainly a possibility. I said the Earth will become hell for humans. It was in response to your "hell scale". Someone on a sinking ship may deny that the ship is sinking as long as he is above water. When his feet get wet he shrugs it off, but when we can no longer keep his head above water suddenly he is surprised.
Quoting frank
If Trump were on my side he would make every effort to determine what can be done to protect the Earth and its inhabitants. One can put his head in the sand and proclaim that he sees no evidence of
anything wrong, but I put my trust in what the environmental scientists are telling us. They are almost unanimous in their agreement that the consequences will be dire. I also trust that some things can be done, even if we have not yet figured them all out. Your question:
Quoting frank
might mean - there is nothing he can that will make a difference. I prefer the question: what should he do to stop global warming? Some are in search of answers, he ignores the question. It is not clear where you stand.
Quoting frank
There is a wide gap between saying global warming will lead to human extinction, which was not something I said, to what Trump is doing, which goes far beyond what he says. There is also a big difference between saying something that might or might not be an exaggeration and lies and deceit for one's own benefit.
True.
Quoting Fooloso4
You were looking to rank him by virtue of his apathy about global warming. You could do that if you could offer a reason to think he has the power to stop global warming. Even a shred of a reason would do.
As it stands, with his predecessor as a benchmark, Trump isn't really that bad. Put it into perspective. Put aside the polemics and notice what it is you're really criticizing about Trump.
And it's pretty darn ridiculous to say that Trump isn't that bad. Open your eyes. I'd say he's in the running for worst president in the history of the United States.
He alone does not have that power, but he is the leader of a nation that has a great deal of power, both to contribute to and abate the problems of global warming. Is your claim that nothing can be done or that there is nothing that he can do? It the former then that is a discussion for another time. If the latter then I think you are mistaken. It is in his power to provide a great deal of resources aimed at addressing the problem. It should be noted that addressing the problem is not stopping global warming, although that is the eventual goal. One thing that must be addressed is the damage caused by severe weather. Another is the development of alternative energy. A third is to reduce emissions and non-biodegradable waste. But there are things that must be done on the individual lever, which requires educating the public and regulating energy consumption. Trump has the power to allocate resources in all of these areas.
Quoting frank
I will note my disagreement on this and leave it there.
It really is an astonishing claim to make. Obama had his faults, but he wanted to work [i]with[/I] Iran and the international community to resolve the issue of nuclear development, he wanted to work [I]with[/I] the international community on climate change, he wanted to [i]expand[/I] access to healthcare, he wanted to [i]shut down[/I] Guantanamo Bay, he wanted to [i]sort out[/I] the public shootings mess that pervades America...
And what has Trump done? Well, to name a few things, he has escalated tensions in the Middle-East - indirectly costing lives in the events which followed his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he has provoked Iran, he has spewed out offensive and discriminatory remarks left, right and centre, he withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, withdraw from the Iran deal, there was his "Muslim ban", he's expressed pro-gun views, split children from their parents and held them in cages, and, of course, there's his stupid, bloody, costly "wall".
I understand why some are willing to overlook his shortcoming because of what they think they gain in return, but I cannot understand how anyone who knows what he is doing would conclude that he is isn't really that bad.
I dont think there's much he could do because his power is dwarfed by that of corporate interests. To have the power you seem to imagine he has, he would have to be a real dictator.
Can something be done? I dont know.
Corporations are not sovereign entities. They must comply with government regulations. And this is the crux of the matter. Trump has rescinded environmental regulations. This benefits the corporation, but does not impose, as some would have you believe, undue burdens. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Income disparity is also at an all time high. When Trump rolled back regulations on the coal industry it did not create jobs it simply increased profit margins.
There are many products produced overseas in order to avoid regulations. The best way to prevent this is by rejoining the Paris climate accord and establish global environmental regulations. Upon withdrawing Trump followed a familiar pattern of lies - it was a terrible deal, not good for the American people, and he is going to replace it with something much better.
I've been fascinated lately with convergent evolution, where, for instance, a mammal, fish, and reptile all end up with similar body structure because they're all responding to the same environmental pressures.
Trump doesn't mean anything at all from that broad a view. Neither does global warming.
In so far as evolution is a response to environment, global warming is of enormous importance. How could it not be? It will bring about significant environment change, that is, environmental pressures.
It's happened before. The only thing unusual about this time is the speed of the emission. We're also just at the beginning. After the petroleum and natural gas are gone, hundreds of years worth of coal wait to be burned. That's the main reason that the solution evades us. Even if we completely stopped emitting CO2, how could we keep the coal from being burned in the future? Can you imagine following a law that was established 1000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? See the problem?
BTW, the common ancestor of all primates evolved on a run-away greenhouse earth.
The conditions of Earth now are conducive to the flora and fauna that exist. If those conditions change the conditions will no longer be conducive to some and more conducive to others. One large question is how conducive they will be to man and the plants and animals we depend on and the population increase of disease carrying organisms.
Quoting frank
Hence the need to develop energy alternatives. It is not simply a matter of following the law but of survival.
Added: the topic is not global warming. I am not going to continue discussing it.
Perhaps that is why you think it is nice.
No, it's because you're intelligent and good-hearted.
Thank you.
Trump attacks Sharpton. Is it just a coincidence that he has attacked yet another minority? To see this as just examples of Trump's racism misses the point. Trump is playing a version of the child's game "I know your are but what am I" or "I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you", accusing others of what you have been accused of. If he is a racist then so are they. As with words such as 'truth' and 'facts', they come to loose their meaning.
Trump nominates a "loyalist" as Director of National Intelligence. To be clear, a loyalist to Trump. As with Barr, Trump moves to protect himself from investigation by putting people loyal to him in charge. The fox guarding the hen house.
Quoting Fooloso4
The Dems have yet to understand the nature of Trump's offensive tactics. Perhaps they need an instructional video:
Either that or it's that Sharpton is as bad as Trump says. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/opinion/al-sharpton-trump.html
To be a Democrat are you required to support every person of every minority group regardless of how vile?
The picture of Trump, Sharpton, and Don King speaks volumes. All self-promoters desperate to have their face in front of the camera and willing to say or do whatever is necessary to make it happen.
Those who live in the New York area know that making Sharpton out to be the good guy is ridiculous, but it may play well elsewhere. I think that Trump's Archie Bunker move that a black guy can be a racist too is intended to put a gap between white and racist.
None of the Democratic candidates enjoy this perverse protection because none of them sought it. None wagered that the road to the White House was paved with gratuitous offense, a disregard for pesky facts and the determination never to say you’re sorry. Trump made that bet, which few observers thought was a wise or winning one.
And he prevailed. Now he reaps the rewards.[/quote]
https://nyti.ms/2ZJ0myS
...and the whole world suffers the consequences.
And Sanders really stands a chance after the DNC leaks the last election. I think...
Supposedly when Bernie was running in 2016, he had the highest comparative advantage over Trump among other presidential candidates.
Call me optimistic but it's either Biden making concessions to Sanders/Warren or bust for him. The other contenders are focused squarely on scoring points by making Biden look bad.
If it comes down to Biden or Trump, I will be really disappointed.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Republicans vote in the Democratic primaries out of being sick of the orange one. I'd expect Biden to be the Democrat they would choose.
Because @Michael @Baden is overseeing his autopsy. That can't be a coincidence.
I think Maw has said going full conspiracy theory.
It's still a hideously ugly scandal if Epstein committed suicide. Trump knows what to do: in a huge scandal, go and poke yourself the hornets nest even if it has fallen and the hornets are coming out angrily. Then you can say that every allegation or upcoming video is part of the democratic smear campaign. And they will come and believe you.
Note: I don't really think that it's fair to dis New Jersey like that. I'm just not quite sure how else to put what it is that I think about Trump. Tidus Andronicus, after all, is from New Jersey. So is Bruce Springsteen. Jersey can't be all that bad. I'm sure that that place just gets a lot of guff because it's outside New York City.
:love:
:death: :starstruck:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-camp-sends-pathologist-michael-baden-to-watch-over-his-autopsy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/anthony-scaramucci-trump-republicans
The guy doesn't have a huge amount of credibility. I doubt anything he says matters except to the choir.
I do relish anyone sticking the boot into the wigged one, but until Moscow Mitch and his cronies decide they have more to lose than gain with crass appeals to the worst instincts of rural white males and the white working class, Trump will ride on.
:lol:
Although my maiden last name is pretty awesome it doesn't keep me from being green with envy of someone with the last name of "Scaramucci"! I can spell his last name with hand motions only! Love it :love:
What I mean, though, is that I think that it's part and parcel to the campaign by the American Right for Trump to be ridiculed. The whole man in the monkey suit act is just a means to dismiss how intimidating that guy is. I find for the whole thing to be rather unsettling.
He's an idiot.
Eh, I don't agree with the standoff. The situation in North Korea should not be left up to Vice News. They did "talk them down", but I don't think that it will result in anything substantial.
Whether it was the next Hitler, economic collapse, nuclear war, the prophecies have all proven false and their fears unjustified.
To cover for their mass hysteria, they have resorted to the worst kind of contextomy and tweet-policing.
No, I mean he fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
He forgot to pay his brain bill.
He's dumber than a box of hair.
A few peas short of a casserole.
All foam, no beer.
The cheese slid off his cracker.
Warning: objects in the mirror are dumber than they appear.
He's as dense as a one tree forest.
He's a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
The wheel's spinning but the hamster is dead.
Oh, so you were just calling him an idiot.
I have resorted to no such "contextomy" and I am not the thought police. I just think that this political situation is absurd. It seems obvious to me that Trump is not the sort of person who should be the President of the United States of America. There is no satire to make of Trump as he already embodies what would be caricatured. It's not the end of the world, but it is unsettling.
A few prophecies that were spot on:
That is at least a more nuanced view. But among the intelligentsia, the celebrities and their voracious followers there is a mass hysteria going on. Anti-Trumpism is now a veritable ideology.
Not to mention that Trump may single-handedly be bringing on a world recession with his trade war with China. Not to mention the appeasement by Trump of Russia’s interference in the world’s democratic governments. Not to mention the escalation of tensions with Iran over pulling out of the nuclear deal, pushing Iran into a corner where they have no choice but to lash out.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Your hair is silky soft
and your skin a pretty hue,
Please can I have lotsa nukes
an' I'll write more poems to you,
Hugs and kisses,
Kimmy :heart: :heart:
The con man says there’s nothing to worry about (regarding Kim) and that he’s got it under control. In all fairness to the con man, I’m not sure what he can do about it without China’s help.
Me too.
True, I admit Tom Cruise was the one who taught me that you should not let personal flattery by vicious dictators affect your foreign policy positions towards them.
Tom Cruise has never dealt with a vicious dictator. Trump has wrapped them around his finger. North and South Korea are talking of unification, something that was unimaginable for the past 70 years.
That's worrying as I tend to follow Tom's political advice to the letter. So maybe Kim's apology for continuing missile tests is genuine rather than a calculated strategy and Donald is really in control. Well, that's a relief. :up:
You don't have to be a great sorcerer in order to have the charisma, personal qualities, and rhetoric required to bring the worst out in people. Hitler had it, and Trump has it too. That footage of the crowd behind Trump chanting, "Send her back!", whilst Trump stands there and does nothing, indicating passive acceptance, is chilling to the bone.
And don’t underestimate the capacity of a moron to fuck things up.
“Rhetoric”, the censor’s bogeyman. If Trump’s magical spells and “charisma” is enough to “bring out the worst in people”, one has to wonder why the vast majority of anti-trumpism, which slobbers from the mouths of every pundit, late night television host, celebrity, newspaper, and musician, has little to no effect. Maybe it’s not rhetoric after all?
It doesn't have little to no effect, except perhaps on that basket of deplorables, and it's definitely mostly rhetoric coming from Trump. What else would it be if not rhetoric? An impartial and unbiased reporting of the facts? Get outta town! :rofl:
Lots of people tune in to laugh at the incompetence of the president, which those late night television hosts, celebrities, and others, use for material. There's no shortage of supply. I would hazard a guess that Trump is probably the most mocked president since George W. Bush, and he may well have overtaken him in that regard, even at this comparatively early stage in his presidency. That's an achievement of a sort, I suppose.
Rhetoric has no effect beyond a slight expelling of breath and sound.
All that anti-Trump rhetoric on late night, much of it cherry picked from twitter, may work wonders on those who require an “applause” sign to remind them when to laugh. But they preach ant-Trumpism as a one-sided story, suppressing all evidence to the contrary.
Hitler? Martin Luther King Jr.? :brow:
Quoting NOS4A2
There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?
Are you effected by their rhetoric? What effects does their rhetoric have on you?
Of course there is. Every gaffe or piece of wrong think is usually one or two words torn from thousands and then sensationalized. It’s quite a lucrative racket, but it leaves people uninformed.
I think his fiscal achievements and trade war are dangerous but only because wealth is already dangerously concentrated.
My only point is that he's stupid.
I’m not so sure about that. Not very many stupid billionaires out there.
Of course I am. Hundreds of people are, all over the world. They are famous (or infamous in the case of Hitler) rhetoricians. Don't be absurd.
Quoting NOS4A2
To be clear, I was referring to your mention of the alleged suppressed evidence of the alleged success of Donald Trump. Can you give me some examples of evidence of his alleged success?
He has succeeded in bringing the worst out of those people who support him. He has succeeded in drastically lowering the bar of what's considered acceptable behaviour for a president of the US. He has succeeded in igniting racial tensions.
I will grant you that he has succeeded in these respects.
He inherited his wealth from Daddy Trump, managed to somehow bankrupt a casino, and would be richer if he had just invested in index funds.
The guy is pretty stupid, as clips like the one where he waits in the walkway between the backstage area and the stage, despite his name having been called out, and the one where he keeps signing copies of the same contract, instead of passing them along to the other heads of state to sign, asking which one is the one that matters, until Trudeau sets him straight, exemplify his stupidity. How embarrassing! He is as bad as George W., if not worse!
"I know all the best words".
"I don't repeat myself. I don't repeat myself. I [I]do not[/I] repeat myself".
Legendary buffoonery.
Being a rhetorician does not mean your rhetoric has the power to effect matter. Don’t be absurd.
Again, magical thinking in its purest form. No, trump is not to blame for how others conduct themselves.
No, it’s not true. Trump made is billions before his father died. It’s easy to invest in index funds (an argument i’ve heard many times already, meaning it’s plagiarized), but it’s more difficult and risky to run a vast empire. You name one casino, but won’t name any of the 250+ entities bearing his name. One-sided story, suppression of evidence to the contrary.
The one who became president? Excuse me if I just don’t see it and attribute the malice to snobbery.
And regarding your exaggerated claim about "suppression" of evidence, you haven't shown that at all. I'm just telling you what I've found out from various sources, and I even requested evidence from you, so your allegation of "suppression" is ludicrous. Moreover, it's funny how you seem to have an answer for everything: apologetics much?
Are you going to excuse his "pussy grabbing" remark, too? Let me guess, just locker-room talk, right?
I have malice toward none.*
If you don't see his stupidity, I wonder about your own situation.
*reference to a truly great American president
There is plenty to argue over, you just refuse to represent my argument properly, choosing to cower in a field of straw men.
You mentioned one failed business venture but didn’t mention any of the hundreds of successes. That’s clear suppression of contrary evidence.
I can give you one example. The belief, now widespread, that Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people”. This has already been thoroughly refuted, but no less still persists in the ant-Trumpist mind.
Wonder away. It’s not abnormal for people to fill in the blanks where only ignorance lies.
Yep.
He does at times show a degree of street smarts and guile though. Like supporting a conspiracy theory involving the Clintons re Epstein's death. Smart move to have the media attacking that bit of nonsense rather than focusing on accusations that Trump was involved with Epstein in child rape and had potentially more than anyone to gain by his death. The media and his political foes are rather crap at taking him on in general though. Rather than just attack him for being anti-PC etc (which he loves) they ought to spend more time attacking him for redistributing money away from the working class to the rich, for ballooning the debt, for hurting farmers with his trade wars, for using his wealth to wangle his way out of Vietnam etc. Focus on his privilege, cowardice, and incompetence, those aspects of his character that might be distasteful to his core supporters and leverage that rather than attack him for just what's made him popular.
What nonsense. Tell me, how can I mention details of which I do not know? If you think that that's suppression, then you must not know what the word "suppression" actually means. I never claimed to know about these "hundreds of successes" which you allege of Trump, but don't actually provide any evidence of. I told you what I do know, which is that all of these alleged successes are in fact failures relative to the amount of wealth he would have amassed if he had simply invested in Index Funds, which you yourself say is easy to do. So, explain to me why the smart thing to have done (if he's too incompetent to make a greater profit through the actual running of his business, which turned out to be true) wouldn't have been to invest in Index Funds. You haven't actually answered that, just dismissed it.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, that's not an example at all in your favour, it is a baseless assertion. It does nothing, except count against Trump, and adds to the evidence against him, ethically. It is well known, and a matter of public record, that in reference to the Charlottesville massacre, he said, and I quote, "You also had some very fine people on both sides". On both sides! For crying out loud, what a scumbag. And you're part of the problem by mindlessly defending his despicable and calculated remarks, which were clearly a dog whistle to all of his racist and Neo-Nazi supporters.
Anti means opposed to or against, simply. Any progressive liberal would be opposed to Trumps agenda.
Or you’ve been watching too much Fox News.
How can a critique of Trumps failures be based on being PC and snobbish?
If Trump supporters thought Trump was competent, they would have freaked out when Trump said:
"Take the guns first, go through due process second" I mean, this is a Republican we're talking about. Can you imagine if Reagan had said that? Or Bush?
Any other Republican who said that would have been banished to Republican Outer Mongolia. But Trump can say it because everyone knows you can't take him seriously on anything. He's a moron. He says really stupid things, like windmills cause cancer, and this gem:
“I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical – the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.”
It's obvious the person who said the above has a serious mental problem.
You'll be eating your words when he gets Denmark to sell Greenland to the US and turns it into the most successful golfing haven on the planet (he's way ahead on the global warming curve).
No, he just goes by the name, Greenland, perfect for golf courses
:lol:
He probably thought that being up north, property would be cheap, just partner up with a Russian investor, and the locals could be bulldozed. You think he would have learned something from his experience in Toronto!
All his critics have are word policing and word politics. “Trump said...” begins every criticism. This is just political correctness in its death throes.
Of course you do not know. That’s not my fault. But I do apologize for accusing you for suppression.
And there is nothing wrong with dismissing counterfactuals.
Sure. No-one criticized the policies Trump did implement at the southern border for example. Or the way he did replace all kinds of important agency personell with incompetent political allies.
The same policies that they refused to criticize under the last president. Some pictures of “children in cages” came from 2014, but they no less turned up in articles criticizing Trump.
Not to mention all the campaign promises he failed to deliver on. Oh wait, those promises were just words. Okay, I see your point.
Nonsense. Words are extremely important. Presidents can start wars and tank economies with words.
Obama separated immigrant children from adults if it was suspected the child was in danger. It was not a blanket policy.
Trump/Sessions/Miller (whoever was the brainchild) separated kids as a deterrent to other would-be immigrants. They came right out and said so. The policy was so abhorrent to Americans, they had to stop doing it.
Pointing out failed promises would be a legitimate criticism, but a simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements.
That is at least a legitimate criticism. But there is no point in conflating immigrants in general with illegal immigrants in particular. The policies pertain to illegal immigrants only.
"The policies pertain to illegal immigrants only."
Are you sure? Were any asylum-seekers' kids taken from them?
People tend to overestimate the power of words is my only point. The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword is a common superstition.
I’m not sure. But seeking asylum doesn’t necessarily entail hopping over the border illegally.
I guess you don’t realize that anyone can do an internet search and see how false this claim is for themselves.
And about Trump tweets and sensationalism, that is the entire point of his tweets, is it not? Everyone knows they’re sensationalized crap. You seem to imply this yourself.
And how can you criticize others for doing what he does on a daily basis? Did AOC, for example, actually say that the American people were trash?
No internet search will compare legitimate criticism to the sensationalism, so that’s a false claim.
Not everyone. The house recently condemned a tweet in Congress.
You claim that there is “little” criticism of Trump failing to fulfill campaign promises over the last few years. Anyone with access to the internet can see how false this claim is.
Your perspective is probably skewed from only reading news from Brietbart or similar “news” outlets.
I claimed “simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements.”
It’s weird, yet quite typical, that you’d leave the rest of my sentence out. Perhaps I should have said “less” instead of little, or perhaps I might clarify, but I don’t expect any good faith here.
Filling in the blanks with fantasy.
"People tend to overestimate the power of words is my only point. The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword is a common superstition."
The President is the most powerful person in the world, with the ability to end humanity. Three of our geo-political foes are also nuclear powers.
The wrong words can end the human race. That's not hyperbole. We came awfully close in 1962. Kennedy and Khrushchev went right to the brink. If Khrushchev hadn't written that Oct 26 letter, who knows what could have happened.
You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.
Hence the danger of word superstition. But it wasn’t the words that would have led to mutual self-destruction, but the choices and decisions of the ones pushing the button.
I don’t need to conform to your understanding. The meaning is quite clear so long as you refuse to remove half the argument.
I fail to see how what the last administration did is relevant. You are moving the goalposts.
Words are simply verbalized thoughts. Thought precedes action. The wrong words (thoughts) can trigger the wrong actions. In the case of peons like us, it doesn't matter. In the case of the President, who has command over our nuclear arsenal, words become extremely, extremely important.
I can't emphasize enough how irresponsible it is for the leader of a nuclear power to be careless with his words. It should scare the hell out of you.
I'm not blaming you for the fact that I don't care enough to explore in depth the business career of Donald Trump. But it is your fault if you're not willing or able to actually defend your own remarks about his alleged success in that regard.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well thanks.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes there is. There's only nothing wrong with someone doing that if they have a good enough reason for doing so.
The policies are not much different, but one was fawned over while this one is demonized.
Words trigger nothing, because they do not have the capacity to move matter. That’s sorcery.
Do you treat the news with the same skepticism? Because I did not inform you about the casino.
The level of my scepticism depends on the source. I can't remember where I heard the casino thing, to be honest. Why? Do you dispute it? Do you have a credible source which refutes it?
To give you some idea, I'm the least sceptical with a news organisation like BBC News, and I'm most sceptical with an absolute joke like the propaganda machine thinly veiled under the guise of a news organisation that is Fox News.
No, it’s a fact. He’s actually filed bankruptcy for his casinos several times.
BBC is a state-run news agency. That alone warrants skepticism.
If words don't trigger anything, why is it illegal to make death threats? Or yell "fire" in a theater?
Try again.
It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre. The principle in current first amendment theory is “immanent lawless action”.
Nonetheless, It’s not the words, but the law that makes them illegal.
Try again.
Ok. It's just that it seemed as though you were suggesting something more than that: perhaps that I should be more sceptical about the casino thing.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, the state doesn't run it, the Director-General of the BBC does. It's an independently run, but publicly funded, news organisation.
It's nothing like KCNA, for example. They couldn't be further apart.
That you’re a poor critical thinker is not a surprise to anyone on this forum. It’s senseless to insinuate that critical thinking is not appropriate or valued here.
The bad faith, straw men and ad homs do not help your case.
I was trying to make the point that so much is left out of the narrative, that it is a one-sided story.
I appreciate the info. But the director-general is appointed by the Secretary of culture. The Office of Communications, UK government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, regulates the BBC. But you are right, the state doesn’t run it per say.
You began participating in this topic with:
And now you’ve got the nerve to talk about bad faith and logical fallacies? Yet another demonstration of poor critical thinking. Even a troll needs to be at least somewhat consistent.
"It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre. The principle in current first amendment theory is “immanent lawless action”."
I notice you ignored my point about death threats being illegal. If words don't trigger anything, why do we outlaw certain kinds of speech?
What do you think would happen if Trump tweeted "We're now at war with N. Korea"? You don't think that would trigger anything? Of course it would.
Again, my point is that words do not affect matter in such a way, so it’s wrong to pretend it does.
We already know what happens when Trump tweets something: anti-Trumpists contort themselves into self-induced outrage. Others don’t. Those who do trigger themselves blame Trump for it.
Sorry I was getting the guys mixed up. You’re right. I was confusing the chairman of the BBC with the director general. Apologies.
The chairman oversees the implementation of the BBC charter, the way the BBC is run..
You claimed it was all about words. I proved you wrong. Now you're changing the topic.
That’s not what I claimed. I explicitly claimed “All his critics have are word policing and word politics.” Now you’re building strawmen.
Which implies that Trump's critics are only concerned with his words, not his actions. You then made this implication explicit by continuing:
“Trump said...” begins every criticism."
So, why are you lying about things you said, when those things are on an easily accessible public record? It's almost like you're roleplaying as Trump.
I was speaking of illegitimate criticism, those centred around the bogeyman “rhetoric”, and you pretended I was speaking of all criticism.
And I guess that's why your post started with "All his critics have..." and then referred to "every criticism".
But sure, you were only talking about illegitimate criticism. No true Scotsman would just make a sweeping generalization like that.
Hyperbole is a common figure of speech. You do have a point with your rigid hairsplitting and trivial objections, i’ll Give you that, but then again it completely avoids the initial point.
Now that there have been two recent high-profile mass shootings, President Trump is calling for the opening of more mental institutions to deal with the “problem” of the mentally ill. This, however, begs the question, “What should we do with a mentally ill commander in chief?” President Trump clearly has narcissistic personality disorder. He is also clearly in the early stages of dementia. Who is going to save women from his long history of sexual assault? Who is going to save the taxpayer from his profiting off of the office of the presidency when he charges the government for security at Mar-a-lago, for example? Who is going to save the nation from his mental illness and reckless behavior? If he is charged with a crime after he leaves office, should he go to jail or a mental institution?
He should be bannished to AM talk radio on the man-made island Perfidious Iowa. We can divert the border wall funding to the building of the island. My solution to what to do with people like Trump is always just to let them live on their own island.
Hmm. Maybe only if we build an electrified perimeter around the island.
Why does he need an electrified perimiter? Let Trump swim. He could eaten by a shark or something. My theory is just that if you let megalomaniacs live on their own islands in peace then that you really just won't need to worry about them anymore.
A better question, I think, would be can we get Trump to do another season of The Apprentice while he is in office?
You mean like Little St. James?
Isn’t that what we are watching daily on the news with his cabinet?
Quoting thewonder
I guess my worry was that I wouldn’t want him to build a raft like in the movie “The Castaway”.
Yes. Trump is just some guy who needed to buy and live on his own island.
Yes, but can you imagine if there was an actual season of The Apprentice that was set in The White House? The tweets aren't quite enough. He needs to go full cinéma vérité with it.
It'd be like a resort. There'd be no reason to leave. You just have to let people like that spend enough money for it to be worthwhile for the inhabitants of an island to ceaselessly pander to them.
I'm not satisfied with the Trump presidency. It's so banal. I need to be engaged at the level of absurdity. Maybe The Apprentice isn't quite the right format. But, why shouldn't Trump turn his next term into a reality television show? I'm not saying that he'll get elected, but, if he gets elected, then he should do that. I would probably actually watch that show with commercials, and I really don't watch television at all.
Right. Dismantling of the American system of government is SO banal. :wink:
Are you mocking me? If so, don’t be a prick. If not, then what?
Praying is only good for meditating on self-improvement. It is worthless in influencing others.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
What I mean, though, is that it really is boring. You already know what to expect from the Right. It's just a lot of the same tire old platitudes and thought terminating clichés. The only thing that catches anyone by suprise is that they are somehow successful. Scandals have become somewhat routine. Everything is as if it's all so terribly normal because it's all just too much like what it actually is. You get Trump. You analyze him a bit and then you get bored. He's a megalomaniacal businessman. There isn't anything much more to it than that. It's almost like a dystopian novel written by a Nihilist. It's all just sort of coase, dull, and unpleasant. Your haranguing middle manager is really like the President of the United States of America. It doesn't really go any deeper than that. I want for the next closet despot to come out of the American Right to be charismatic and Existentially unsettling. At least give me something interesting to think about.
I know but *shrug*
It's always been like this. There was Bush, there was Nixon. I'm an anarchist, and, so, I don't really care about the foundations of the country, but they've always been hypocritical. What I mean, though, is that Trump is like a stock supervillian. The Right needs to pull out like an Archaeofuturist or something to get people really engaged. Megalomania can be so fascinating, but Trump is so dull. I don't want for my political plight to be dull.
Can you really imagine that Trump could effectively deliver Satan's lines from Paradise Lost? Give me someone like that. This is all just too tiresome for me to at all pay attention to.
That’s right. You’re an anarchist. Do you live in the US? Because if Trump has his way, there will be much less freedom for everyone else and unlimited freedom for himself. Is that something an anarchist values?
No. I'm not defending Trump, I'm just lamenting upon how boring this whole thing is. Trump is like the pushy foreman from a Hollywood film made by people who were later brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He's just kind of stubborn and agressive. There's not a lot to the guy. I wish that there was something more to analyze.
I am actually older than 25. I'm just sort of lazy with my posts. Most people fall out of Anarchism in their 20s because it's kind of tough rap that doesn't really reward you with very much. Being at all idealistic is often equated with being naive which I find to be rather distasteful.
I don't wish that Trump was more sinister, I just wish that he was more interesting.
I’m glad you find fault with him for his lack of entertainment value, but for people in the US who value American values as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the situation couldn’t be more serious. I’m glad you think this is a joke. I wish I could see it as a joke. Or not.
And I have a 13-inch penis.
I don't really think that it's a joke, though. Nothing is falling apart. It's tragic to experience the Trump presidency as American democracy falling apart, but his presidency only reveals what has already been going on. I just wish that it was more poetic. I would have assumed that it would have taken someone who was more charismatic to reveal to the world what the lofty democratic project was actually like. Don't get me wrong, what is lofty of the democratic project is laudable. Trump certainly poses a threat in so far that he bastardizes the concept of democracy which should be held as a somewhat inviolable ideal, but that he does so is just simply a continuation of politics as such. Empire has always treated the concept in such a manner.
Well, I'm 29. Like I said, I'm just lazy.
It's always been like this, it's just never been so emphatically obvious. The manner in which it is obvious is banal. All that I have to take at Trump are what will be percieved as cheap shots. The situation is already reduced to the absurd. I think that people should actively disengage from such a state of affairs, but that is just my personal opinion. Any argument levelled at the current manifestation of the American Right will necessarily be an appeal. In order not to concede, the only thing that a person can do is to actively disengage.
By engaging in debate, you concede to their terms. Their terms are that such a presidency is legitimate. I'm not contesting that Trump won the election. I simply contest that his presidency can at all be considered to be what "legitimate" connotes.
That’s from the viewpoint of an anarchist, though. What about someone who wants to improve upon the system? There are many good things about America from which to build on.
Involuntary commitment; locked cell on a locked floor; thorazine, electro-shock therapy ("Here, let me set the voltage on that dial!"); long term custodial care. And perhaps there would be an unfortunate accident, so round-the-clock security (no Secret Service; just regular hospital psychopaths).
Something along those lines; make One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look like enlightened care.
I am suggesting that that Trump is in office is evidence of that the system can not be meaningfully reformed in so far that such things are allowed. To radically, that is to say, meaningfully, reform the American state, you would still need to actively disengage from politics as such. Everyone needs to wage a personal strike.
That’s the case already with half of the electorate. Total informed engagement is the solution imo.
What is being informed? It's just a compulsive addiction to a 24-hour news cycle. A person's capacity to witness a slow train wreck does not correlate to their capacity to change the world for the better. I live in PA and didn't vote in protest of the cult behavior exhibited by the Democratic Party leading up to the election. I would have voted for Hilary or Sanders given the chance to. I partially lost the election for the Democratic Party. This places me in a unique position. I am now who the Democratic Party panders to. I have decided to exploit this. I am going to vote party line in the local elections of 2019, but will vote for the Democratic Socialists of America's candidate in 2020. If they don't put forth a candidate, then I will vote Green. I already registered Green in protest of that the Democratic Party routinely turns into a cult every two years or so. My vote is in good faith as I do believe that political parties should be more like the Democratic Socialists of America, but I do have an ulterior motive. I am voting as such, in part, because the Democratic Party will consider for that to be a vote that they lost. I know that the Democratic Socialists of America have no chance of winning the election. I also know that the Green Party has no chance of winning the election. I want for the Democratic Party to consider why they have lost a vote. Perhaps this will change the world for the better. I only care so much either way.
Do you believe things wouldn’t be as bad or better given a dichotomous choice? I agree that winner take all elections are a problem in this country.
I would prefer a multi-party system, or some other democratic process, but would still probably have qualms with those things. I'm in favor of participatory democracy, whatever that means.
It is a common feature of your speech. Why is that? You’re clearly not trying to persuade, so you must be attempting to provoke. For entertainment?
You would be more entertaining if you offered challenging provocations. Regurgitating the typical dimwited talking points we’ve been hearing for the last few years from the far-right is... unimaginative.
Sort of. The parties have changed over the years, but there's little left of the abolitionist past of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is just usually preferable. They're not really all that great. It's just a general inclination. I would vote for the Left Party or Feminist Initiative if I lived in Sweden. I am partisan.
I may consider voting for a decent Libertarian candidate if they were against war, in favor of some sort of environmental intitiatives, and of some sort of socially liberal persuasion.
I generally suspect that the only good that will come of politics will come from the Left in spite of that I don't really like the Left all that much. I am of the far-Left. It's all rather tennuous, but I won't be shifting positions any time soon.
Edit: To better answer your question, currently the Democratic Party can more or less be considered to be always preferable to the Republican Party in spite of that they really aren't all that great. This has not always historically been the case.
Sure, but do you feel comfortable throwing away your vote? Suppose only two parties have a real chance of winning but there are four parties to choose from. One of the parties that could win want to feed you broccoli every meal and you don’t like broccoli. The other party that could win wants to make leisure time illegal, and you love leisure time. You choose to vote for a third party that wants to give everyone $1 million, but they will never win. See the problem?
I am very comfortable with that the Democratic Party will have to continue to pander to me. I will only exploit this so much, however.
Voting isn't everything that has everything to do with politics. I am comfortable with voting for the Democratic Socialists of America because, if they put forth a candidate, it will be the first time that I can cast a vote in good faith. If no one decides to be sincere then nothing will change.
But you see how not voting then causes an ignorance of the electorate on the part of the politicians, right?
You've referred to Trump as narcissistic, he is. However is that wrong? Before Trump was president he actually advocated for hispanics and blacks to be allowed into country/golf clubs and won the Ellis Island award. He's respected globally unlike Canadas Prime Minister. Not only this but he has broken many records for collective society, including: Lowest unemployment of hispanic and black communities ever - record highs within the stock market - he has implemented tax incentives so that people with invest into poor neighbourhoods (Opportunity zones). While his ego may be massive and shadow many others, he has undoubtedly helped many many many people.
Trump will win the 2020 election undoubtedly, the Democratic Party is much to obsessed with obscenities and economic hindrances. They puppet black and hispanic people about. This was shown very clearly when they wished for open borders however when Trump promised to have them brought to democratic strong holds, Nancy refused. I think everyone conservative, liberal, far left, far right all need to step back and start addressing each other as human beings. Its extremely disheartening to see each other being torn apart and not addressed as simple factions such as left-right.
Yes and no. There are plenty of reasons not to vote. That's not really what I mean by active disengagement, though. I don't really care who votes or doesn't vote. The electorate are right to retain a certain degree of ignorance. Nothing is really all that meaningfully engaging. I don't think that people should concede anything that this is valid out of some sort of percieved practicality. You can choose to be of any position that you like. If it is a good position then it shouldn't be sacrificed to that you can make marginal gains by conceding certain things. I think that people should vote in general. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it. I think that it's just sort of a minimal democratic offering. Some people choose not to vote out of protest. That effects some change as well. I don't really agree with Anarchist lines against voting, however. You shouldn't not be allowed to vote. That's not too common of an Anarchist position, but it is common enough to be of note.
I think that you might assume too much by assuming that the American Right is just simply ignorant. A lot of them know all too well precisely what it is that they are voting for. It's more of a problem with the American mindset then it is with the dissemination of information. Almost everyone has access to Wikipedia. The problem is more psychological. Who knows what can be done about that?
I don't see any reason why civic engagement should be compulsory. Not everyone cares to invest their time in politics.
I guess I don't quite know what you mean. I assume that that's a bit of a rhetorical question. Am I not aware of the importance of voting? I don't know. I only think that it's so important.
Oh, they can choose whatever they want to. I'm just saying that it does still seem to be the case that the Republican Party doesn't have all that much to offer people of color. I'm also quite skeptical of "economic development" in "opportunity zones". That sounds a lot like gentrification.
While the Democratic Party smears and says that the 'Minorities' are at a disadvantage and incapable without the pandering government parental figure.
If you believe in the economic developments or not, it is not of your opinion but fact. Recorded in time for all history.
Everyone is capable of a lot of things, but some people are more advantaged than others. I'm just trying to figure out how to leech off of the State until I can sustain myself as a left-wing philosopher.
What I particularly mean by left-wing is Anarcho-Pacifism. I'm a libertarian Socialist and a Pacifist. I think that it's generally okay to define Anarchism as libertarian Socialism. Not all Anarchists agree with this. I adhere to a sort of Anarchism without adjectives. I have been influenced by Autonomism and Communization. I'm not a Communist as I don't necessarily agree with Marx, but I don't really mind libertarian Communists or have too many qualms with Marx.
My fellow man will gain the wisdom that I have gained in so far that I am capable of articulating it.
I don't actually really leech off of the state all that much as I live at home, but I don't really see anything wrong with doing so. The State is responsible for so much strife in the world. It's fine to take what you can from it.
If libertarian is defined as "A person who believes in the doctrine of free will" and or "A person who advocates for civil liberty".
If socialist is defined as " social ownership - worker owned and self managed means of production".
If we establish Anarchy as "A person who rebels against authority"
Don't you then believe by definition an anarchist cannot be a socialist? That a libertarian can also be a proponent of any other doctrine because of this belief in free will and thus freedom to associate with lets say the republic party or Democratic Party for that matter? There is nothing wrong with living at home. But if there is strife in the world and in part caused by state why add burden to it and in doing so to the tax payers which fund it? Strife is added at an individual level as well as a state level? I fail to see why leeching betters anyone other than yourself.
Why is hyperbole a common figure of speech? The extent to witch you are willing to flee from the topic of the conversation is astounding. Sorry pal, too boring for me.
Why is it a common feature of your speech, was the question.
It’s less common on a philosophy forum such as this. I think you may know why that is.
Why is it a common feature of your speech to attack the player and not the ball?
Because you’re playing badly. Poor critical thinking and the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions isn’t good. People will take you more seriously if you step-up your game.
I don’t respect your opinion. I suspect it. There are countless uses of hyperbole in this very thread, but you never show up to wag your finger at them. But like I said, all you have is word-policing.
You might try to back up one of your hyperbolic claims for once and point some of these alleged uses.
I haven’t criticized your language, numbnuts. I’ve criticized your used of hyperbole and your poor critical thinking.
Hyperbole and other figures of speech is language. If your word and thought policing is your idea of critical thinking, I want nothing to do with it.
The betterment of the leechers does better to advance my cause. I am therefore in favor of that they leech. The people who primarily "leech" off of the State are either marginalized or listless left-wingers. I, myself am a listless left-winger, and don't really care that people are taking a "free ride". However the plights incurred via Empire can be alleviated is best. Because I see the current manifestation of the American State as being ultimately negative, that you can take a "free ride" means that you should. There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion.
I don't think that an Anarchist can not be a Socialist. Anarchism derives from Socialism. I have stated that I think that Anarchism can more or less be defined as libertarian Socialism. I use libertarian as a qualifier to denote that I think that whatever society there is that emerges should strive to be as liberal as possible. I do not think that this necessarily results in lessez faire economics. I do think that libertarianism and egalitarianism are compatible. You could say that I am a "left-libertarian", but I choose to identify myself as an "Anarchist". I don't actually believe in political parties at all. I think that they're all sort of rackets or cults. I sort of agree with Jacques Camatte and Simone Weil. The Democratic Socialists of America is seriously, like, the only political party that I actually like. I don't even agree with them. The Democratic Socialists of America are a libertarian socialist organization. I am a libertarian Socialist who identifies as being an Anarchist. That minute detail may not seem to matter, but it would ultimately matter. To become a member of the Democratic Socialists of America would be an unwarranted act of entryism on my part. I can only express solidarity with them.
I don't, like some Anarchists do, demand that Anarchists only associate with other Anarchists. I think that doing so is somewhat coercive. I agree with some sort of concept proceeding from mutual aid. A person can associate with whomever they please, even, in some rare cases, certain Fascists. It's unlikely that a person could ever be meaningful engaged with either the far-Right or the authoritarian Left, but such circumstances are not entirely impossible. I am, however an anti-Fascist and emphatically opposed to Soviet apologetics. You could say that I am also anti-totalitarian, but I am not anti-Communist.
I have a very particular political inclination that could be seen as an emergent sect. I don't necessarily mind this, but my intention is not to inanely act alone. I do hold such a position in sincerity. I think that it is in keeping with some sort of Anarchism without adjectives.
Are you whining about word policing or thought policing?
Critical thinking and exaggeration are independent of both. Without thinking about it, I assume pretty much any idea (thought or concept) can be exaggerated or poorly conceived. The quality of language used to express poor critical thinking and hyperbole can vary greatly.
Are you unable to separate these concepts (language, thoughts, critical thought, and hyperbole)?
Both. I did separate them. It was you was quibbling at my use of hyperbole and “poor critical thinking”, my speech and my thinking. Speech, thought. Of course, given your name-calling, ad Homs, incessant quibbling, I’m not sure you’re any decent judge on such topics.
It should be obvious to anyone, who is actually concerned about such things, that the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions should be discouraged. It should also be obvious why critical thinking may be valued.
Word policing. I’ve already admitted my hyperbole, yet you’re still quibbling about it pages later. Is this is a demonstration of critical thinking? No, and that “should be obvious to anyone”.
There has yet to be a clinical test of Donald Trump, and as such, you’re breaking the Goldwater Rule. The only man who has submitted the president to examination, the Whitehouse physician (appointed by Obama), says otherwise.
I know someone who has been clinically diagnosed by 12 different psychiatrists, and the conservatives in his community don’t believe it because he went to law school for a semester. Likewise, when there is undeniable evidence for everyone to see of the president’s mental decline and sociopathic behavior, conservatives don’t believe it either.
The “undeniable evidence” is the cherry-picking and quote-mining of his opponents, and not any clinical examination. It is deniable on those grounds.
One with a decent knowledge of psychology need only observe him talking for 15 minutes to see evidence. Compiling this 15-minute observation with the scores of other 15-minute instances on record amounts to compelling evidence.
You’re trying to argue that I’m “word policing,” and failing. Actually, you’re not making an argument, you just keep mindlessly repeating the claim.
That’s not true. Diagnosis involves much more than observing a patient talk.
I agree that it involves more but not “much” more. If you think Trump is sane, then I have to question your sanity. Either you yourself suffer from a disorder, or you are apologizing for him because you like his policies. In that case, I have to question your character.
Yet here you are quibbling about my use of hyperbole. I suspect some slight projection here, because not only are you failing to demonstrate critical thinking and believe your arguments true through sheer force of repetition, but you also blame me for that which you are guilty.
Look how quickly your unethical and politically expedient diagnosis has turned to me. And you question my character?
Yes. I question the character of every Trump supporter. Do I have to defend this?
You question the character of millions of people you’ve never met? I think you’re beyond defence at this point.
I think what you’re trying to say is essentially that I’m trolling you. That’s not projection because I’m fully aware that that is my intention.
You really are an idiot.
I don’t think you’re trolling me, I think you have an over-inflated sense of your implied abilities and seek to exert them on people who disagree with you.
No seriously, I’m just trolling you.
You don’t have a problem with that I assume. It’s just words.
Trump called immigrants from Mexico “rapists” and criminals. He called majority black countries “shitholes”. He deported non-criminal undocumented workers who were parents on their children’s first day of school without holding the employers who profit off of their labor to account. He said in Helsinki that he believed Putin about Russian interference over our own intelligence community. He obstructed justice on multiple occasions. He welcomed help from the Russians. He pulled out of the Paris climate accords. He is dismantling the EPA. He is dismantling the USDA. He is picking winners and losers in the economy by supporting the fossil fuel industry. He puts children in cages without enough food or water, no soap, and no toothbrush as deterrence; and multiple children have died under these conditions. He told duly elected congresswomen to go back to their countries. He asked Netanyahu to bar two congresswomen from entering Israel, supposedly a democratic country. He is friends with Kim Jong-Un, a mass murderer and torturer. He profits off the presidency. And all this is just what I recall in the last two minutes without Googling him.
Yes. I question anyone’s character who supports this man.
Troll away. I’m always game.
Trump also sexually assaults women and he admitted it on tape. He also consorts with sex-traffickers and rapists.
I’m not going to refute every point of your Gish-gallop (they will only be dismissed anyways), but that you’re repeating, almost verbatim, the rhetoric of his political opponents, is enough to believe that your sentiment is derived from political tribalism.
Sure, there are some legitimate criticism in your Gish-gallop, but then again it’s sprinkled with outright falsities and DNC lies.
Okay, but no whining next time. It’s undignified and you degrade the fine art of trolling.
Whining? Not me. Perhaps if you call me another name I’ll whimper a bit, but not likely.
I have two legs to stand on. But what you’ve “personally witnessed” is very little in comparison to what you’ve personally omitted, for instance that he wasn’t talking about “Mexican immigrants”, but illegal immigrants from Mexico, some of which he said are probably good people. In fact, he says he loves immigrants, legal ones. No, he does not profit from the presidency, and in fact he donates his entire salary. The children in cages canard and the underfunding of the border is a result of Congress, not Trump. Those countries are, in fact, shithole countries. The two democrat congresswomen supported the boycott of Israel, and as such were’nt allowed in the country according to Israeli law. The Russian influence canard is mostly an anti-Trump hoax. The Paris climate accord was a bad deal. He did not welcome help from Russians.
He profits off of the government by charging the taxpayers for Secret Service security for golf carts and room and board at his resorts when he golfs almost weekly.
The separation of children in cages and from parents has nothing to do with Congress. It is a deterrent through executive order.
The two congresswomen are unique in that they are representatives of the US, and as such, they are not barred by Israelis law, something which is underscored by the fact that their barring was rescinded.
Trump welcomed Russian help on national television. “Russia, if you’re listening”?
The Paris climate deal was a bad deal for the fossil fuel industry, an industry that Trump wants to win. Clean energy would create millions of jobs, but I guess Trump had something else in mind by “Drain the swamp!”
More lies. He explicitly condemned white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. The congresswomen engagd in anti-Israeli boycotts and rhetoric. If presidential security is “profiting of the presidency”, then every president is guilty. Trump cracked a joke about Russian hacking, who was at that time his opponent’s bogeyman. The children were separated to deter child exploitation, and this was an idea of the DHS. The executive order ended child separation, not began it.
“word policing” “word policing” “word policing,” you incessantly cry like a petulant three year old who missed his afternoon nap. It’s not even original but part of a passé far-right narrative, which you apparently bought hook, line, and sinker.
Other presidents don’t golf exclusively at their own resorts, so yes, he is profiting by charging the taxpayer. What other president has done that?
Why did Trump’s campaign manager share proprietary internal polling data and strategy with a Russian oligarch closely tied to Putin (closer to Putin than anyone else in Russia)?
The child exploitation excuse is a ruse. Only a Trump operative would claim that. Do you work at the White House?
Oh Dear. I have not cried at all, despite your fantasies. The word-policing remark actually harkens back to Orwell’s “thought policing”, not any “far-right narrative”. I think it describes your finger-wagging quite aptly.
I’m beginning to suspect you work for the Internet Research Agency, a GRU front.
Now I’m a Russian spy. Where have I heard that before?
Not a spy. A troll. You’re not intelligent enough to be a full-fledged spy.
He was speaking about the people protesting the removal of a statue, as is their right.
“And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”
That’s evidence of your malice and hatred, and not anything to do with me.
Most of us believe that he says those things out of one side of his mouth, while out of the other side he gives aid and comfort to Neo-Nazis. This can be strongly inferred by a pattern of clear and undeniable behavior.
Yes. I am an anti-fascist in that I oppose hate as should all good Americans. I’m not a member of AntiFa.
Now the goal posts widen. But I thought he was callling neo Nazis fine people? He didn’t, but now it’s inferred by “a pattern of clear and undeniable behavior”. Which behavior? Is he goose-stepping up and down the Whitehouse lawn? Perhaps it’s inferred only from his opponent’s propaganda, and not any behavior.
Well, his father did march with the KKK, and he did hire Steve Bannon.
Then why the bigotry? I’ve already been falsely accused of being a Russian Troll working for GRU.
I thought we were talking about Trump. Now it’s his father and Steve Bannon.
It’s bigotry to be intolerant of another’s opinion. It sounds like you run afoul of your own double-standards.
He called people protesting the removal of Confederate statues “fine people”. Do you call people who wave the Confederate flag “fine people”? Come on.
My standard is anti-bigotry. Not just “another innocuous opinion”.
We now watch the goalposts widen. They had a permit to do so and we’re in their legal right to protest. Clearly Trump differentiated between those exercising their rights peacefully and the violent and hateful mobs .
It’s never a good sign when someone tries substantiate a remark with a work of fiction.
You suspect that I’m part of the forum secret police and that I’m silencing your subversive thoughts against the forum status quo?
It appears to me that you’re entirely free to regurgitate any piece of political narrative that’s been fed to you. Something more original would be nice though, if you’re capable of generating you own criticisms.
You mean the neo-Nazis and white nationalists Trump explicitly said he wasn’t talking about and condemned? Now we have to go in circles.
One can peacefully oppose the destruction of history without supporting a confederacy that no longer exists.
What narrative have I regurgitated? Perhaps you can share an example.
He said he didn’t support Neo-Nazis by supporting Neo-Nazis. THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE WITH THE PERMIT! Statues are monuments celebrating history. It’s not destruction of history to take down hateful monuments. Come on.
It is literally the destruction of history.
Now you sound like a Neo-Nazi. It is the destruction of a hateful monument. The history can be read about in books.
Now I’m a neo Nazi and a Russian Troll. But these soporific pieces of slander can only offer you solace from cognitive dissonance, not are any statement of reality.
Should Germany keep statues of Hitler to remember history? I’m just calling a spade a spade.
The Nazis loved destroying statues.
ISIS also.
ISIS has destroyed mosques.
The confederate statues have been a part of civic life for a long time, long after any need for “de-confederation” was necessary. As history has proven, Americans have long since moved on without the need for the destruction of statues.
Ain’t no one can consume more Trump or think about Trumpism more than me without being in the news industry. Sorry. You lose. Try again.
If you have to say you are, you probably ain’t.
The Robert E Lee statue is listed on the National Register of Historic sites. Doesn’t matter what it was built for unless you submit to presentism.
I just exposed you for what you really are, viz. a Neo-Nazi sympathizing bigot. How does it feel?
The vast majority of the monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.
Exactly.
That’s unjust, but what I’m speaking about is the notion of “Russian influence” on social media, as if meddling on Twitter is akin to meddling in an election. According to the Mueller report, the IRA is a private company, and not an arm of the Russian government.
This should be sufficiently hyperbolic for you to appreciate:
That’s all the libtards got, right?
I like it, but I’ve never expressed any such sentiment. Any examples of the supposed narrative i’ve been regurgitating?
How-z-bout your Orwellian thought policing? That has a similar stench to it, yes?
So no examples of narrative you claimed, without evidence, that I was regurgitating?
Here’s one from Fox News:
Earlier you wrote:
Quoting NOS4A2
Like Trump, you appear to take your cues from Fox News.
Elitism reigns supreme. Ignorant and well-educated alike. There are striking similarities in all racist thought/belief as well. One can be elitist without being racist.
Are you seriously arguing in Trump's defense regarding charges of being one who demonstrates sociopathic thought, belief, and behaviour?
It's a cryin shaime and a crime that it's a shrine. But you can give a shiner to the enshrined- vote for Bernie this time, for shrining out loud.
I would suggest to President Trump and fellow Americans the following:
First, have totally unknown armed people (calling themselves the Greenland Independence Front) seize every strategic point in Greenland and demand a referendum for the Indepence of Greenland. The armed personnel would be totally unknown: because they wouldn't have any insignia on them, so how can anybody know them? After this a referendum Greenland would quickly declare itself independent and as likely the evil colonialist Danes wouldn't like this, Independent Greenland would ask to join the United States. Then President Trump could admit them into the US of A. and protect the innocent people of Greenland from the ugly colonialist power of Denmark. To make everything nice for the people of Greenland, perhaps the US ought to give every citizen of Greenland two million dollars (that's just a puny 114 billion $) and free tickets to Disneyland Galaxy's End (I hear it hasn't been such a success) as a gesture of welcome.
Oh how historic it would be! And everybody would be OK with it!
Have you seen this glorious tweet by the president?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1163603361423351808?s=21[/tweet]
But the advice I gave on the previous page would really be contemplated in this White House for sure. If it only was first read in Fox News. And the best thing: it would really, really, REALLY upset those woke democrats! And all the people that hate Trump supporters, like the EU. Except the friends of Trump, who would understand that the US needs to protect the people of Greenland and any independent country can voluntary join the US. What else would the Trump campaign want?
So, is anyone here an American and interested in a job in the Trump administration as the 'special advisor for Greenland'?
Not to mention the added bonus of freeing the residents from the yoke of socialism.
I’d love to be specially advisor. Given global warming, it should be prime beach property in no time.
I am, actually. Born and raised. I just don’t currently live in the US.
What do you want to know, beyond what you’ve already assumed?
I like Warren best, but I don’t know if she has the best chance of beating Trump.
Does this count as a legitimate criticism, being about economic facts and not his words, @NOS4A2?
It is, yes. See? Anyone can do it.
I thought you were going to say that his campaign promise to reduce the trade deficit was just words, and that all the self-aggrandizement about his business and deal-making prowess was just words. On that we could agree, although I would be more inclined to describe it as a con job.
It's high time to take the hook out of your mouth.
Well you are criticizing his promise and not the economy, which is doing great. So you’re still concerned with words and not actual states of affairs. But a broken promise is a broken promise.
I knew it :razz: The trade deficit is a significant part of the economy, my painfully predictable friend.
Is the economy doing good or not?
Compared with the Obama administration
So good? Bad?
This just in:
Trump says he is considering payroll tax cut amid economic concerns
Looks like they are worried.
The economy has done well under Trump. But that doesn't necessarily credit him for two reasons:
1) He was given an economy that was trending positive. As in when you jump on a tricycle rolling downhill, you can expect acceleration regardless of how fast you pedal. Trump is the excited little kid on the tricycle thinking the downhill slope lasts forever.
2) He ballooned the deficit to give an already advancing economy an extra shove. Good for the very short term. Awful for the long term. You're supposed to borrow when things are bad and pay the money back when they're good. Duh. Trump is the excited little kid on the tricycle pedalling madly downhill wasting every bit of energy you'll all need for the next upslope.
To summarize, you've handed your economy to some idiotic little kid on a tricycle. Brace yourself for the inevitable crash
Yes, the economy is doing great.
At least Trump didn’t require an $800 billion tax-payer funded stimulus bill to get it all going. Deregulation and tax cuts seem to be working quite well.
This doesn't make any real sense because Trump inherited an economy that was already going, as Baden just pointed out.
Just looking at the unemployment rate (from the Washington Post article link to above):
Well, the types of jobs matter as well. Under Obama, most new jobs were service jobs, like consulting or toiling in restaurants.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/
But manufacturing jobs are up under trump, not to mention wages.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/07/10/in-trumps-first-30-months-manufacturing-up-by-314000-jobs-over-obama-what-states-are-hot/#6e627b3d2677
I'm not sure that manufacturing jobs are better than consulting or "toiling in restaurants." In any case, you should be presenting an argument that Trump could bring an economy out of a deep recession without a stimulus bill or the like. Would tax cuts for the rich and deregulation work?
Bigly.
What's new ?
Shock and Disbelief
Quoting Reuters
And that is, in itself, meaningless unless you have a better alternative system, which you do not.
Enough to make you cry ?
https://www.theonion.com/trump-advisor-confirms-administration-looking-into-buyi-1837379687
People thought the purchase of Alaska was stupid, too.
They've changed it.
Quoting Shaun Walker
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/21/trump-state-visit-cancellation-over-greenland-shocks-danes
'Like trying to buy Scotland'.
He's already got a chunk of it :worry:
It was over the comments, not the refusal to sell. The Danish PM never even heard his proposition.
Cancelling a state visit because a foreign Prime Minister believes the proposition of someone wanting to buy part of his country's territory to be a joke because it's absurd is pretty ridiculous.
It isn’t, actually, because she was overreacting to media reports, not the president’s proposition. She preemptively and publicly made comments, expressed outrage, before the president even arrived.
From the same article:
"Villy Søvndal, a former foreign minister, said the decision “confirms that Donald Trump is a narcissistic fool”.
The US president had been due to visit Denmark in early September but announced on Twitter late on Tuesday night that there was no longer any point in the visit. “Based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time,” Trump wrote. The White House later confirmed the visit had been called off.
Søvndal told the Danish newspaper Berlingske that Trump’s decision showed he was unaware of the basic rules of diplomacy. “If he had been a clown in a circus, you could probably say that there is considerable entertainment value. The problem is that he is the president of the most powerful nation in the world,” he said."
Trump is a narcissistic fool. At the very least.
Most people see that.
They mock and and chide Trump based on media reports before even meeting with him, but it is Trump who is unaware of the basic rules of diplomacy. It sounds like the Danes don’t like getting a taste of their own medicine.
And cancelling a state visit because of that is pretty ridiculous. Like you said, she was responding to media reports, not to any official negotiation.
Perhaps, but publicly criticizing the president before he even arrives is far more ridiculous.
By saying what? That "Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously" and "It’s an absurd discussion, and Kim Kielsen has of course made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. That’s where the conversation ends"? Seems a pretty reasonable response.
But Trump cancelling the visit "based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland"? That's ridiculous.
It was a response to media reports, not to Trump. No discussion occurred, so it’s absurd to say it is “an absurd discussion”. No conversation occurred, so it’s absurd to say “that’s where the conversation ends”, before it even began. Utterly ridiculous and absurd.
What's ridiculous is your Donald Trump spokesperson act.
I’ll let you know when I respect your opinion.
"I thought that the prime minister’s statement, that it was 'absurd,' that it was 'an absurd idea,' it was nasty, I thought it was an inappropriate statement," Trump told reporters before departing the White House for a speech to a veterans group in Kentucky. "
Even if you (somehow) disagree about it being absurd, it should be no surprise that the PM would consider it so. Calling her "nasty" is yet another low in the Trump presidency.
Yes, and extremely hypocritical.
So if Denmark proposed buying Florida and demanded that that be discussed in the next meeting with the President, the appropriate response of the US would be what? "Sure, let's chat about it and see what happens"? Or if Trump had tweeted "That's absurd", you'd be criticising him?
Next weeks attention seeking headline: “Trump wants to sell Florida to Denmark”
If Danish media came out and framed the argument before it was even made, and based on this, Trump publicly called the idea absurd, I would understand why the Danish PM would want to refrain from visiting.
Ha!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-latest-jewish-antisemitism-king-of-israel-twitter-democrats-a9072951.html
I note that NOSEFART@U didn't answer that question presumably at the fear of spontaneous combustion should he dare admit to even thinking about criticising BRAINFART@U, aka D. Trump (whom I'm now channelling).
He was actually quoting someone else.
I did answer your question, as is evident from my post above.
Never mind. Carry on.
You've handled the 'nastiness' directed at you and your unpopular views in this topic admirably, so it seems disingenuous to claim an understanding of Trump's thin-skin, which he's demonstrated time and time again.
Trump has been ridiculed since the beginning, caricatured in popular culture, burned in effigy, murdered in music videos and photo shoots; his looks, his body, his voice, his hair, his hands, his mannerisms have all been mocked and ridiculed incessantly; his family, his career, his legacy, put to the violent grindstone of popular opinion.
But he is still there firing back.
If that man’s thin-skinned, then we’re without skin entirely.
Regardless of asymmetric NATO power relations, the point stands, I think. I imagine there are some (albeit a minority of) Americans for whom an example of the tables being reversed could be helpful in illustrating how their attitudes are perceived abroad. Trump is one of them.
Now who is playing word police here? Someone misused the word "discuss", oh dear.
You seem pretty fixated on the media. Is any of this about Trump or do you just have a passionate hatred for sensational reporting?
Good point, I must admit.
Yes, I think the political division is a media-induced hysteria, mostly for reasons of profit, and Trump is the scapegoat for what they’ve caused. I have a dislike of yellow journalism, mainly.
I don't think Trump is as bad as they claim he is.
Yes, that makes sense. There certainly is a kind of hysteria around every new Trump outrage. One that Trump, or more likely people in his circle, are able to exploit well.
It's important, though, not to fall for a genetic fallacy here. If Hitler says the sky is blue, it doesn't turn red. Just because the media is milking Trump for all he is worth doesn't mean things aren't bad.
The most dangerous thing Trump is doing is eroding the traditions and unwritten rules of his office. Democracy relies on these traditions. It's what keeps the naked power play at bay.
Well, Denmark replied officially by it's representatives quite badly. You see, they acted as if this President wouldn't be tweeting brainfarts or simply joking around. As if this would be something genuinely coming from the United States with the support of it's Congress.
Actually trading Greenland for Florida would have been a great counter response! Anyone thinking that Denmark would be serious would be a total idiot, and obviously Trump could get the idea. Denmark could have easily used this bizarre incident to be in the limelight and to show that Denmark has humor.
Trump wants to horse around and the best response is to horse around back. The guy is just a celebrity bored with the official things the POTUS has to do.
And anyway, if he (Trump) now is serious and angry after the Danes said so badly to him, why not really consider clandestine support of the Greenland Independence Front I referred earlier? :razz:
Weren't you saying the other day that hyperbole is common speech, and repeating accusations of Orwellian thought policing that you got from Fox News?
I hear a lot of Trump supporters praising Trump for "firing back" with insults and degrading statements, while complaining only about the low behavior when it's directed at Trump. Here's how you avoid being hypocritical: call out inappropriate behavior regardless of who's engaging in it.
You’re right about the genetic fallacy, though I can’t find what is bad. Beyond the words, I have trouble finding one injustice.
I think it’s for the better, frankly. He’s ridding the office of the political correctness and political niceties that we’ve come too accustomed to, in my opinion. I think it’s refreshing to know what the most powerful person in the world is thinking, even If I don’t agree with it, as opposed to the public/private views and public relations style politics of before. I think that kind of transparency is important for democracy.
I think firing back is completely appropriate, and wholly deserved.
Over 12k lies since taking office is being transparent? Granted his lies are transparent and they appear to come as naturally to him as breathing. What you may not appreciate is that they are tactical, and in that sense he's being a politician. Indeed, he's branded himself as a 'non-politician' who 'speaks his mind' or whatever. That's PR, just not the sort we're used to, because it's amid at a deplorable forgotten flyover demographic. A demographic where solidarity with the herd is more important than the truth.
Somehow it seems appropriate in a topic about Trump.
My ma wants California.
Not really the topic of chat much in those parts, just a casual grin.
Don't even recall seeing anything about it on the news, though I didn't watch TV that much.
Wasn't aware there'd been some sort of official comment.
But my ma wants California.
Indeed! Any firing back on that moronic guy in the oval office is richly deserved! Thanks for giving us carte blanche to say what we think of the pussy-grabbing jerk. I'm an agnostic, but I sincerely hope there's a hell he can rot in when he dies.
...
Man that felt good to express my feelings so openly! But I hope it's obvious how unproductive it is to engage in trash talk. It just inflames the side you're trashing, likely resulting in more of the same. Trump appeals to his base (like you) this way, but it is inflamatory -causing fighting back, and escalating the bad feelings on all sides.
By mentioning the fact that the US guards Greenland (and other places), he appeared to be proposing that the US has a special status wrt obtaining ownership of Greenland.
But to praxis's point: isn't it funny that we're talking about this instead of something important?
Trump made the grave mistake of quoting a compliment in a tweet. The quote, which spanned 4 tweets, said that the Jewish people,”love him like he’s the second coming of god”.
This, in combination with his use of the phrase “I’m the chosen one” in a recent q&a, reduced the press to describing Trump as having a messiah complex to obfuscate the obvious point of the compliment: Jews love him
Trump Declares Himself King of Israel, Second Coming of God. (He didn’t).
This is the sort of word politics and policing we’re dealing with here. No injustice, no tyranny, no authoritarianism, just crimes of speech and political correctness.
So, pulling out of the Paris climate accord? The Iran deal?
Putting a climate change denier at the head of the EPA? Giving his relatives government positions they have no qualifications for?
Kinda halfway demolishing Obamacare without an alternative set up?
Separating children from their parents at the border (we have talked about this before, I want to know whether it's bad, not whether it's worse than under Obama)? The wall?
Quoting NOS4A2
What I think you're missing is that, without political correctness, there is nothing keeping politics from turning into civil war. Once you think it's okay to belittle and dehumanise you political opponents, why should you then follow the rules of a peaceful transfer of power?
I think if you stick to real, legit criticisms you’ll have no issue with me. Criticisms of policy decisions are legit.
But the outrage machine, who follow the propaganda model to a “t”, is using techniques that need to be condemned,
So, for example, the way Trump attacks the ‘squad’ should be condemned. Agreed.
I don’t get why people try hold Trump to the same standard of the press. One is a politician, the other is meant to inform the public.
One is a for-profit media organization, the other is the President of the United States.
Are you really trying to say that Trump should be held to a lower standard than, say, CNN?
When we’re comparing the entire 4th estate to the president’s tweets? Yes. Again, one is ethically tasked with keeping the public informed, the other is not.
We were talking about propaganda techniques, that includes deception to some degree. It's unclear how you justify the President doing this but not the press.
Isn't the president tasked - not just ethically - to represent the nation?
Whitehouse propaganda is tame by any measure. Go look at their videos, for example. It’s all videos of Melania visiting schools and Trump meeting kids from the special olympics. Besides, it pales in comparison to the scope and reach of the entire 4th estate.
Yes, and he certainly does represent the nation, whether they like it or not.
It's worth noting that the 4th estate also includes Fox News and Breitbart, who are hardly engaged propaganda against Trump.
Quoting NOS4A2
I wonder why you dodge all questions about whether Trump's behaviour is appropriate, ethically, constitutionally or otherwise. Perhaps that's just your style of trolling, but I am not sure yet.
It’s also worth noting you guys keep bringing up Fox News and breitbart, but oddly never the rest.
Sure, I think it’s appropriate, but then again I don’t want a pope or a lawyer running things.
Getting back to the example of Trump attacking the 'squad', in an interview Trump said, "The first lady thinks that it's horrible what they've said about Israel and horrible what they've said about our country, these congresswomen. They can't call our country and our people 'garbage.' They can't be anti-Semitic. They can't talk about evil Jews, which is what they say. 'Evil Jews,' ".
In both cases, he was twisting a quote to bolster his allegation that "they hate our country."
You call that tame? I don't think even Breitbart puts that much of a twist on what liberals say.
Why not?
That’s politics, but I don’t see how that gives licence for the press to do the same thing. There is a standard of journalistic ethics that the yellow journalism of today has tossed to the wind.
What has a pope or lawyer ever done, besides talk?
Yes, I too miss the good old days when the media was completely objective and honest. :love:
Right next to the good old days when politicians were truth-telling saints.
And all of his objectionable policies relating to tax cuts, foreign policy, immigration, the enivonment, trade, gun control, healthcare...
If a pope and a lawyer stand for high ethics and intelligence/competence, respectively, you're suggesting that a lack of these qualities leads to increased productivity. Even if that were true, the results of that productivity are likely to be of poor quality and largely self-serving.
So Trump should be condemned, as you condemn the media.
If the point of a leader is to speak political niceties, engage in public relations and sing the public lullabies, hell, any actor would be fit for the role.
The point of a leader is to lead. Trump only leads his base, which is not even half the nation. And let's not forget that Trump is a TV celebrity. He owes his presidency to that celebrity.
Does anyone doubt that his role as a conservative is an act?
He also has half a century worth of leadership experience.
I think Trump is one of the most liberal presidents in a long time. He upended the GOP so much that they welcome the LGBT community with open arms, something that was unthinkable only 5 years ago.
It's reported that in some of those years he lost more money than practically any American, which could make him the worst businessman in history. Then how is he so rich, you ask? His father, who gave him over 400 million and, by the way, was making money in the years that Trump was losing it.
It's hard to tell if he's liberal or conservative because he doesn't appear to actually stand for anything.
Not quite true. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway lost $4.3 billion in a single day. Wouldn’t call him the worst businessman in history. It’s in the nature of business to have gains and losses.
In what way? ‘cause from what I’ve seen he’s being taking away LGBT protections.
“LGBT protections.” For instance?
I don’t have a subscription to the WaPo. Can you formulate your own argument here, or absent that, summarize the WaPo?
Okay, he's the second worst businessman in history. In any case, the act (as seen on The Apprentice) is that he's a great businessman.
Lol. No, that would be Abe Lincoln, who’s business record was %100 failure.
We don't need to look at ancient history, unfortunately. All of Trumps meddling with foreign trade, damaging American industries and raising prices for consumers, and the trade deficit is still higher than it was under the Obama administration.
Arguably, yes, trump has little time for the transgendered argument and their “protections”. I shouldn’t have said LGBT and limited the nonsensical acronym to LGB.
This sentiment seems at the heart of a lot of support for Trump, but I just can't wrap my head around it. Basically it seems to imply there are not actually any virtuous people. Anyone who looks virtuous is merely an actor playing, and is in reality just as much of a lying asshole. So it's better to have someone in charge who is obviously a lying asshole, since at least they can't be worse than they appear.
Did I get that about right?
Did you miss these parts?
I fully agree with deregulation. But it would be absurd to claim, without evidence, that he is doing it for the sole purpose of making discrimination legal.
What? This makes no sense. It was illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and Trump is trying to make it so that it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
If Trump thinks it's better for people to be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation than for there to be regulations that protect LGB people from discrimination then Trump isn't LGB-friendly. It's absurd to claim otherwise.
Hahahahaha!
It makes complete sense. He’s cutting red tape. That specific EO awards contracts to only to companies that have LGBT protections, and discriminated against those that don’t. It’s not about allowing people to discriminate, but ending government discrimination.
This is laughable. Trump wants to allow LGBT discrimination. He isn’t LGBT friendly. You’re delusional to think otherwise, if you aren’t just knowingly gaslighting.
Right, you know what Trump wants. Then why can’t you quote him expressing such sentiment? Because you are referring to fantasy.
The trade deficit is almost irrelevant in comparison to capital flows. You can have a perpetual trade deficit as long as it's funded by foreign direct investment.
For whatever reason, Trump made a campaign promise to reduce the trade deficit.
Suddenly, his words matter again.
Yes, well spotted. His earlier remarks are so absurd that he can't help but slip back into contradiction. Of course, the sensible thing to do in this situation would be for him to concede and withdraw his earlier remarks, but I somehow doubt that that's what he'll do.
I was talking about your assumptions regarding trump’s states of mind. I was talking about your fantasizing.
He's like a pet.
Uh oh, Trump said something that ran afoul of Washington political correctness. Apparently he wasn’t as precise as they wish he was.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/23/trump-el-paso-hospital-doctors-operating-rooms/
Trump, chosen by millions of people to lead the country, calls himself “the chosen one”. The press believes he thinks he was chosen by god, even if he says he was chosen by “people” shortly after.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/aug/22/trump-says-he-is-the-chosen-one-to-take-on-china-video
Treats are given to performing monkeys so that they continue to entertain us.
Poor pup has an Elizabethan collar. So he can’t lick his wounds, I imagine.
That was actually a good one. I was getting worried that the people here were not only humorless, but poor at insults.
Makes for poor peripheral vision, thus the banging into walls.
Meh, not so great. That’s a shame because the bar isn’t really that high.
It's kind of adorable how hard he tries.
Dementia or a bad joke? Either way, it's not a good sign.
Which would explain:
How about Oct. 29?
The comment has many responses, mostly in agreement (although it's a truism that NYT readership is overwhelmingly anti-Trump.) But, brings the point into sharp focus: this President is endangering the nation, the economy, the environment, and global stability. And 90% of Republicans think he's doing a 'great job'. How is this possible? Is it something in the water? And when are some responsible Republicans - surely there are some? - going to step up and say what the whole world is seeing: unfit to lead.
Unfortunately this is now normal political discourse. One cannot fruitfully engage with people who do not care about self-contradiction. One has to recognise that the time for talking and listening has ended.
Sadly I think that that's true. Hopefully at the next opportunity there will be a change from Trump-Johnson to Bernie-Corbyn.
This is a feature, not a bug. It enables Trump supporters to hear whatever they want to hear. You want gun background checks? You don't want background checks? No problem: there's Trump comments supporting both sides of this. It's a buffet of words: pick our what you like, and ignore the rest.
Imagine a president bending to the will of the people he governs. The thought is almost unthinkable.
You're idealizing a non-existent scenario. The people do not have a single will. The phenomenon I identified is of individuals inferring from his words that the president is bending to THEIR will, while those with the opposite opinion feeling he is bending to their will. Why don't contradictions matter to you guys?
He’s hearing countless arguments from countless advisors and opponents, supporters and antitrumpissts alike. Perhaps he is taking account of both sides. I don’t see the contradiction in entertaining opposing arguments.
If you listen to everything he says carefully, you can perhaps see his opinion evolving. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but he does tend to make declarations that he will do X, and later change his mind and declare he's going to do Y. How do you know when he'll really do what he says he'll do, since he changes his mind so much? This also suggests that his initial declaration were not the product of sound deliberation. Where's that $2B of infrastructure money? Where's that fantastic health care plan?
Not everyone listens to him that carefully. They may not notice his shifting positions, but when they hear what they want to hear - they remember this. When he doesn't say what they want to hear, they either ignore it or assume that since he's so brilliant, he'll eventually come around to do what they think is right.
Couple this with his rhetorical hypocrisy: he's simultaneously on both sides of a moral principle. Pleading the 5th implies there's something to hide when it's a political enemy, but when he's called upon to provide information, he's unwilling or secretive. He casts direct insults on political opponents and even on foreign allies, but he can't take even a negative reaction to some ridiculous idea he had (buying Greenland). Trump's diehard fans forgive all this - they don't judge actions and words on principle, they judge on whether you're with him or against him.
People thought the purchase of Alaska was stupid. The Danes sold the Virgin Islands to the US for $25 million. These aren’t stupid ideas and the outrage about it was misinformed.
I don’t know about Trump supporters, but it’s the routine snobbery I oppose. You don’t like the way Trump talks and I respect that, but not liking the way the president talks is not sufficient enough to justify obstructing the office or the president from doing his job. It doesn’t justify the marches, some being the biggest in history, when not a single injustice was involved.
I'm sorry, but your rationalization of Trump's behavior on the subject is misinformed. It's absolutely understandable why the Danes would consider the idea absurd, and Trump attacking the PM for stating this is a new low (if that is possible). Understand, I'm fine with thinking outside the box. Doing so can result in both the brilliant and the idiotic. You discover which by floating the idea and getting feedback. The appropriate thing to do is to accept the feedback, not to take it as an insult and fight back.
Trump's words both anger and scare people. They inflame emotions on both sides.Trump supporters applaud Trump "fighting back", no matter how low he goes. Marches and demonstrations are the public fighting back.
"Obstructing" the office? What actions have been inappropriately obstructed? Energy is certainly spent on political fighting, but has Trump done ANYTHING to rise above politics? Both his rhetoric and his policies have been extremely partisan and inflammatory, and thus polarizing. Push back is the consequence.
Yes, his opposition is inflamed by tweets and out of context quotes, so much so that we’ve reached levels of mass hysteria. The era of public relations politics is over.
The stupidity is in the method, making it publicly known that I want to buy Greenland, instead of discussing this possibility with those who currently govern that land. How would you feel if the rich guy from a couple of neighbourhoods over, was going around telling everyone that he was intending to buy you out of your house? Any misinformation here is the fault of the president. But why would the president misinform his own people?
He didn’t state it publicly. Like many of these stories some “official” told the press, they sensationalized it, the Danish prime minister criticized it. More misinformation.
There are certainly some inappropriate reactions to Trump, and I don't rationalize or excuse them. However there's a lot of appropriate, negative reactions. The "mass hysteria" charge, and the term "Trump derangement syndrome" are used to conflate, and therefore dismiss, all negative reactions to Trump. I'd love to see Trump supporters who could be as discerning of his comments, rather than the knee-jerk rationalization of everything he says or tweets.
It’s not so much rationalizing what he said as it is opposition to the word-policing, snobbery, fear and gossip mongering.
As an example, once he called some countries “sh-thole” countries in a private meeting. One little tattle-tale ran to the press and ratted him out. The comments—but actually the fevered reporting on the topic—resulted in a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or injustice occurring around around that same time.
Trump supporters embraced Trump's disdain of political correctness. They should have expected reactions like this - it's not treating Trump differently; it's treating political incorrectness consistently (whether or not you agree with it). I've been called out for making politically incorret statements before, and when I do - I own up to it and apologize. That's something Trump never does - instead he doubles down.
In this case, Trump's comment demonstrates callousness toward the unfortunate people who live in these countries. The proper response would have been to apologize and acknowledge their conditions. But Trump is incapable of admitting he ever does anything wrong. THAT is the real problem with his political incorrectness.
You say, "it's not so much rationalizing"... OK then, please identify some comment or tweets of Trump's that you consider inappropriate. I can easily find some anti-Trump rhetoric I consider inappropriate.
I’d rather not. I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice.
I trust you weren't one of those Trump zealots who made an issue of Hillary's comment about "deplorables", nor at Omar's comment, "It's all about the Benjamins", with regard to the Israel lobby.
If you think it's unfair to attack Trump, then do you also think it unfair when Trump attacks? e.g. calling "the squad" racist? What about his false assertion that AOC called Americans "garbage?"
It's hypocrisy to object to attacks on Trump while either accepting or defending Trump's attacks on others.
You’d be wrong.
I did not make an issue of anyone’s comments, is what I meant. The principle was employed consistently.
I don’t think I’ve used the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. If I did, please quote me because I do not think I would use the term. Then again I cannot remember. But I think the correct term is “post-election stress disorder”.
Yes, it is. But I think there is justification for it. I’d also argue there is evidence of aggression-based schadenfreude.
Reactionary responses to Trump are reaching absurd and dangerous levels.
Yup.
As far as I can tell, telling the press is a way of making it publicly known.
Quoting NOS4A2
You ARE making an issue of people's comments, then. This is hypocrisy.
He did not tell the press.
I am not making an issue of people’s comments. I’m making an issue of anti-Trumpism and the behavior of those who adhere to it.
25,600 is still much higher than any of his predecessors. It hovered around 15,000 when he came into office.
What does "anti-Trumpism" consist of? How does it differ from "anti-Obamaism"? Politics always produces reactions. What is different with Trump is that he says and does so much that many find repulsive -so much more than past Presidents. It's always action/reaction, and that's why it's hypocritical to ignore the Trump actions to which people react.
For reasons that shouldn’t need to be explained, markets and the economy in general doesn’t respond well to instability or unpredictability.
Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it.
I just can’t get on board with the word-policing and snobbery. I must admit it would be easier to wag my finger and hop on the bandwagon, but it’s reaching levels of persecution.
So if Trump had worked to improve the Affordable Care Act rather than damage it, not waste billions on a border wall, cared about the environment and practiced responsible regulation reform, etc etc, these so called anti-trumpist would still want to sacrifice the country to get him out of office?
It's natural for human beings to have conflicting desires. I want Trump to fail because that would make his reelection unlikely. I also don't want the country ruined. Trying to conflate these natural impulses into an "ideology" is beyond idiotic. Even Trump and Fox News haven’t gone that far.
That's political hyperbole that both sides use. Everyone always wants the opposition party to fail to enact the policies they don't like -policies they consider bad for the country, and the attacked party responds as you're doing, conflating failure to enact perceived bad policy with failure to do good things.
Instead, you wag your finger at the people who are concerned about the things Trump says. That's hypocrisy: you pretend to be above judging people, and then proceed to judge.
Is it OK with you if Trump fans the flames of racism, or is it just that you think Trump is being judged unfairly? If the former, you should certainly understand why people who don't like racism would react as they do. If the latter, you should recognize that it's a judgment call - just because YOU don't think he's encouraging racism (even if inadvertantly), you should recognize that others assess him differently. It is snobbery to act as if you are in the superior position to judge.
They’ve already tried to sell us the notion of a dark future before the election—recession, race wars, nuclear fallout, concentration camps, the second coming of Hitler, Russian influence, ecological collapse—and they are doing everything in their power to make this a reality.
Trump isn’t a racist, nor does he fan those flames. That’s the sport of anti-Trumpists who utilize that canard for the sake of power seeking.
I never said nor implied I was above judging people. I would suggest trying to put words in another’s mouth is bad form.
I don't believe it appropriate to judge people, including Trump, because we can't see what's in their heart. However, judging behavior is appropriate - and Trump's behavior (in terms of both words and actions) CLEARLY appeals to racists, and he avoids distancing himself from them. This normalizes their behavior - which indeed fans the flames.
You are free to disagree, but please don't claim your judgment is anything other than partisan. The only negative judgments you've made are against those who disagree with and dislike Trump, and you repeat the same old partisan tropes.
The anti-trumpists are doing everything in their power to cause environmental and economic collapse, nuclear fallout, concentration camps, etc.?
You appear to have contracted Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome. As a possible remedy, I suggest that you stop watching Fox News.
It’s not partisan because Trump has denounced racists and racism from the beginning. It’s actually you who is partisan because you refuse to see it.
The media is spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump himself. It is the media spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump. They are emboldened and normalized by the media, not Trump.
Trump has read denouncements from the teleprompter, and I don't ignore it, I applaud this. But I also call out the bad behavior, and this bad behavior (which is predominantly off the cuff, unfiltered, unquestionably a product of his OWN mind) is not negated by the good.
You, on the other hand, completely ignore the bad behavior. You hide behind a superior attitude: "I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice". Political incorrectness means inadvertantly saying something that some people find offensive. This is forgiven when one apologizes and recognizes the feelings of the offended. It goes beyond PC when he just defends his actions, and it's not negated by reciting a prepared speech (although I am glad he delivers those). In my personal opinion, I think he is simply incapable of ever admitting he's done anything wrong. But the effect is the same: racists love him, and it normalizes racist behavior.
Judgments of Trump are a consequence of the words he unapologetically uses. Even if merely spoken out of political correctness, the fact is that there are predictable consequences to doing so, and there are appropriate responses he COULD make: acknowledging those who are offended, and apologizing for inadvertantly offending. Voters who embraced his political incorrectness should have anticipated that this would cause a backlash. Instead you condemn them for not being like an idealized version of you who merely disdains political correctness.
BTW, if it's wrong to call people racist, how do you rationalize Trump's calling people racist?
What bad behavior? Tweeting? Saying things that do not conform to the trite sensibilities of the media, celebrity and political class? And then refusing to apologize when finger waggers show up? Sorry, I think that’s exactly what the world needs right now.
Racists love Trump because the media claims he is one of them. But it’s not borne out by the facts.
That’s exactly it. the word-policing, not the results of his policies and actions, has resulted in the worst displays of anti-trumpism, which is more often than not plain old virtue-signalling. This virtue signalling can descend into violence and the suppression of human rights, for instance in Boston a couple years back, where a small free speech rally was descended upon by mobs throwing rocks and bottles of piss and the media wasn’t allowed access.
Show me an injustice or tyranny and I’ll be right there protesting against him. But I am not compelled to conform to the politically-correct orthodoxy, which is finally in its death throes.
Racism is not a Distraction, It's Policy
We buck the trend by calling it out the rhetoric when it happens.
What racist rhetoric?
That might just be the most stupid thing that you've said so far, and you even repeated yourself, just like Trump does. Not stupid because it is so wrong, but rather stupid because it is so bloody obvious that Trump wouldn't spin himself as racist, regardless of whether he is actually racist or not.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're not going to be able to see it if you're wilfully blind.
Saying something “is bloody obvious” is insufficient enough reason for me to believe it. It’s more evidence of weak argument than anything else.
"Vote for me in 2020! I'm a racist!".
What I see is the use of false accusations for the purpose of achieving power. Using your specious manipulation skills, which never turn out to have the effect you pretend they do, you won’t see it because you’re wilfully blind.
The stuff you pay no attention to, because you don't care what people say (except when aggregated into what you label a "mass hysteria" backlash against Trump).
I'll point out that his racist comments are but one aspect of Trump, and not even the most significant quality that invokes the backlash against him that you label "mass hysteria." The biggest issue is his disdain of truth. It's hilarious watching his staff rationalize the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. I expect this is just one more thing YOU don't care about, but most of the rest of the world values truth - and this understandably creates a well-deserved backlash.
Seriously, no matter how much you like what Trump does, nor how insignficant YOU consider his words, I cannot fathom how you could be so clueless as to why his words and actions create such strong negative feelings toward him. You don't have to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon, but goodness - can you be that blind?
Really, the backlash against Trump’s words has eclipsed any backlash in modern history.
The Woman’s March, the biggest protest in American history, occurred because Trump said “grab em by the p***y” in private a decade previously, and they wore the silly little hats to prove it. You know who marched in that protest? Harvey Weinstein.
No marching for the people in Hong Kong? No marching for the Uyghurs? No marching against injustice and tyranny and genocide?
Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?
I don’t care whether you accept them or not.
Trump's behavior is unprecedented. Review this list of lies (which is but a small subset). He personally contributes to the spread of fake news including the spreading conspiracy theories (e.g. implying Clinton had Epstein killed), while concurrently labellling anything he doesn't like as "fake news". It's hilarious listening to his staff try to force fit his nonsense into something truthy. The silence of most Congressional Republicans on his antics adds to the frustration. No prior President has hurled insults with such frequency.
If you don't understand why this unprecedented behavior would arouse people, you're in denial. All I can surmise is that you like the policies he has implemented, you don't care what he says, and you believe anyone who doesn't share your opinion on this is crazy.
Zero injustice, zero tyranny, zero reason to eschew the ethics of journalism and the democratic process. It’s all word crimes. You are crying wolf.
You aren't engaging with what I said. I'm explaining to you why the response to Trump is unprecedented. You seem unable to think beyond your own partisan views.
It’s unprecedented because it is not a backlash to any evil or injustice, but to tweets and comments. It’s unprecedented because it’s a backlash in service of power-seeking, not in the service of ending tyranny.
Actively seeking to silence your political opponents instead debating them. You’re a pantywaist and a censor.
Congratulations on being the first person to ever use that insult on this forum. :brow:
There might as well be one ardent defender of Trump on the boards. But best not to debate who should be banned or not here. It's off-topic
Sorry, I’m trying to keep it civil here, despite the threats and ridicule.
You asked with and threatened me, I responded in good faith, you went ahead anyways by your own admission. So who is the liar?
No I think threatening others, then following through with the threat despite me doing what you asked, is uncivil at best, downright dangerous at worst. That you won’t apply your own censorial standards to yourself, and without irony, proves all I care to know.
I’ve corrected the indictment, proved it false, proved the hypocrisy, and will leave you to them.
You say “mostly,” and given your penchant for hyperbole, this claim is rather meaningless.
As this article states:
"Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented in politics"
It seems to me that the quantity of backlash per lie is actually much lower with Trump than with Obama, or any prior President.
Putin outsmarted Obama by annexing the Crimea and Obama was so butthurt by this he got Russia kicked out of the G8???
Dementia or a bad joke? Either way, it's not a good sign.
A lie is a falsity with an intention to deceive. No backlashes are warranted when one says something wrong. The outrage is premised on the fundamental attribution error, assuming malicious motives, and further assuming you’ve assumed correctly. When will the burning in effigy turn to burning at the stake?
I was generously treating Trump's many untruths the same as the right treated Obama. Obama was not intending to deceive, but the reaction from the right treated it that way. Obama later acknowledged he was wrong, and apologized for his bad prediction. Trump owes us quite a few apologies.
[Quote]No backlashes are warranted when one says something wrong. The outrage is premised on the fundamental attribution error, assuming malicious motives, and further assuming you’ve assumed correctly. When will the burning in effigy turn to burning at the stake?[/quote]
Wrong. It is in the general interest to set the record straight when any sort of untruth is put forward. That is more than adequate warrant. Certainly Trump is not always trying to deceive - he probably actually believes the global warming scare is a Chinese conspiracy, that vaccines cause autism and that Muslims in the U.S. were celebrating 9/11. He probably really doesn't believe the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. I'm sure he really believed there were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 election.
Despite these not being technically lies, they should be every bit as concerning and certainly warrant being called out. We should all hope that policies are based on facts, not misconceptions. The cause for concern transcends individual untruths; it's concerning that he seems to have little regard for facts, unless they happen to coincide with what he already believes. Not believing the Intelligence Agencies he leads? That's bizarre.
Actually, I think they should change his title to Resident Trump, as he merely resides at the White House; in no way does he act as an actual President. Only one letter difference!
You failed to address my argument and ran to the authorities to seek my suppression. Bad faith, censorship, hypocrisy, and general worm-like cowardice.
Ugh, the sanctimonious piffle is all nonsense in lieu of your authoritarian hypocrisy. Please, if you could engage my arguments about the topic you might redeem yourself.
Positions of power make or enforce the law. Also, if people like Trump supporters accept lies as a sign of solidarity with their tribe, it’s unlikely that truth itself will be an effective antidote. Truth will never be as valued to them as their group identity or tribe is. I think all that can be done is somehow change the group narrative to a positive direction (rather than Trumps direction). He changing the meaning of American conservatism, and not for the better.
So we’re you lying that they were lies? Shouldn’t you now apologize?
Yes, Trump isn’t some technocrat or academic or lawyer. He doesn’t speak eloquently like Obama, or apologize when he gets something wrong. But that’s the problem: all you guys want are slick talkers, people who will enforce the bounds of political correctness and sing you lullabies when the going gets tough. But what has a slick talker or ivy-league lawyer ever really done? What have they created?
You can google all of Obama’s accomplishments yourself.
You can also google all of Trumps failures yourself.
By the way, they say it’s easier to destroy than to create. Trump couldn’t even destroy the Affordable Care Act, despite his best efforts, and majority control of both the house and senate.
I voted for Obama twice. I actually like him. But If you’re aware of his biography, he was a community organizer, a lawyer, a senator, and finally the president: all “accomplishments” he achieved by talking. Has he created anything? Has he built anything?
Did you see the example of the Affordable Care Act? Take a look at my last post again if you missed the addition.
Do you think Obama devised and wrote the affordable care act? That’s just not the case. Hell, they mostly stole Mitt Romney’s ideas.
Lol, what, he didn’t do it entirely himself??? What a fraud!
Seriously, dude...
I asked if Obama created or built anything, you gave the example of the Affordable care act. Seriously dude.
Helped the Allies win the Second World War? (Winston Churchill).
Helped the Nazis rise to power? (Hitler)
Your reasoning is absurd (as usual). ANY accomplishment by anyone is more or less attributable to the contributions of others.
I have not lied once. You have been demonstrably proven a liar.
Well, I was talking about the last few presidents, but sure, point taken.
I already did show you. Your sanctimony and moral posturing were also proven lies and hypocrisy.
And yet, "words have no power", right?
Maybe you should focus on polices instead of words, as you've pressed others to do.
They don’t, as is evident by your powerless words.
The evidence shows you reacting to his words. Reacting childishly but reacting nevertheless.
There is zero doubt that Trump lies. I just acknowledge that some of his untruths are a product of ignorance, compounded with arrogance.
[Quote]Yes, Trump isn’t some technocrat or academic or lawyer. He doesn’t speak eloquently like Obama, or apologize when he gets something wrong. But that’s the problem: all you guys want are slick talkers, people who will enforce the bounds of political correctness and sing you lullabies when the going gets tough. But what has a slick talker or ivy-league lawyer ever really done? What have they created?[/quote]
I haven't been debating your views on Trump. I've been explaining why it is wrong to label reactions to him as "mass hysteria". Whether you embrace it or not, his level of untruthfulness is unprecedented for a President, so it should be no surprise that this results in unprecedented reactions.
I am astounded that you attack the very notion that people, particularly leaders, should be truthful and held accountable when they're not. This takes partisan rationalization to an unprecedented level. Trump is truly leading his followers to the dark side.
Anything to help his 2020 campaign...
And yet we just agreed that slick talkers have made significant achievements, which apparently had nothing to do with their "powerless words". I thought that Hitler rose to fame and power through his speeches in the beer halls, and that Churchill's speeches boosted British morale during the war, but I must have just dreamt that.
If true, that's contrary to faithfully executing the laws. Yet another valid article of impeachment.
Trump talks a lot, but you limit yourself to the few bite-sized, quote-mined, out of context selections of the anti-Trump press. You may know all his so-called “lies” and repeat them verbatim, but I wonder if you can express anything he said that was true? Or is that evidence the contrary strictly forbidden?
Yes, mass hysteria.
Oh right, you believe in sorcery.
That thing he said about covfefe. The rest of it was lies.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes. Hitler was a warlock, and Churchill was a wizard. Churchill was famed for his black Homburg hat, but little is it known that in private, when he was casting spells and such, he wore a purple conical-shaped hat with a broad brim.
A lie. It’s amazing that the very people who wag their finger at the president for his falsities have no qualms about spewing their own.
Maybe you should look up the difference between a lie and something said with tongue in cheek. Your idol has a proclivity for both.
Exactly. We can forgive each other’s hyperbole and sarcasm.
What's there to forgive? I thought words were powerless?
You believe in sorcery?
And the lies from Trump that you have just acknowledged in this post?
Quoting NOS4A2
Are you claiming it's false to claim he tells so many untruths - that it's all partisan distortion? !
Yes, it’s called card-stacking.
:lol:
Please show that the charges of falsehood documented here are actually partisan distortion. No rush, take your time. The exercise will do you good.
I already said, it’s card-stacking, which is a known propaganda technique. It might be best to learn to protect yourself against this instead of falling for it, and worse, reiterating it.
Over 12k lies since taking office is quite a stack indeed. You should learn to protect yourself from its influence.
Not lies. But it’s no strange wonder you’d all keep using that term—you’ve been taught to.
As I just pointed out. You just acknowledged the lies, perhaps unwittingly but there it is for us all to see.
That’s a lie.
S stated that Trump has a tendency to both lie and exaggerate. You responded with “exactly.” So you acknowledged his tendency to lie.
He also said “Maybe you should look up the difference between a lie and something said with tongue in cheek”, which is suspiciously but expectantly missing. That’s what I said “exactly” to.
Telling yourself little fantasies like that is the biggest hand wave. Not once have I challenged those mistruths and am giving them full benefit of the doubt. What I challenged was the card-stacking, which you’ve avoided. Scary indeed.
Nope.
This only makes your assessments less credible, if that’s possible, in that you acknowledge your lack of discernment regarding lies and tongue-n-cheek comments.
In any case, it seems obvious that you agreed unwittingly because that’s what you feel to be true, and simply forgot your troll position.
I provided a link to a fact-checking site, and this provides a rational justification for my beliefs about Trump. What's your rational justification for dismissing all the analyzed untruths it reports?
The New @FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!
Wow! Even Trump believes Fox worked for him, and thinks that's the way it should be!
Kudos to Fox for showing signs of independence.
Utterly shameless.
I haven’t disputed any of your links. What I have repeatedly dismissed is your uncompromising, puritanical political correctness, energy which might be better served if it was focused on injustice and tyranny instead of tweets.
Now you know what I feel. Sorcerers and mindreaders.
There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding. I did not ask if you care if I accept the counterpoints you've provided here. I asked if you thought/believed that they are/were acceptable - as in relevant, reasonable, valid, and/or otherwise 'rational' - replies to the remarks preceding them?
Off the top of my head, I remember at least a couple that made no sense in light of what they were supposed to be replying to.
I wouldn't get too hopeful. There are far too many unknown influencing variables for that particular Trumpian rant. Like a child without metacognitive skill... in freudian terms... without superego.
You said it was false to suggest Trump tells many untruths. Here's what you said:
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, it’s called card-stacking.[/quote]
==================================================
Quoting NOS4A2
So....telling the truth is just silly "political correctness", and valuing truth is "puritanical". LOL! Oh, the twists and turns Trump-devotees must make!
Well, it’s not like there’s a lot of depth to fathom. :razz:
I was affirming that, yes, it’s all a partisan distortion, which appears to be conveniently left out of what you claimed I said “yes” to, even though you asked it. I said it was card-stacking, something you have yet to dispute.
No, telling the truth is not political correctness, and no one has suggested such nonsense. Anti-Trumpist mental gymnastics on full display.
Do you seriously believe your cowardly “question” was going to get the response you wanted?
@Relativist thinks they're telling the truth, you blame them of political correctness - it seems pretty straightforward conclusion to draw, from their POV, that you're then calling truthfulness political correctness.
Wouldn't it be up to you to provide evidence of this supposed "card-stacking"?
You're going in circles. You also said:
"I haven’t disputed any of your links."
"Telling yourself little fantasies like that is the biggest hand wave. Not once have I challenged those mistruths and am giving them full benefit of the doubt. "
Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "card stacking", in light of your being willing to accept that these untruths are correctly characterized.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
It’s a silly yes or no question.
It's not silly to ask someone if they actually believe that what they are saying is acceptable. Normally, I grant the sincerity of a speaker. Here, I've good reason to suspect something else is driving the responses. As mentioned earlier... some of the replies make no sense in light of what preceded them. I would like to discuss those, and will... with or without your participation. Offering you a chance to defend your claims is the first step.
Resorting to the same ungrounded school-yard-style name calling will surely get both dirty...
I took your question as a round-about way of saying my arguments were unacceptable. If I’m wrong I apologize, but I wager that is exactly where you’re going to go if I answer. Of course, none of my opponents will receive the same treatment.
Not only are your metaphors evidence of poor imagination, but proof of bigotry and dehumanization, which is ironic because you’re guilty of all you have falsely accused me of.
I still maintain and for the exact reasons I stated.
You can find my response to your earlier request, which you reneged on before running to tattle
Good. We understand each other.
When one enters into a public philosophy forum and begins arguing, s/he/they enter into a voluntary obligation to defend their statements in light of valid criticism. I'm looking to critique. While doing so, I'll offer my own reasoning and/or justificatory ground for what I'm asserting.
Ready to get off the porch?
Whoa, that's quite a few logically possible sets of reasons that you've attributed to my words.
Lying is a part of the world. I'm not here to call out someone for deliberately misrepresenting their own thought/belief.
I'm here because someone needs to do this the right way...
Let "this" be provide a cogent counterargument. Let "the right way" indicate the quality of reasonably, respectfully, and undeniably cutting the common rhetorical media and pundit talking points(in Trump's favor) off at the knees.
Maybe you have the wrong kind of badger trap...
Pitter patter.
Zat it then?
Gratuitous assertions are unacceptable. Red Herrings are unacceptable. Poisoning the well is unacceptable. Ad homs are unacceptable. Non sequiturs are unacceptable. Incoherence/self-contradiction is unacceptable. Being in direct conflict with everyday events and knowledge is unacceptable.
Do you care about meeting standards?
The standards you apply selectively? I don’t care about meeting double standards.
Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/spies-react-trump-g7-summit-russian-asset-2019-8#gopG9J67wfZ5lstJ.99
The standards of acceptable debate apply to us both equally.
Do you need my blessing to begin or something?
That's just hilarious in light of the political actions in the UK and the USA. What are you? A fossil?
Do you care about meeting standards?
I'm not conflating this conversation with current political events. I can expect someone to follow the rules of acceptable debate and it can be the case that current politicians do not adhere to those rules.
No. I'm not.
Realise you're frequenting a website where people will use ad homs while debating nothing. And they all think they're capable of civilized debate.
I’m still awaiting your critique.
How many more pages of his trolling do you need to convince you that he does not?
There’s only one way to stop a troll from trolling and that is to deny them attention. Personally, I don’t think he should be stopped. As someone mentioned, it’s good that there’s at least one person participating in this topic with a different view, even if he’s just playing around. Of course it would be better if he met higher standards, but considering that he’s a Trump supporter, it’s probably unrealistic to ask for better.
Yes, I’ve seen it. But I wasn’t talking about the forum.
Let me put it this way, if you offered a higher standard of opposition no one would complain about its quality.
I have yet to be convinced that these so-called high standards are applied to anyone but me, the only dissenter.
Frankly, I suspect that you haven’t been banned because you’re the only dissenter (Trump supporter) in this topic.
Yes, it’s crazy that I could be met with all sorts of abuse and false accusations and ridicule, while I should be banned for...trolling? I guess these are the high standards we’re talking about.
The abuse, accusations, and ridicule is all well deserted, I’m afraid.
Members are banned all the time for low quality contributions. Not sure how low is too low. They haven’t banned me yet so their standards can’t be that high.
It appears the going rate for quality contributions in this thread is copying and pasting news articles and signalling to each other our anti-trump bona fides, and then accusing opponents of peddling Fox News and breitbart talking points.
Stop doing that.
Don’t forget the high quality abuse and ridicule thrown at you. You can’t get that just anywhere.
Some of it was trite and badly written, but yours was good.
In light of the upcoming IG report on FISA abuses, this raises a question. What other rules did Comey and his disgraced coterie break along the way?
Indeed. No argument here. It still needs to be done.
I'm awaiting your word... your agreement... that we will both work from the standards of acceptable debate.
Do I have your word?
I’m not sure I can make such a promise given the political nature. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I run afoul. I can at least offer good faith.
That's good. I'm not sold on the sincerity. Forgive my skepticism.
The notion of "good faith" is much too vague.
Will you recognize and honor the rules of acceptable debate? They provide the framework for civilized discussion between participants. They allow reasoned discussion to happen. They help to foster an ability to compare/contrast opposing and/or contrasting opinions/statements/world-views. They eliminate overt agression and inevitably reveal covert(passive) aggression.
Bear with me...
You want to have a formal debate with no resolution, but with your arbitrary rules?
I’m not sold on your sincerity, your dismissal of my good intentions, nor your rigid idea of “acceptable debate”, whatever that means.
:roll:
You can easily review any portion of creativesoul’s posts and see his sincerity for yourself, as well as get an idea of what acceptable debate is. It strikes me as a bad faith statement to claim ignorance of what acceptable debate is, by the way.
Iran is Muslim. Also Jared Kushner.
It’s a great picture. Of course, the president can declassify whatever he pleases.
It might be a geopolitical thing rather than a political thing, but that would be interesting to know.
I do not know your intentions. I didn't dismiss your good intentions. I'm skeptical - rightly so given your hesitance to give your word.
Hence, upfront... here in the beginning... I'm asking for your word. Good intentions and 'good faith' discussions are proven by following the rules of acceptable debate. I'm not making them up. I'm pointing them out and advocating for their use. Would you like a full list/description?
You entered into a debate here. Are you prepared to follow the rules of acceptable(civil) debate?
Do I have your word?
What does the political nature of the discussion have to do with following the rules of debate?
Reminds me of Nixon's, "But when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".
Scary.
That’s not true at all. Good faith has nothing to do with your “rules of acceptable debate”. Besides, they are not rules so much as they are arbitrary demands.
I do not give my word that I will follow some arbitrary rules, and conform my thought and speech to your rigid demands, which seem to be pulled from thin air. So please, begin or not.
The president has every right, and I would even argue the duty, to classify what he wants.
I’ve never seen a formal debate without a structure and resolution, but only a list of a few fallacies that are strictly forbidden.
According to what, or who? Either way, that's a recipe for disaster. A healthy democracy requires checks and balances, not a dictator who can do what he likes.
What's not true at all?
That.
If you know them, what's the hesitation? That list wasn't meant to be complete.
That’s not true at all. Good faith has nothing to do with your “rules of acceptable debate”.
What’s your hesitation on beginning the “debate”? It’s been a few pages of you doing this now.
Never said it did. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.
I'm waiting for you to give your word to follow the rules of acceptable debate. You - evidently - know them already.
That's true.
Evidently I think your “rules” are made up from thin air.
That’s not true at all.
Well no. You do not believe that. You know that there are rules for debate and that they are not of my own making.
Now you know what I believe and know. Are you psychic?
So much for “acceptable debate”.
Your so-called “rules of debate” are made up whole cloth. Your demands are unnecessary, and you cannot even follow them. What a waste of time.
What's not true at all?
Lol. I wish I would have thought of that, to be honest.
Thought of what?
I’d hate to say ‘I told ya so’, if I did. :razz:
Accepting arbitrary rules of debate is to engage honestly, sincerely and respectfully in clown world?
Feigning ignorance of debate rules is clownish, if that's what you're asking.
I dare you to find a single one of those supposed “rules of acceptable debate” in any debating format. But don’t bother, there are no such rules.
Go to the top of your web browser and in the address bar copy and paste: “rules of acceptable debate,” then hit return. You will then be presented with a list of resources. I’m afraid it’s up to you to make use of it.
That’s right, anyone can look for themselves, there are no such rules in any debate format. I’m not feigning ignorance; you’re feigning knowledge.
What rules are you referring to exactly?
Trump is, in his own eyes "the greatest deal maker ever". His MO as president is to nullify or cancel as many deals which were made before him as possible, asserting that they are terrible deals, and then he sets to renegotiating them with the tactics of a bully. He has cancelled the "Iran deal", calling it, "the worst deal ever" (which of course is what he called NAFTA, and probably many other deals he's cancelled like TPP). Now he's in the bullying stage, which is his route to negotiating a new deal. In the case of Putin and Kim, there's been no cancelled deal to renegotiate and he's buttering them up, probably hoping to get something from them (unless the rumours are true, that Putin already has something on him, then it's a different story).
All good. I was just curious if s/he/they would give their word.
Seriously speaking, Trump is one of the worst possible deal makers ever, but the perfect example how it doesn't matter at all as some Americans put on a pedestal and worship any person that has the balls to outright lie with ease about his awesome abilities and success. It simply doesn't matter that the person is full of bullshit. If the person is against what these people don't like, anything goes. The lies are totally OK when they anger the people who you hate.
Besides, the mantra of yelling out loud how astoundingly rich and successful one is has this mesmerizing effect on one part of the American crowd that takes these people with a narcissistic personality disorder as quasi-religious saints, victors of the American dream, and disregard totally the lies, because they simply are awed by the "balls" that these person have in their self-promotion. Anyone voicing the obvious facts that these people are liars and charlatans are simply seen as jealous 'un-American' pinko-liberals, who don't believe in the American dream.
Precisely. It's a lot more about tribal groups than it is about actual content. If you can make your enemy feel bad, that means you win.
Not only “pinko-liberals”, but snobs and champagne socialists as well. It’s no strange wonder that the unmitigated consternation of antiTrumpism is magnified by the voices of celebrities, corporate public relations and coastal elites. All they have to do is turn on the television to have their biases confirmed.
Sure. For some the fear and/or worry of andor about Trump is magnified - in part at least - by confirmation bias.
The consternation of Trump is also magnified as a direct result of a multitude of different personalities sharing similar thoughts and/or concerns regarding Trump. Many different people from many different walks of life have openly voiced consternation of Trump. These people differ across the board, including but certainly not limited to, those mentioned in the above quote.
If what's being confirmed is true... well. It's not always such a bad thing after-all. True thought/belief makes the best ground.
This rings true...
Denying/dismissing political correctness does not offer license for otherwise unacceptable behavior.
It’s also magnified by the worst kind of sensationalism. Up until the election and beyond, Trump was compared to every brutal dictator in recent history, from Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, to Mugabe—hundreds of millions of victims between them—even if Trump has never engaged in any injustice or abuse of power. Whether it was the press, late night television, magazines, politicians, comedians, we never had a shortage of people crying wolf, and never a shortage of people believing them.
Here’s a link to an article that I read back when the Trumpian nightmare began:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump
“their biases confirmed” = confirmation bias. Stop being the fool.
It also has to do with the war on language itself.
George Carlin makes a good case against political correctness here. It’s worth a listen.
Begging the question(regarding whether or not Trump has abused his power over people) and a bit ironic(as a result of the characterization of "the worst kind" of sensationalism).
How you depict the Anti-Trump crowd is quite similar how the Anti-Bernie / Anti-AOC etc. camp could be described..just coming from another perspective.
This is the way tribalism spreads.
You see, at first you don't like some politician because of his or her agenda and views. At the second stage you feel disgust not only about the politician, but also at those who support publicly him or her in the media and the party the politician is a member of. And finally on the third stage of tribalism it is the voters who vote for the politician are the one's you start hating. And at that stage a republic starts to come apart because you aren't just angry at politicians, celebrities or the talking heads on TV, you are angry at your fellow citizens, your neighbors and even family members.
This rabbit hole you can go down to worse places: after this it's the vilification of the other, then the portrayal of the other being an enemy and the dehumanization of your fellow citizens.
Indeed. The Hillary camp dove head first into exactly that. Belittling not only Trump supporters but also Bernie supporters prior to. Fatal mistake. Many feminists do the same thing towards all males. Another fatal mistake. Many minority feminists do the same thing towards all white males(anyone other than another white male). Racists do the same.
It all starts with the disgust part. Different is disgusting.
So if you had a kid who took after you and wasn’t bright, would you prefer that teachers call him stupid or ‘academically challenged’?
Very fair point. We should always be wary of the growing identity politics as of late. The white nationalists are the worst of its manifestations so far, but it’s still growing. Before long everyone will be categorized into their subgroups and specificities whether they like it or not.
It's not about the legality of it, it's about the wisdom of it. Things are classified – and declassified – for good reason. What was the reason for declassifying this one? Did he discuss it with his intelligence/military advisors? That's unlikely given that it wasn't the raw image but a photo of it, apparently taken from a phone. And as explained here, the photo provides information about where the photo came from (USA 224), its capabilities, and provides foreign nations with information that may allow them to reverse-engineer the specs required to reproduce the technology.
He probably did it for no good reason at all. The man's an idiot.
All of it conjecture. There is no wisdom in assuming motives.
It appears NPR and various internet sleuths are providing information about where it came from,
The anti-Trump press, including their ideological brethren in late night comedy, spent the better part of a week lambasting the president for an apparent sharpie mark on a map.
On Sunday, the president tweeted that hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama. This was contradicted by the National Weather Service, which claimed in another tweet it would not hit Alabama.
During a later Whitehouse update on Dorian, Trump held up the National Weather Service map whereupon the offending mark was visible, crudely extending the predicted path to Alabama. This small, hilarious gesture sent preening journalists into fits of outrage on Twitter. It was Sharpie-gate.
To them, this was evidence of Trump’s unmitigated narcissism. Some even said the act was criminal, as faking official forecasts is illegal. CNN dedicated hours of coverage to the scandal, dire chyrons like “As People Die, Trump Defends Presenting Doctored Map” were burned into viewers brains. Late night talk show hosts, as if regimented to mock the president (they are all democrats and democrat donors, after all) did so to their lapping audiences.
But it was all piffle.
The map with the sharpie mark on it was old and outdated—not only was it not hitting Alabama, it wasn’t going to land on Florida. Both Trump and the national weather service were wrong, except Trump isn’t the weather man here. Trump held up the map with a sharpie mark on it, but only briefly, and only to contrast with the new, updated information: the current trajectory of the hurricane and the FEMA response, which he spoke about at length for the next 7 minutes.
Did the press inform their viewers about the updated hurricane information and the government’s response? No. They left that part out, because they’d rather quibble about a sharpie mark on an outdated and invalid weather map that Trump briefly showed, sensationalizing that quibbling as news, and all to disguise to their viewers that Trump is actually doing a damn good job with these hurricanes.
CNN’s Yellow Journalism
He seems to be getting worse lately. Perhaps dementia, or because he’s surrounded himself in Yes Men and we’re seeing the resulting groupthink fumbles.
What is Trump doing "with" these Hurricanes?
You can hear it from the horse’s mouth by simply watching the update put out by the Whitehouse. You won’t find it on CNN.
You apparently did watch it, so asking you is quicker.
I’m not sure why you’d want to take my word for it.
I'd take a lot of things over watching Trump talk for half an hour. So far that seems the only thing he's been doing. Is that what you meant by good job? That he gave a good talk?
If you’d rather avoid it that’s your problem, not mine. I just don’t understand how someone can be so willing to remain in ignorance.
Yes, I refuse. I’m sure you’ll find some way to fill the void.
He's running rings round them.
Drawing rings around them.
Was that before or after CNN swapped Mississippi and Alabama states while discussing emergency declarations ahead of the storm?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/presssec/status/1169635754827485185?s=21[/tweet]
The NOAA has confirmed that Trump was in fact correct.
CNN switched Mississippi and Alabama on a map. These are the people tasked with informing the public, but here is an example of them misinforming the public, only to claim the moral high ground after being busted.
I can guarantee you that no-one who isn't already a die-hard Trumpist will believe that. It's very obvious from this side of the ideological divide that someone in the NOAA caved to political pressure.
For you, on the other hand, it's further vindication of the idea that there is a witch hunt.
The question is, do you think there is any way these two versions of reality can ever be reconciled?
NOAA’s support of Trump over its own scientists provokes uproar in weather community
And the President did in fact use a sharpie to alter the official forecast which didn't have Alabama within the cone of uncertainty. That's the key issue here: not that his initial statement was wrong; that he's doubling down on his initial wrong statement and falsifying evidence (in this case illegally) to try to save face. He's utterly incapable of admitting to having made a mistake.
Yes, actually, because you can see the data yourself with your own two eyes.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120
You can see the data with your own two eyes. Don’t let the WaPo and former Obama admin holdovers tell you what you need to think. Look at the data. It clearly shows a probability that Alabama was going to be hit. Trump was right.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120
Here's the map that Trump was using. You can clearly see that he used a sharpie to alter it.
That was an old and outdated map. It was irrelevant at the time it was shown, as is evident by the update that followed. Not only that, but by that time that particular forecast was way off.
Interesting twist on a "Your Momma Joke"! I like it un, I like it! :party:
It is a thing. It’s a non-scandal perpetrated by the press in the US. It’s quite shameful.
Hmm, a 5 -20% probability of tropical storm force winds in the extreme south east corner of Alabama, no hurricane there. No wonder it wasn't included in the forecast.
Quoting NOS4A2
The problem is that when the president issues a warning, you'd expect people to take heed. But if the president is always crying wolf, just to watch people get excited, then there's a problem.
There was also a 90-100% chance it would hit Florida. No hurricane there either.
That’s not true. His updates on Dorian were very sober and informative, especially regarding the government’s response. But you actually have to view them in their context.
The map shows the probability of tropical storm force winds, which Florida did receive. I believe Florida also receive some hurricane force winds as well as a large storm surge.
The context is that Trump tweeted on Sunday that Alabama would most likely be hit much harder than anticipated, the National Weather Service corrected Trump's mistake by stating that Alabama would not be hit, and then NOAA spokesman Christopher Vaccaro reaffirmed this by stating that the "current forecast path of Dorian does not include Alabama".
Trump, being Trump, couldn't let it go, and so on Wednesday produced a doctored graphic of the forecast and falsely stated that there was a 95 percent chance of Dorian impacting Alabama – in actuality the forecast had an 11% chance of topical force storm winds (weaker than hurricane force), with outdated graphics showing 20 - 30% chance of these tropical force storm winds.
I can’t deny that.
I can indeed. Can you see why the National Wheather service thought it necessary to respond to Trumps tweet that Alabama would be "hit (much) harder"?
I’m not goin* to pretend I am a weatherman, but The context is a twitter dispute between Trump and the press, the biggest non-scandal in recent memory. What’s missing from the context is the White House’s response to Hurricane Dorian, which was exemplary.
All the anti-Trump press have to spin the story is a sharpie mark on an outdated map and the inclusion of Alabama in a tweet. This quibbling proves enough to distract the petulant press and their base from actual states of affairs.
That's not spin; that's the story. Trump was wrong in saying that Alabama was likely to be hit harder than expected and then tried to defend his mistake by using a sharpie to doctor an official (and outdated) forecast. The ridiculous attempts that Trump will go to to avoid admitting to having made an error is newsworthy.
The national weather service was wrong that it would hit Florida. The difference is, Trump is not a weatherman and was only relaying information given to him. I see no issue with Trump defending himself and his staff from a belligerent press on this matter. Meanwhile, CNN literally switched Mississippi and Alabama on one of it’s maps, literally deceiving it’s viewers with fake news.
No, they made a mistake which they then admitted to and promptly fixed. That's not fake news.
Fake news is Trump using a sharpie to doctor an official forecast in an attempt to defend his own mistake. He should have just admitted to being wrong (or even just misinformed) and accepted the National Weather Service's correction. This wouldn't be a story if Trump could just behave like a sensible President.
That is fake news. They altered the names of the very states at risk of the hurricane, perhaps to maintain their narrative. They only changed it because they got busted.
Another assumption is that the NWS was responding to Trump, and not to, say, the calls of concerned citizens.
To hell with it. That is 'politics over principle'. He must face impeachment. I don't see how the Dems can face their electorates without bringing impeachment, not to do so is to give Trump an even bigger win. If Mitch McConnell rejects the impeachment finding, then let it be on GOP heads.
That's not politics over principle. That's employing politics to reach the principled goal of removing an unfit president. If they lose the election, they can always try to impeach after that. If you try to impeach and lose, you have obtained neither the presidency nor his removal.
Edit: Also a nice example of the elitist bullshit that has people that "are too stupid to understand what's good for them" vote for Trump.
That’s the sort of sleaze that got Trump elected in the first place. These are the same guys who thought the economy would crash when he got elected, and nuclear war was immanent. These are the same guys who pushed a hoax about Russian collusion for years. It turns out, they don’t know what’s best, or even likely.
We certainly know more about Trump now that he's been in office awhile. We know that his "fire and fury" comments are B.S., and that he's committed to isolationism. He threatens war, but won't follow through on those threats. Not that I want him to, but it's become obvious his threats are empty. Reminds me of a woman I know who tried to get her kids to behave by making threats, but never following through on those threats. 2 of the children are now in prison.
I have no problem giving Trump credit for signing Paul Ryan's tax cut plan into law, and that this boosted the economy in the short term. But this put the U.S. on a trajectory of unsustainable deficits. Taxes WILL have to be raised sooner or later, and when they do - this temporary period of relative prosperity will be offset by the negative impact we will experience at that time. Given the short-term focus of voters, it will be ironic that the future President who is forced to raise taxes will be blamed for the negative impact.
It's funny how Trump supporters echo Trump's words ("hoax about Russian collusion"), and ignore what Trump did that looked suspicious. There is zero evidence of a "hoax", but what the heck - Trump calls it a hoax, and that's good enough for them. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be their strong suit.
The hoax that Trump told him exists/existed.
It's interesting that he says Trump's words don't matter, and yet he believes whatever words Trump speaks.
Nobody should engage with trump trolls.
Yeah all that stuff about Trump losing the election, nuclear war, economic collapse, the death of NATO, the second-coming of Hitler, Russian collusion, fascism—it was all the failed prophecies of people who thought they knew better. Now it’s deficits and future presidents raising taxes and empty threats. Just what we need: more empty fortune-telling.
The fear mongering has become as limp as a wagging finger. You all have been exposed and history will not look kind on it.
I think this is an extremely wrong approach. In terms of historical precedence, the Watergate senate hearing began with only 19% of the public supporting Nixon's removal from office, and ended at 59%, a year later by the time he resigned from office. Congressional hearings enable new evidence and scandals to be uncovered, and while this will not likely affect Trump's most zealous supporters (only a recession might do that), it will highlight the crimes of Trump and his unsuitability in the office. And when the GOP controlled Senate vetoes his impeachment the GOP will own Trump's crimes as well and will be culpable for the continued crimes he and his administration commit.
And in terms of maintaining some semblance of respectability and honor it's simply the principle of the matter to hold the presidency accountable for crimes while in office, and this principle shouldn't be sacrificed at the very theoretical and uncertain proposition that it will lead to his re-election.
A lot of different people have made a variety of hyperbolic remarks about Trump, and you lump them all together into one boogeyman. Let's get real and focus on me.
I did not predict economic collapse nor the death of NATO. I just thought the guy was stupid. I prophesied a guy who thought running the country was just like running a company. I thought he lacked ethics. He didn't treat his wives ethically (cheating on each) and he didn't run his company ethically (reneging on contracts; avoiding debts through bankruptcies). He lacked the ability to think critically (birtherism), he would do anything to win, and he thought it would all be easy. I did make one specific prediction: Mexico would never pay for a wall.
It's true that I didn't expect him to win. But save for that one error of prediction, Trump has behaved like the idiot I thought he was.
Oh yes, one other error: I was surprised that his minions would be blind to all his idiocy. No, I did not expect there to be so many like you.
[Quote]Now it’s deficits and future presidents raising taxes and empty threats. Just what we need: more empty fortune-telling.[/quote]
If you think these deficits will take care of themselves, you are delusional.
OJ was acquitted, but it didn't change anyone's mind about him.
It is possible you're right, but it is also possible that failure to indict (which is what impeachment is) will result in people thinking he's innocent. There's no way to know which is optimal, so why not err on the side of doing what's right?
Well I’m talking about a radical, reactionary group of media-soaked elites and celebrities with their obsequious base crying wolf for the past few years on twitter. These people would rather bring the country to ruin than to see the president succeed. If you’re not a part of that group then I’m glad.
Right, he’s an idiotic, unethical, libertine with a foul mouth. He’s full of bluster and arrogance. He’s a reality tv show host. He eats Big Macs and overdone steaks with ketchup. What is this but sanctimony and snobbery? What is this but the finger-wagging of our self-anointed moral superiors? I don’t buy it.
These people see Trump’s policies as terrible for the country so believe that him “succeeding” would ruin the country, just as I’m sure many Trump supporters would believe the same about Bernie.
Moreover, the idea the media landscape of watergate is the same as now seems to me too optimistic. You're not going to break through the outrage media and have them report negatively on Trump. It doesn't sell. Him working with the ruskies is business smarts, you see?
You're also assuming there will be fair and balanced reporting by Fox and Bteibart. So I guess you'll feel really good about it all with your buddies that already think as you do but it's not an election strategy. Especially since running a platform on "I'm not as bad as Trump" isn't exactly inspiring.
If the Democrats are incapable of crossing the divide and finding neutral ground and understanding with the typical Trump voter, it will just be more of the tribal "I'll never vote for a Democrat/Republican" that we've seen for decades now.
What crimes would those be?
To start, he's an unindicted co-conspirator in the charges against Michael Cohen for campaign finance law violations.
[Url=https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/10/no-trump-isnt-teflon-scandals-lower-his-approval-among-republicans-if-they-see-news/?outputType=amp]
No, Trump isn’t Teflon. Scandals lower his approval among Republicans — if they see the news[/url]
No, he has not been convicted of any crimes. Trump has not even been accused by a grand jury indictment of anything, let alone being a co-conspirator of a crime.
And?
THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Because you and Democrats call him an “unindicted co-conspirator” doesn’t make it so. The campaign finance probe is long over.
The government's sentencing memorandum explicitly says that Individual-1 (who "began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States"), co-ordinated with and directed Michael Cohen to violate campaign finance laws, and so it explicitly says that Individual-1 is a co-conspirator in Michael Cohen's crimes. And Individual-1 hasn't been indicted. Therefore, Individual-1 is an unindicted co-conspirator.
So it's not about what I say or about what Democrats say. It's about what the sentencing document and the facts say.
A proven and convicted liar accuses Trump of conspiring in campaign violations. This is your standard of criminality.
No, the government's prosecutors accuse him of it in their sentencing of Cohen. That memorandum is written by SDNY.
Are you saying moral rules, especially as they pertain to good governance, are "but sanctimony and snobbery"? Because that would explain a lot.
Your fixation on Republican voters circumvents my exact point. As I've said, Republican voters don't matter; with over 85% approval rating for Trump, they'll likely vote for him regardless of whether or not the Democratic House pushes forward with impeachment. Fortunately, the GOP only represent 26% of American voters. Rather, the point of the impeachment process to further agitate the Democratic base (30% of American voters), as well as independent voters (42%), and spur them to vote which they did at fairly low levels in 2016.
Quoting Benkei
Except I very clearly didn't say this. I said that Democratic congressional runners can leverage the GOP blocking Trump's impeachment against their GOP opponents.
Michael Cohen was a lawyer. His duty as a lawyer is to interpret and advise clients as to the law, regulations, legal rights and obligations. You’re assuming, without evidence, that Trump was privy to complex campaign finance laws and ordered Cohen to break them. That’s utter nonsense.
The aberration known as Trump is far better than any of his self-anointed moral superiors, who can do little better than preen themselves on social media. I’d love to see one of the them, or one of his internet critics, try doing his job and at his pace. They’d melt under the half the scrutiny.
Four National Security Advisors in three years is good reality TV, I guess, but it's shit management.
I have not judged Trump guilty of this charge. I haven't even said there's necessarily enough evidence to even indict him. You are the one expressing confidence that Trump committed no crime.
I find it particularly pathetic that it's irrelevant to you that he screwed a porn star right after his wife gave birth, paid her hush money, and publicly lied about it. All that matters to you is that it's not a provable crime. True to form since you also don't care that he lies so frequently - it's all OK, because he doesn't do it under oath.