Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Drumpot

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is the problem. Too many people just laughed at the start, too many thought that at some stage he would become 'presidential'.

Every time I see Trump now it’s hard to not shake your head in amazement.

You can find examples in most sport of belligerent support for a coach, a player or a club when they are out of order. This is how I try to understand why so many people defend or support Trump through this, Illogical support in the face of iof a president out of his depth. As I read somewhere, he looks like somebody who won a prize to be president for a week, It just suits people to turn a blind eye to the mans hopeless failings and monstrous actions. I suppose Some people are trolling and some are just not very intelligent, so there’s that.

Christy42

Drumpot wrote: »

Every time I see Trump now it’s hard to not shake your head in amazement.

You can find examples in most sport of belligerent support for a coach, a player or a club when they are out of order. This is how I try to understand why so many people defend or support Trump through this, Illogical support in the face of iof a president out of his depth. As I read somewhere, he looks like somebody who won a prize to be president for a week, It just suits people to turn a blind eye to the mans hopeless failings and monstrous actions. I suppose Some people are trolling and some are just not very intelligent, so there’s that.

If you stop supporting him now you have to admit that you completely missed all the obvious signs at the start that was a disastrously terrible idea.

If he had put on an act then it would easier to change your mind, you just didn't know what he was like. Not an option here, he hasn't changed since his campaign. He was a joke candidate and is now a joke president. So the only option to not look bad is to keep on supporting him and hope against hope that you were right all the time.

Scammers use the same thing all the time. No one wants to admit they have been scammed so they follow the Scammers deeper in the hopes it wasn't a scam. Sunk cost fallacy.

Leroy42

StringerBell wrote: »

Too many laughed, yes for sure but in a lot of ways what can you expect? The man was and still is a joke.

Who thought he would become presidential though?

There were plenty of people. First when they said that he would pivot once he got the nomination, then once we won the election, then once he gave his first SOTU speech.

But that of course that all went quiet when it was clear that he had no intention.

Even recently, the reporting of his change in tone when he tried to be less Trump in the press conferences about CV. It lasted about a day of course before he resorted to type.

There was all the talk of 'it is clear that he finally gets it', 'he obviously has seen the forecasts and knows he need to change' blah blah.

The man is forever being given excuses

pixelburp

MadYaker wrote: »

I thought people elected him because he wasn't presidential.

His election was a big outpouring of collective frustration at Establishment politics, mixed with this false narrative that the "experts" ruined the economy. Similar to Brexit really. On paper, there's nothing inherently wrong with electing an outsider or someone immune to bureaucratic stagnancy to shake things up. But it has to be an adult who still recognises the boring mundanity and necessary pragmatism to run a country effectively. Firebrand politics are all well and good to a point, but there are a 1000 tiny details that keep the post offices open and the trains running.

Trump is all firebrand, no detail, mixed with the seductive rhetoric of the worst kind of grifter. His CEO methodology was someone who hated the detail and just wanted to be there for a signing. The mechanism of governance is the antithesis of that. His promises were big swings that had almost zero thought or detail: build a giant wall; give everyone amazing healthcare; drain the swamp of Washington corruption; bring economic life back to the rust belt. Every one of those were big fantasies that never came to be - but were more enticing than boring promises like (in the case of the rust belt) stimulating a transition of their economies away from moribund industries.

Of course people lapped it up. I probably would too if I was from a coal mining town living on food stamps.

duploelabs

Christy42 wrote: »

If you stop supporting him now you have to admit that you completely missed all the obvious signs at the start that was a disastrously terrible idea.

If he had put on an act then it would easier to change your mind, you just didn't know what he was like. Not an option here, he hasn't changed since his campaign. He was a joke candidate and is now a joke president. So the only option to not look bad is to keep on supporting him and hope against hope that you were right all the time.

Scammers use the same thing all the time. No one wants to admit they have been scammed so they follow the Scammers deeper in the hopes it wasn't a scam. Sunk cost fallacy.

Could not have described it better, their egos are firmly cemented to lauding Trump

MadYaker

I know he's not as intellegent as most others who've held the office and his impulsiveness seems to override everything but it's a pity for his sake that he doesn't have a some more astute advisors around him. It wouldn't have been hard to for him to get ahead of coronavirus and make himself look like a bit of a saviour. There'd still be loads of deaths in the US but if he'd just listened to the scientists in february and even started acting like he was taking it seriously he could have crafted the narrative and put his reelection beyond doubt but that opportunity was squandered. I wonder is it lack of good advice or Trumps inability to listen? Or both?

banie01

Reports that Trump was "Displeased" that the Navarro memo in January, mentioned 500,000 deaths and $6trn cost.

Not because of the potential scale of loss, but because it was put in writing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-peter-navarro-january-memo-coronavirus-deaths-2020-4?r=US&IR=T

NYtimes reporting on just how poorly Trump handled the response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=hinytmynameisben

WaPo reporting that as late as March Don wanted to know why the virus couldn't be just let "wash over" the country. I'm linking to talkingpoint summation too, as the full WaPo article is paywalled.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-ask-why-government-let-coronavirus-wash-over-country

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-task-forces-coronavirus-pandemic/2020/04/11/5cc5a30c-7a77-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

Trump being an idiot, malevolent or some genocidal lunatic is no longer the issue with the US response.
Far more concerning is that at each level of Federal response, his idiocy has been enabled and facilitated rather than called out for what it is.

The CDC and NIH in particular Dr Fauci have been sidelined whilst Trump and his acolytes act as the experts.

Christy42

MadYaker wrote: »

I know he's not as intellegent as most others who've held the office and his impulsiveness seems to override everything but it's a pity for his sake that he doesn't have a some more astute advisors around him. It wouldn't have been hard to for him to get ahead of coronavirus and make himself look like a bit of a saviour. There'd still be loads of deaths in the US but if he'd just listened to the scientists in february and even started acting like he was taking it seriously he could have crafted the narrative and put his reelection beyond doubt but that opportunity was squandered. I wonder is it lack of good advice or Trumps inability to listen? Or both?

I don't think his ego could handle good advisors around him. Can he admit to himself that he is not the foremost expert on the human immune system? He claimed at the start of this that he picked it all up instantly so why would he be listening to advisors.

Leroy42

It is ot a pity, it is purely down to his ability to accept that other know more than he does.

Nobody expects POTUS, or any politician to be an expert on everything, they are administrators and negotiaters.

It requires a person able to drive a policy, to get a team working in the same direction, a good communicator and someone who is able to take account of the competing interests to try to make a decision in the interests of the overall.

He fails at almost every level required.

moon2

Christy42 wrote: »

If you stop supporting him now you have to admit that you completely missed all the obvious signs at the start that was a disastrously terrible idea.

I've seen a few variations of this opinion floating about. In general I don't think a position of "if you stop supporting Trump now you must admit you were always wrong to support him" is helpful. Why not just accept that someone is now on the same side as you and work with them to keep them there?

Apologies if I read too much into your statement and that's not what you were suggesting

Foxtrol

kowloon wrote: »

At least Trump's heart is in the right place.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1248620923248205824

It's hard to get your head around how self-absorbed Trump is, and how anyone can defend him or claim he is some sort of selfless leader doing it for the people.

If they aren't already, the many ratings tweets and comments at the press conferences will make great attack ads in the run in to the elections. Showing a mounting body count and/or doctors/nurses crying out for help and Trump again and again talking about his ratings.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

His election was a big outpouring of collective frustration at Establishment politics, mixed with this false narrative that the "experts" ruined the economy. Similar to Brexit really. On paper, there's nothing inherently wrong with electing an outsider or someone immune to bureaucratic stagnancy to shake things up. But it has to be an adult who still recognises the boring mundanity and necessary pragmatism to run a country effectively. Firebrand politics are all well and good to a point, but there are a 1000 tiny details that keep the post offices open and the trains running.

Trump is all firebrand, no detail, mixed with the seductive rhetoric of the worst kind of grifter. His CEO methodology was someone who hated the detail and just wanted to be there for a signing. The mechanism of governance is the antithesis of that. His promises were big swings that had almost zero thought or detail: build a giant wall; give everyone amazing healthcare; drain the swamp of Washington corruption; bring economic life back to the rust belt. Every one of those were big fantasies that never came to be - but were more enticing than boring promises like (in the case of the rust belt) stimulating a transition of their economies away from moribund industries.

Of course people lapped it up. I probably would too if I was from a coal mining town living on food stamps.

Didn't he get elected because he ran as Republican and about half of those that vote in America always vote Republican, in the same way Democrat voters would vote for anyone that runs on a Democrat ticket. And every 8 years it changes around.

Christy42

moon2 wrote: »

I've seen a few variations of this opinion floating about. In general I don't think a position of "if you stop supporting Trump now you must admit you were always wrong to support him" is helpful. Why not just accept that someone is now on the same side as you and work with them to keep them there?

Apologies if I read too much into your statement and that's not what you were suggesting

It kind of was and kind of wasn't.

It is a human mind phenomenon. Certainly not limited to Trump supporters. Why not admit that you can now bring a scammed to justice? It isn't logical to invest more in something you know is likely a scam and yet people do.

Always something to look out for in ourselves in everything really as everyone is susceptible to it in the right circumstances.

aloyisious

Now that Gov Newsom has extended his California stay at home order, it'll be interesting to see what Don's response will be to that news: will he still have praise for him or will he change tack and say the Gov is with the Dem-left as it fundamentally undermines Don's wishes for the early opening up of U.S society again?

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

Didn't he get elected because he ran as Republican and about half of those that vote in America always vote Republican, in the same way Democrat voters would vote for anyone that runs on a Democrat ticket. And every 8 years it changes around.

In a word, no. Only if you're a jaded reductionist who has a "plus ca change" mentality which we know you do from previous discussion. But if you bother scratching below the surface you'll read into a simmering discontent within the states Clinton openly ignored (or indeed, insulted), among other issues.

serfboard

Christy42 wrote: »

everyone is susceptible to it in the right circumstances.

100% correct, which is why we shouldn't condem others.

The issue is, when do you realise that you're being scammed? Some seem to see it earlier than others "I used to believe in X, but I see now that he's a conman/crook etc.", and some never see it at all, despite the evidence.

amdublin

I am feeling like there are just so many lies and bad decisions that I don't have the energy to challenge them all. Or the energy to even start??? And therefore the Trump shills are running rampant on boards and no doubt all other discussion forums and American boards etc.

Does anyone else feel like that??

But I will try. Here are some of my more recent thoughts.

Trump: I closed the borders, I closed the borders!
Me: But there are a large number of other steps you could have (indeed SHOULD HAVE) taken at that point in time. Just because you did one thing, stop using it to as a distraction from every thing else you did not do at that point.
AND! It wasn't even a proper/full closure (for reasons others have posted), plus also it was too late, the virus was IN and spreading at that point anyway.

Why do the journalists at the daily pressers not push on this???
Oh yes, because he lets them speak, their mics get muted, he answers with a big load of bluster and bullsh1t and then MOVES ON from them. They get no right of reply or opportunity to properly challenge him.

One of his replies to questions about not doing more, or about why he said it would disappear etc:
Trump: I am a cheerleader. I am a cheerleader for this country.
Ok this is one of my key points about him:
He seems to have no basic understanding of what people need in a leader of a country, or a CEO of a company.
This is proven business psyche. 101 business leadership if you will:
- People need to know there is a plan
- People need to be told the truth. Even if it is bad. The situation needs to be explained to them, and then the CEO/leader say "now, this is how we are going to get through it"
- People need logic and realism. They do need a cheerleader yes, but it is one that has fact and science behind the assurances they will get through i.e Things are going to get bad, but we are going to get through, it will get better, and THIS is why.
Not fairy tale sh1te like It will be like a miracle, it will just disappear.

He is a TERRIBLE leader. I am hopeful that there are some people who put their trust in him (e.g. rust belt inhabitants) that are now seeing he did not deliver for them. I know there are some nuts out there who are still backing him. You see them here on this thread, I had to step out of a thread over in another forum on boards there was so much blind zealousness for the eejit. I just don't get how they cannot see how bad of a person he is.

I just hope enough people vote in November, and vote him OUT.

And forget history being not kind to him. I predict once he is out, the present will be not kind to him. IMO he has to be one of the worst presidents and worst human beings ever. An idiot, he is a complete and utter idiot, and more people, have and will have died, of the coronavirus because of the part HE PLAYED in the handling of it in the USA.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

In a word, no. Only if you're a jaded reductionist who has a "plus ca change" mentality which we know you do from previous discussion. But if you bother scratching below the surface you'll read into a simmering discontent within the states Clinton openly ignored (or indeed, insulted), among other issues.

Clinton won the popular vote by 2 or 3 million votes as well if I remember correctly. So the Trump wave thing was a bit exaggerated.

Midlife

pixelburp wrote: »

His election was a big outpouring of collective frustration at Establishment politics, mixed with this false narrative that the "experts" ruined the economy. Similar to Brexit really. On paper, there's nothing inherently wrong with electing an outsider or someone immune to bureaucratic stagnancy to shake things up. But it has to be an adult who still recognises the boring mundanity and necessary pragmatism to run a country effectively. Firebrand politics are all well and good to a point, but there are a 1000 tiny details that keep the post offices open and the trains running.

Trump is all firebrand, no detail, mixed with the seductive rhetoric of the worst kind of grifter. His CEO methodology was someone who hated the detail and just wanted to be there for a signing. The mechanism of governance is the antithesis of that. His promises were big swings that had almost zero thought or detail: build a giant wall; give everyone amazing healthcare; drain the swamp of Washington corruption; bring economic life back to the rust belt. Every one of those were big fantasies that never came to be - but were more enticing than boring promises like (in the case of the rust belt) stimulating a transition of their economies away from moribund industries.

Of course people lapped it up. I probably would too if I was from a coal mining town living on food stamps.

Following a period of economic turmoil an angry anti-establishement narcissist stood up and blamed foreigners, told everyone he could fix all the problems and got elected.

Hitler or Trump?

salmocab

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is ot a pity, it is purely down to his ability to accept that other know more than he does.

Nobody expects POTUS, or any politician to be an expert on everything, they are administrators and negotiaters.

It requires a person able to drive a policy, to get a team working in the same direction, a good communicator and someone who is able to take account of the competing interests to try to make a decision in the interests of the overall.

He fails at almost every level required.

I’ve said this a few times, he could have had an easy win in this. Appoint someone competent divert money and stay on point in the pressers. Short statements read off teleprompter’s. He didn’t cause it unlike most of his other ridiculous scandals, all he had to do was take expert advice he wasn’t expected to be an expert himself but he decided he was as usual.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

Clinton won the popular vote by 2 or 3 million votes as well if I remember correctly. So the Trump wave thing was a bit exaggerated.

And we both know the election isn't based on the popular vote but the electoral system, which gave the rust belt states more pronounced sway. And that rust belt states such as Pennsylvania or Michigan went to Trump, they also being "swing states". Elections don't go on simple pendulum swings, no matter how much you might say otherwise. There are economic, social and cultural factors and for 2016 it's absolutely a factor that Trump tapped into a disenfranchisement from a country whose demographics have shifted. Equally, that same disenfranchisement ensured Clinton's support was less and flattened. It wasn't just some mass of people looking at their watch and going "probably time for a republican". By your logic anyway it shouldn't have been going by the popular vote.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

And we both know the election isn't based on the popular vote but the electoral system, which gave the rust belt states more pronounced sway. And that rust belt states such as Pennsylvania or Michigan went to Trump, they also being "swing states". Elections don't go on simple pendulum swings, no matter how much you might say otherwise. There are economic, social and cultural factors and for 2016 it's absolutely a factor that Trump tapped into a disenfranchisement from a country whose demographics have shifted. Equally, that same disenfranchisement ensured Clinton's support was less and flattened. It wasn't just some mass of people looking at their watch and going "probably time for a republican". By your logic anyway it shouldn't have been going by the popular vote.

The numbers were pretty tight in them swing states. The minority of swing voters decided the result. It didn't mean America had completely changed overnight.

aloyisious

amdublin wrote: »

I just hope enough people vote in November, and vote him OUT.

And forget history being not kind to him. I predict once he is out, the present will be not kind to him. IMO he has to be one of the worst presidents and worst human beings ever. An idiot, he is a complete and utter idiot, and more people, have and will have died, of the coronavirus because of the part HE PLAYED in the handling of it in the USA.

Re the vote, I'm hoping the same and that the GOP-sympathisers here got it wrong. The trench-grave pits opened for the unclaimed virus victims in the present-day highly sophisticated U.S society in New York may have to be followed in other U.S cities and serve as a reminder of what the administration failed to act on when it was possible, having to spend their time instead on keeping the boss mollified.

When Don is not re-elected, his family may be hard-pressed to keep him quiet and secluded somewhere in exchange for the states not to pursue him in the courts and make him answer for his failures through lawsuits. Ditto for him being sued by the NOK of those who died as a result of his inaction when his Admin, his advisors and the public service people were letting him know regularly what he had to do to break up the virus outbreak and stop the needless deaths of thousands of Americans.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

The numbers were pretty tight in them swing states. The minority of swing voters decided the result. It didn't mean America had completely changed overnight.

I never said America was changed, I said that Trump got elected off the back of tapping into the disenfranchisement of states left behind by a recovering economy (the results of which Trump has erroneously laid claim to). Which they have been, that much is easily discovered. Detroit alone is practically a totem to collapsing former hubs.

Trump's support post election has been low, but AFAIK mostly retained those numbers in the said moribund states. Michigan was tight, but that doesn't infer an arbitrary pendulum swing. Rather a complexity not easily reduced to "oh that's just the swing back". That complexity was turned into easy to digest sound-bites by a man who sold a pup to a desperate audience. Clean Coal. Lock her Up. Build the Wall. It worked.

Clinton instead chose to pretend these people were racist hicks, "deplorables" as they were called, instead of desperate peoples ignored by progress. So yeah, maybe it wasn't that complex really, just not the simplicity you're suggesting. People voted for the guy who seemed to give a sh*t.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

The numbers were pretty tight in them swing states. The minority of swing voters decided the result. It didn't mean America had completely changed overnight.

With mass trench-grave pits being dug for the victims of the virus, do you think that might have an effect overnight in the U.S or will it sail right over the heads of the voters in the swing-states, before the need for the pits happens in their communities between now and Nov?

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Now that Gov Newsom has extended his California stay at home order, it'll be interesting to see what Don's response will be to that news: will he still have praise for him or will he change tack and say the Gov is with the Dem-left as it fundamentally undermines Don's wishes for the early opening up of U.S society again?

Donald trumps wishes don't matter in this instance. He didn't have the power to order states to go into lockdown and he doesn't have the authority to force governors to reopen things despite what he may think.

hotmail.com

aloyisious wrote: »

With mass trench-grave pits being dug for the victims of the virus, do you think that might have an effect overnight in the U.S or will it sail right over the heads of the voters in the swing-states, before the need for the pits happens in their communities between now and Nov?

As I understand it, the US president doesn't have local powers the way we have here as America is a federal state. So voters look to their state government.

America is such a consumerist and materialistic society, it wouldn't surprise me if the population there isn't that bothered about the loss of life.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

As I understand it, the US president doesn't have local powers the way we have here as America is a federal state. So voters look to their state government.

America is such a consumerist and materialistic society, it wouldn't surprise me if the population there isn't that bothered about the loss of life.

America's zeal for individualism is becoming a hindrance to effective appliance of social distancing and communal responses - that much is evident by the more macabre examples found of the "screw you, I'm an American" mentality - but to assert the country "doesn't care" about a loss of life is absurd. People might underestimate the severity, or ignorance might cause calamitous results, but they care. It's just there hasn't been an existential crisis like this in 100 years.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

As I understand it, the US president doesn't have local powers the way we have here as America is a federal state. So voters look to their state government.

America is such a consumerist and materialistic society, it wouldn't surprise me if the population there isn't that bothered about the loss of life.

So is it your opinion that Don shouldn't be wasting his time talking each evening about the virus and its finality effects on U.S voters as they are simply consumerists and don't care about it?

salmocab

Local government set local rules so locals listen to that but as Trump keeps telling people his pressers get huge numbers so plenty are tuning in.