Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

What I see around me is not real, and quotes are stupid. Got it.

Its not nice when someone minimizes your arguments is it?

I don't really mind tbh. My comments stand. Disagree with me if you want, otherwise there's not much I can do.

You need to open a separate thread about political correctness, it's impact on media social media and it's wider effect on politics and society.

That's all you're talking about, that's what you want to talk about and you're constantly dragging this thread sideways to talk about that.

Twice you've referenced Spurs and 'yids' in a Trump thread.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He had eight years and said (while campaigning for Hillary) that Trump would need a 'magic wand' to raise the GDP to below what he has and to raise unemployment to below what he has.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhXkCF-L2E

Guess Trump found that magic wand.

Except that's not at all what he says in the video. I'm no obama fan but in the video he seems to be saying that mass employment in mmanufacturing isn't coming back.

You'll probably counter with Trumps amazing manufacturing numbers but they're only a fraction higher than Obama's manufacturing job creation numbers and still inconsequnetial when it comes to the overall economy. Manufacturing jobs are more or less stuck at 8-9%.

Back int he 40s they were nearly 40%. I get the impression this is what Obama is saying won't happen.

Christy42

pixelburp wrote: »

Scrutiny (or the value that you hold to be sufficient) does not equal or justify violent rhetoric though. I think this the fundamental sticking point here, IMO nothing CNN, MSNBC have done deserves to be called traitors (I need to check but I THINK Trump did call "the media" this. Even Fox have been side eyed the few times they've bad mouthed him). It can't be considered normal, because it literally flies in the face of civilised discourse, or the notions of the political leader as a calming, mature voice in the chattering crowd. The pillars of democracy say that he should be. He calls the 4th estate traitors and equivocating a distinction is immaterial.

If people take glee and cheer this language, well that speaks more to the ongoing decline in American political discourse; but the country loves an enemy to fight.

Trump doesn't care about any of this, he simply hates bad publicity and is using the language of the demagogue and autocrat like a shotgun. Were talking about a man who phoned newspapers pretending to be "John Baron" so he could wax lyrical about himself, this is the most public cricticism he has ever had to face

Didn't Trump cheer on a man who violently attacked a journalist? He had a big rally in Montana and used it for a big crowd cheer.

I mean if that is not an attack on the press over and above scrutiny I don't know what is.

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll agree with both.

Doesn't change my concern that the Dems are moving tooDemocrats far left. So I'll ask again I guess, again non-Imflammatory, is that happening?

I meant to respond to this as it is a good question that deserves an answer.

IMO, policies and thinking on both extremes of the US political spectrum have become more acceptable in the past decade. Obama's 2008 election as POTUS led to mould-cracking re-visiting of republican right-wing politics, and the Republican mainstream moved more to the right.

By 2012, those more right-wing Republican views became more mainstream. In 2016, Democrats moved more to the left (eg. significant Bernie Sanders support), thereby widening the range/spectrum of acceptable views and policies in general. So, Dems generally did have to push themselves a bit more to the left as part of the process of working through the Sanders/Clinton tussle.

Then came 2018, and folks like AOC and Ilhan Omar provided a kind of superstar status to the newly acceptable left extreme, thereby giving that extreme of the Dems more airtime and traction. Pelosi and her ilk were meanwhile trying to keep the needle as close as possible to the Obama mainstream centre, and tussling ever since the 2018 Mid-Terms with those like AOC who want to grab the needle and haul it waaay over to the left.

So. my answer to your question is, yes! The spectrum has widened and both ends are more extreme than a decade or two ago.

Itssoeasy

In case it’s been missed Donald trump signed an executive order placing sanctions on the supreme leader of Iran ayatollah Khomeini amongst others. The one issue with putting sanctions on that particular ayatollah is he’s been dead since 1989 so just slightly too late. He was reading off a page so it seems the White House isn’t up to date on its Iranian history.

TomOnBoard

RIGOLO wrote: »

Seems odd an anti-Trumper is more concerned with the semantics of my post, than expressing support for a President who has declared a war on that gang MS-13.

Are pro-Trumpers willing to accept that MS-13 is a child of US policy and social dysfunction? Are pro- Trumpers willing to accept that the US's policy of deporting the most violent and evil of MS-13 gangbangers back into a country that had been destroyed by civil war that had been funded by the US to the tune of $300-600 million a year with death squads and civilian mortality in the tens of thousands AS A RESULT?

If so, then all should express support for a President that has declared the war you say he has. At the same time, that President should fight the war both within the US Borders and anywhere outside it where prior US policies have given rise to an MS-13 issue. To work outside its borders, the US must support local efforts in Central America to deal with the scourge locally. Exacerbating the horrendous effects of MS-13 in El Salvador by taking funding support away from its Government on foot of mis-understood migrant movements is NOT sensible, and that is what Trump's administration is doing and/or threatening to do.

So, this poster is not at all concerned with the semantics of your post... Rather, this poster reckons that all your post(s) in relation to MS-13 and Trump's alleged declaration of war upon that deplorable group are misleading and shamefully dishonest, because they make no attempt to recognise that the US created MS-13 in the first place.

Kimsang

Gbear wrote: »

I don't know what you mean.

Just in relation to your post, you seemed to be advocating for middle out economics. I also was once an advocate of this, Robert Reich(economic advisor to Clinton) convinced me with his articles and videos. Is it facetious to suggest that Clinton's middle out economics had anything to do with the state we're in now?

The problem is they're not(sic :poor people getting richer). Technological advances have given people things they didn't have before, but purchasing power hasn't really risen in decades. What little growth there has been has been largely isolated to the highest wage earners.

I would argue that even the poorest people are getting 'richer'. They avail of advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, etc...
Maybe as you say we could all have a bit more money, and a bit more purchasing power, but maybe we wouldn't have smart phones to buy, or the newest life saving medicines.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

But Jeremy Corbyn wasn't promoting the milkshaking of Farage, or that attacking politicians with foodstuffs should be considered the New Normal in resting behaviour.

Oh but the liberal media were. Find me one publication from a liberal outlet that shows the milkshaking in a bad light would prove me wrong.

They all make light of, bordering on encouraging it, as we've seen with the reaction from Jo Brand's joke.

Kimsang

Manic Moran wrote: »

It doesn't say very much that we don't already know, but it is nice to see it put rather succinctly. Remember that rant from "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election? We have given up attempting to even understand our 'opposition'.

Fantastic post overall, but this part especially. Its the reason I started posting in this thread.

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

I don't really mind tbh. My comments stand. Disagree with me if you want, otherwise there's not much I can do.

You need to open a separate thread about political correctness, it's impact on media social media and it's wider effect on politics and society.

That's all you're talking about, that's what you want to talk about and you're constantly dragging this thread sideways to talk about that.

Twice you've referenced Spurs and 'yids' in a Trump thread.

I was going to write something, but I think Pixelburp can sum it up the best.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm not taking these things in isolation, to mangle an aphorism from another field, Politics Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum(urgh).

TomOnBoard

Kimsang wrote: »

He must be convicted of wrong-doing , and impeached by the house.

Inaccurate!

a) He can't be convicted of anything while in office, as the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion is that a sitting president cannot even be indicted (let alone convicted) of a crime.
b)If you're suggesting that be would be convicted once out of office, then he can't be impeached as he would no longer be President.

Your statement is incorrect in both of its parts, given the chronology that is implied.

Kimsang

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Inaccurate!

a) He can't be convicted of anything while in office, as the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion is that a sitting president cannot even be indicted (let alone convicted) of a crime.
b)If you're suggesting that be would be convicted once out of office, then he can't be impeached as he would no longer be President.

Your statement is incorrect in both of its parts, given the chronology that is implied.

Seriously, now you're just coming across as petty taking my quote out of context. Would you argue with me if I said the sky was blue?

I was asked the following question

everlast75 wrote: »

I was going to ask what does he have to do before you believe such an enquiry should begin

I answered with;

Kimsang wrote: »

He must be convicted of wrong-doing , and impeached by the house.

When I debate Christians, Jews, Creationists, climate deniers etc. they are unfailingly polite, respectful, thoughtful, discerning, & listen to my arguments. Far Left SJWs do not. They simply look for fault & pounce - Michael Shermer

TomOnBoard

Kimsang wrote: »

Seriously dude, now you're just coming across as petty taking my quote out of context. Would you argue with me if I said the sky was blue?

I was asked, what would happen IN MY OPINION for Trump to get impeached. I was asked nothing about the laws.

No! That is also incorrect!

everlast commented: "I was going to ask what does he have to do before you believe such an enquiry should begin, but frankly if you don't believe it should have started already...."


Your reply statement was clear!

You said: "He must be convicted of wrong-doing , and impeached by the house."

Your statement demonstrates a completely inaccurate understanding of how the system works.

As for Michael Shermer, do we really you to quote his view repeatedly? We got the point, dude...Noneed to shove it down our necks without posting its thrust in the appropriate place so that we can agree or challenge it! I wouldn't challenge it here, as it would most likely be well off-topic!

Ben Done

This thread is almost unreadable these days, which, I suppose, is the desired effect,

Kimsang

“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

DJT

Would anyone agree this to be a good thing Trump has done/said?
Carlson has been saying things no other journalist will, and he's becoming very popular for a good reason.

The question, What happened to Tucker Carlson? is worth answering. If we can figure out how an intelligent writer and conservative can go from writing National Magazine Award–nominated articles and being hailed by some of the best editors in the business, to shouting about immigrants on Fox News, perhaps we can understand what is happening to this country, or at least to journalism, in 2018.

CJR


CNN's response?

The president is showing he had a national security meeting and wasn't willing to follow through

CNN analyst Samantha Vinograd

hill16bhoy

Ben Done wrote: »

This thread is almost unreadable these days, which, I suppose, is the desired effect,

It's a microcosm of the far right

Spout so much nonsense and feign so much victimhood that people tune out of discussion

The intention is to confuse, create white noise and get people to disengage

This thread has gone to absoute pot lately and you find similar happening across the internet as Trump trolls go on the rampage with cut and paste gobbledygook

It's Surkov's theory in practice - he's the Russian spin doctor that is an expert at confusing the public on behalf of Putin

One poster in particular was literally up all night the other night doing this if you look at their posting history

One guess as to who it was

TomOnBoard

Brian? wrote: »

Actually I think you’ll find many economists agree that Obama needed to spend as the US economy was driven into the ground by Dubya.

I didn’t say adding to 8 trillion to the debt was healthy. Nice straw man.

Furthermore, increases in "the Deficit" need to be understood in terms of whether they result from increased spending or from reduced revenue.

Clearly, significant increases in Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security obligations hugely impacts on the deficit, and this is happening / has happened both in Trump's and Obama's Presidencies.

Further Obama's deficit additions came from increased spending, much of which was required to stabilise the economy after the massive crash of 2007-08 and to dig the country out of a massive recession, as well as funding the ongoing wasteful military conquests.

Further Trump's deficit additions are largely coming from reduced revenue,much of which comes from huge reductions in both corporate taxes and incomes of high- earning individuals.

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Article in The Atlantic (A short one, by Atlantic standards) on just that matter today, actually.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

What is corroding American politics is, specifically, negative partisanship: Although most liberals feel conflicted about the Democratic Party, they really hate the Republican Party. And even though most conservatives feel conflicted about the Republican Party, they really hate the Democratic Party.

[...]

Researchers asked Democrats to guess how Republicans would answer a range of political questions—and vice versa. (The survey was conducted among a sample of 2,100 U.S. adults the week immediately following the 2018 midterm elections.) What they found is fascinating: Americans’ mental image of the “other side” is a caricature.

[...]

Americans who rarely or never follow the news are surprisingly good at estimating the views of people with whom they disagree. On average, they misjudge the preferences of political adversaries by less than 10 percent. Those who follow the news most of the time, by contrast, are terrible at understanding their adversaries. On average, they believe that the share of their political adversaries who endorse extreme views is about 30 percent higher than it is in reality.

It also observes that Republicans who go to college understand Democrats far better than Democrats who go to college understand Republicans. Mainly because the latter tend to be in the minority (And given the current environment, often just keep quiet).

It doesn't say very much that we don't already know, but it is nice to see it put rather succinctly. Remember that rant from "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election? We have given up attempting to even understand our 'opposition'.

Yes, there's a lot of sense in this!

TomOnBoard

RIGOLO wrote: »

No mental controtion required.
Obama added 8 Trillion and 1.64% growth

Trump has added 2 trillion and 3 % growth

The only things being contorted are the wonderful booming economic numbers for the US economy .

Only an anti-Trumper would ever stand over spending 8 trillion and getting 1.64 % growth and fell they dealt a winning hand.

This totally dis-honest post compares an 8-year Obama deficit coming out of a twice in a Century Depression with a 2.4 year trump deficit coming out of a massively buoyant economy that Trump inherited. This is nothing more than a 3-card Monty.

Obama inherited economic chaos! He navigated the economy over 8 years to convert a 8-9 decade depression disaster into a vibrant best-ever performance. Trump inherited that buoyancy and, instead of using it as a springboard into massively greater returns, has basically trundled along, while depleting the economic performance (and more important, the growth momentum) to line the pockets of the rich through tax reliefs, at the expense of the poor !

The contortions that posts like this one are going through to legitimise Trump's rape of the US tax system are execrable, made more so by promulgating the false narrative that "all boats are rising".

TomOnBoard

Kimsang wrote: »

Assume you believe as I do for a moment. Assume that the media and academia are escaping scrutiny(i can supply for evidence for this if requested-don't just post " no evidence please"- I've been asked to keep my posts shorted).

If this is fact the case, then I hope you can see why so many peopel cheer when Trump says the things he does about the liberal media.

I'm trying to consider and respond to your posts today, but Dude, I simply cannot understand even a piece of what this post is trying to say... :eek::eek:

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

IMO nothing CNN, MSNBC have done deserves to be called traitors It can't be considered normal, because it literally flies in the face of civilised discourse, or the notions of the political leader as a calming, mature voice in the chattering crowd. He calls the 4th estate traitors and equivocating a distinction is immaterial.

Trump doesn't care about any of this, he simply hates bad publicity and is using the language of the demagogue and autocrat like a shotgun. Were talking about a man who phoned newspapers pretending to be "John Baron" so he could wax lyrical about himself, this is the most public cricticism he has ever had to face

I completely agree with the last part. I was a Jon Stewart fan way back when. He constantly mocked and humiliated Trump so I got to know him before many others I guess. Its a shame his proteges have become the thing they set out to mock

As to the first parts in bold; I disagree as Yuri Bezmenov did also in an interview in 1984.<--harrowingly prophetic

"I Doubt there are many people that are conscientiously supporting the soviet system. There are no such people in USSR. Even all those who have every reason to enjoy it, they also hate the system for different reason.... because they are unfree to think, in constant fear, duplicity, split personality, this is the greatest tragedy for my country"

So even while a small minority only embraces these values, a larger majority allow them to by not stopping them. This is described as the "Banality of evil" by Hannah Arendt.

While you say that Trump calling the media is abhorrent, ultimately I agree that it shouldn't happen. But I argue that it's a response to what first came first from the left, its pretty worthless to blame Trump for what he does. As we agree he says things that are popular and brings out the worst fears in people. But traditionally demagoguery hasn't won the day and for good reason. The rise of demagoguery is a response to as Bezmenov put it "it is hated because people are unfree to think" That's what I and many others are seeing in politics today. The way people are prosecuted for jokes, or all the quotas systems for various things, or the way the media accused the cartoonists of bigotry in the Charlie Hebdo affair, how people are labelled all sorts of slurs, how intellectualism is quashed in favour of emotional sentiment or anything to do with protected classes to just give a few examples. Justice is an idea that everyone should be treated equally, and there is only one side that is splitting from this.

AngryHippie

Kimsang wrote: »

its pretty worthless to blame Trump for what he does.

WTF happened to the buck stopping somewhere ?

If he can't be held accountable then he's not fit for the job.

Christy42

Trump is adding to Iran sanctions to stop them getting a nuke.

How is this meant to work?

There is no suggestion so far that sanctions will stop if Iran doesn't go after the nuke. Indeed. Not going after nuclear weapons seems to be what started all of this for Iran.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1143301504792768518?s=19

Regardless of how you feel about the veracity of this latest accusers story, there is seriously something wrong with Trump and how he thinks about women.

The number one reason is she's not his type? Seriously? The first thing that comes to his mind is not that he would never do such a thing - its abhorrent, not in his nature etc etc. Instead, its that he didn't fancy her.

Rape is not about type, its about power.

Also, didn't he say Stormy Daniels wasn't his type either?

Full article here

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450116-trump-vehemently-denies-e-jean-carroll-allegation-shes-not-my-type?amp#click=https://t.co/Lt4osYy9Ze

Christy42

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1143301504792768518?s=19

Regardless of how you feel about the veracity of this latest accusers story, there is seriously something wrong with Trump and how he thinks about women.

The number one reason is she's not his type? Seriously? The first thing that comes to his mind is not that he would never do such a thing - its abhorrent, not in his nature etc etc. Instead, its that he didn't fancy her.

Rape is not about type, its about power.

Also, didn't he say Stormy Daniels wasn't his type either?

Full article here

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450116-trump-vehemently-denies-e-jean-carroll-allegation-shes-not-my-type?amp#click=https://t.co/Lt4osYy9Ze

Putting aside the allegation for a second that response is absolutely disgusting.

The man is an absolute stain on the human race.

pixelburp

The current President of the United States: I couldn't have raped her, she's not my type.

I mean.

Jesus Christ.

How do you even unpack that kind of mentality? It's the kind of thing you read in the worst dungeons on the internet. And it's yet more normalising language.

I've said it before but it's no wonder his supporters flood the discussion with hagiographical stats because there's no defending this mans character. He's a cretin.

Igotadose

Kimsang wrote: »

So even while a small minority only embraces these values, a larger majority allow them to by not stopping them. This is described as the "Banality of evil" by Hannah Arendt.

Yes, children in concentration camps is definitely an example of such. The fellow shouting 'you belong in the Hague' to Kirsten Nielsen exactly got it right. She did. Reject the banality of evil.

While you say that Trump calling the media is abhorrent, ultimately I agree that it shouldn't happen. But I argue that it's a response to what first came first from the left, its pretty worthless to blame Trump for what he does.

Nonsense. He's responsible for his actions and as the "Ultimate Public Servant" definitely should be taken to task for them.

As we agree he says things that are popular and brings out the worst fears in people.
But traditionally demagoguery hasn't won the day and for good reason. The rise of demagoguery is a response to as Bezmenov put it "it is hated because people are unfree to think" That's what I and many others are seeing in politics today. The way people are prosecuted for jokes, or all the quotas systems for various things, or the way the media accused the cartoonists of bigotry in the Charlie Hebdo affair, how people are labelled all sorts of slurs, how intellectualism is quashed in favour of emotional sentiment or anything to do with protected classes to just give a few examples. Justice is an idea that everyone should be treated equally, and there is only one side that is splitting from this.

The Trump administration's rampant anti-intellectualism (remember the 'climate change' panel? Or the increasing inroads the DOJ is making in reducing the separation of Church and State? And Trump's tedious boasting of how smart he is) fits your narrative. Their blatant casual disregard of Congressional oversight by mocking subpoenas, is the best example of Trump ignoring Justice. His motivations don't matter, the reality he is framing does.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Chips Lovell wrote: »

One person has been banned for ignoring this mod warning. If you can't have a civil discussion, don't post.

A second person has now been sanctioned. Seriously people, go read the charter.

Tedious bickering ain't debate. If you wish to continue posting here, please heed this warning.

Kimsang

Igotadose wrote: »

Yes, children in concentration camps is definitely an example of such. The fellow shouting 'you belong in the Hague' to Kirsten Nielsen exactly got it right. She did. Reject the banality of evil.

Nonsense. He's responsible for his actions and as the "Ultimate Public Servant" definitely should be taken to task for them.


The Trump administration's rampant anti-intellectualism (remember the 'climate change' panel? Or the increasing inroads the DOJ is making in reducing the separation of Church and State? And Trump's tedious boasting of how smart he is) fits your narrative. Their blatant casual disregard of Congressional oversight by mocking subpoenas, is the best example of Trump ignoring Justice. His motivations don't matter, the reality he is framing does.

How can you miss my points so spectacularly? Is it on purpose or deliberate? I'm starting to believe it is deliberate.
You don't seem to understand what the banality of evil is.

As to him being acccountable for his actions, i was speaking in the context of what he says about the media. If you bothered to read over the thread of conversation I was having with someone you would clearly see that, but now I understand how this works.

I make argument,
"You have no sources"
Cite sources
"Your sources are ****"
Cite more source
"Too long don't read"
Make shorter snappier posts
"get taken out of context"
Make argument
"you have no sources"

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

The current President of the United States: I couldn't have raped her, she's not my type.

I mean.

Jesus Christ.

How do you even unpack that kind of mentality? It's the kind of thing you read in the worst dungeons on the internet. And it's yet more normalising language.

I've said it before but it's no wonder his supporters flood the discussion with hagiographical stats because there's no defending this mans character. He's a cretin.

I guess only a few people truly know if he's innocent or not and he certainly is one of them. Let's assume he is innocent, do you think it would be appropriate to make that kind of joke against someone who's making a false accusation against you?

If he is guilty, I'm with you all the way, he's abhorrent and disgusting and to make this 'joke' makes things 100x times worse.