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

StringerBell

At this point I'd be very comfortable with saying that his core support is racist.

pixelburp

Speaking of those questionably racist, I'm reading Trump came out in defence of the "gun couple" who stood outside their mansion brandishing weapons (including an assault rifle) during a BLM protest that went through the private estate. Apparently the prosecutor will only pursue community service but of course it has kicked up a stink over the "castle doctrine" (ie, the right to protect ones home) and that it was the march being the most criminal in breaking into the private estate (denied by the protestors). I'm also reading Trump again, via Twitter, attacked someone "taking the knee", specifically San Francisco Giants manager Gabe Kapler.

So to paraphrase The Simpsons when referring to Fox: Trump. Not racist, just loved by racists.

Leroy42

it the hypocrisy. Taking a knee is against America, against the military and to go called out as unpatriotic.

Refusing to wear a face mask or brandishing the flag of the largest traitor army ever to face the USA is seen as freedom and something to be welcomed.

For a country that wears it patriotism so much on it sleeve, its continued acceptance that a large part of the south still hankers over the traitors to the very nation they profess to love is really odd.

Muahahaha

VinLieger wrote: »

She literally epitomises the american dream of starting from nothing to become a congresswoman yet one of the insults they like throwing at her is that she was a bartender. It still baffles me their levels of cognitive dissonance.

Also they are just pathetically fragile old white racist men.

AOC probably deserves her own thread at this stage, I cant ever remember a freshman representative causing such an impact in Washington.

Im beginning to think the constant attacks on her are derived from the fears of Republicans of what she actually has the potential to achieve. They look at Sanders' campaign in 2016 and it scares them how popular his ideas became in such a short space of time. HillaryDNC trickery aside had Sanders got the nomination he probably wouldnt have won v.Trump in 2016, his age being a sizeable impediment.

But his run wasnt in vein, what he did achieve was to open up peoples minds to such crazy ideas like healthcare for poor people. AOC continues on those ideas and she is a lot younger. Because of her age she cant run for the WH until 2028 at the earliest but that actually suits her. She already has a national profile which will only grow from now till then.

There is a real vitriolic hatred for her amongst Republicans. They get even more wound up when their attacks are batted off by her so easily and nothing seems to phase her. They try to attack her on policy and that fails, they try to attack her personally and that fails too. They're desperate to take her down but every attempt seems to increase her profile and make her more popular and likeable. They can see the very viable potential there for a Sanders-esque run for the White House in 2028. I think that scares them greatly.

Gbear

Muahahaha wrote: »

HillaryDNC trickery aside had Sanders got the nomination he probably wouldnt have won v.Trump in 2016, his age being a sizeable impediment.

He's only 4 years older than Trump, so I'm not sure why that would matter.


All the ways Clinton was weak, I think Sanders would've been strong, with the non-college educated white male vote being far more likely to vote for him than Clinton.


There might've been other swing states with Hispanic voters or Black voters that would've been more difficult for him, but if he'd had a solid middle of the road black or latino running mate in the vein of Cory Booker, Julian Castro or someone like that maybe he could've smoothed out any bumps in the road.


I think that'll be true of Biden as well, albeit to a lesser degree. Clinton has a legitimate taint to her (as well as lots of illegitimate ones), and despite Biden being part of the establishment for 40 or 50 years, he still has more of an everyman feeling about him. He's not wonkish, elitist, he's never been particular suave or cool, and I think that sets him apart from the likes of Clinton, or someone like Buttigieg, who doesn't come across as remotely genuine.

Leroy42

Gbear wrote: »

I think that'll be true of Biden as well, albeit to a lesser degree. Clinton has a legitimate taint to her (as well as lots of illegitimate ones), and despite Biden being part of the establishment for 40 or 50 years, he still has more of an everyman feeling about him. He's not wonkish, elitist, he's never been particular suave or cool, and I think that sets him apart from the likes of Clinton, or someone like Buttigieg, who doesn't come across as remotely genuine.

This type of thinking, and I agree that it is very prevalent in voters, always makes me wonder.

In sports, business, the local policeman etc, we all want professionals that know what they are doing and have the confidence in themselves and their abilities.

Yet it seems for politicians we want the local guy with no skills or experience. And they can play a role of course, but as the leader? Particularly one such as POTUS which carries such power?

They are up against seasoned professionals such as Putin and Xi, Merkel etc. Trump has clearly been out of his depth on some many occasions. Despite all the hard work and skills of the professionals around him, at the end of the day deals are made by leaders.
Why would people not want a professional in that position?

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

it the hypocrisy. Taking a knee is against America, against the military and to go called out as unpatriotic.

Refusing to wear a face mask or brandishing the flag of the largest traitor army ever to face the USA is seen as freedom and something to be welcomed.

For a country that wears it patriotism so much on it sleeve, its continued acceptance that a large part of the south still hankers over the traitors to the very nation they profess to love is really odd.

Ah patriotism means whatever you want it to mean really. It is a great tool. You have to be patriotic and you aren't a patriot unless you od as I say. It doesn't encourage a discussion as to whether what I am saying is a good point or not which is the point.

PropJoe10

Trump on the Ghislaine Maxwell case:

"I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach and I guess they lived in Palm Beach... but I wish her well, whatever it is."

How is this guy still President of the United States?

briany

You know that when Fox News has a hard time defending Trump, things have to be looking grim for the man. You have to think that his campaign rhetoric is going to get more and more nihilistic as the election gets nearer because he can't really reach out to the moderates with talk of 'winning'. Any right-thinking moderate would have to look at him and his administration's complete inability to handle the coronavirus crisis as a huge red flag. I think you could overlook all the mad stuff on Twitter and hold your nose to vote for him if the virus had not hit and the economy kept rolling. But his leadership at every point in the pandemic has been woeful and has also been symbolic of the confusion and division that has partly led to America's embarrassment over it.

So, without being able to really talk about how great his economy's going to be, he has very little except to be full-on combative and probably go further down the QAnon rabbit hole, and go all in on the conspiracy that there is a deep-state cabal hell-bent on removing Trump from office before he turns the country into a great utopia, albeit maybe in a somewhat guarded way, i.e. "a lot of people are telling me...".

duploelabs

StringerBell wrote: »

At this point I'd be very comfortable with saying that his core support is racist.

When you start using absolute terms like that you fall in the same rhetoric as Trump is using. Ie all protesters are socialists and therefore are all antifa

ancapailldorcha

duploelabs wrote: »

When you start using absolute terms like that you fall in the same rhetoric as Trump is using. Ie all protesters are socialists and therefore are all antifa

I'd be inclined to disagree. He (presumably) did specify Trump's core. Not conservatives, the right or Republicans in general. Trump's core. Speaking for myself, it's impossible to think that anyone would vote for Trump without being at least somewhat racist. Republican, conservative or libertarian sure but specifically Trump? No.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd be inclined to disagree. He (presumably) did specify Trump's core. Not conservatives, the right or Republicans in general. Trump's core. Speaking for myself, it's impossible to think that anyone would vote for Trump without being at least somewhat racist. Republican, conservative or libertarian sure but specifically Trump? No.

Indeed they may not consider themselves to be racist and they may not be a KKK hood wearing, union flag waving stereotype, but to be able to put aside everything hes said and done to vote for him under the guise of "the economy" or some other reason undoubtedly puts them in that group whether they like it or not.

briany

It's hard to believe that Trump's support is 100 percent racist. While his efforts to bring blue collar jobs back the U.S. have had fairly limited results, the few coal mines he had helped reopen means the associated towns probably have a lot of Trump die-hards in them. For those people, the line between economic stagnation and prosperity is probably Trump being in office.

listermint

briany wrote: »

It's hard to believe that Trump's support is 100 percent racist. While his efforts to bring blue collar jobs back the U.S. have had fairly limited results, the few coal mines he had helped reopen means the associated towns probably have a lot of Trump die-hards in them. For those people, the line between economic stagnation and prosperity is probably Trump being in office.

The mines that are closed again....

Retr0gamer

Heard a quote before. Not all trump supporters are racist but find me a racist that isn't a trump supporter.

pixelburp

Problem with the "racist" angle as I see it, is that racists rarely think they're racist. It'll be phrased as merely concern for "urban crime", or even skirt full white supremacy with some waffle about preserving Christian culture or whatnot. As the saying goes it's very much "dog whistling", but it's rare you'll see or hear American racists simply admit "I don't like X people". And as we saw with 2016, if a public figure declares an entire demographic as racism adjacent - a deplorable if you will - you'll not only get those demographics double down on their beliefs, but lose some sympathetic independents too. Dismissing Trump supporters as merely racist, and so not worthy of consideration is short sighted and just further bunkers American politics. Not that their prejudices should be placated but as is often the case, exposure to other cultures works better than simple vilification. Not that the opposite end of the spectrum is healthy either: this current wave of American White Guilt manifest with meaningless cultural gestures is surface level self-flagellation. And again, this merely comes off as dismissive and plays into the narrative of "PC culture going too far" that entices those sceptical or cynical towards Coastal America.

The Nal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Heard a quote before. Not all trump supporters are racist but find me a racist that isn't a trump supporter.

I've met a few in the south. Not Democrats or Republicans. Remember, over 100 million Americans don't vote. Loads of racists in there who don't care about Trump or Obama/Clinton/Biden.

Igotadose

Muahahaha wrote: »

AOC probably deserves her own thread at this stage, I cant ever remember a freshman representative causing such an impact in Washington.

Im beginning to think the constant attacks on her are derived from the fears of Republicans of what she actually has the potential to achieve. They look at Sanders' campaign in 2016 and it scares them how popular his ideas became in such a short space of time. HillaryDNC trickery aside had Sanders got the nomination he probably wouldnt have won v.Trump in 2016, his age being a sizeable impediment.

But his run wasnt in vein, what he did achieve was to open up peoples minds to such crazy ideas like healthcare for poor people. AOC continues on those ideas and she is a lot younger. Because of her age she cant run for the WH until 2028 at the earliest but that actually suits her. She already has a national profile which will only grow from now till then.

There is a real vitriolic hatred for her amongst Republicans. They get even more wound up when their attacks are batted off by her so easily and nothing seems to phase her. They try to attack her on policy and that fails, they try to attack her personally and that fails too. They're desperate to take her down but every attempt seems to increase her profile and make her more popular and likeable. They can see the very viable potential there for a Sanders-esque run for the White House in 2028. I think that scares them greatly.

I can easily see her running to replace Schumer in 2022, she'll have been elected twice to Congress by then.

As for the tGOP hatred, the incident the other day when the knuckledragger Yoho swore at AOC and wagged his finger in her face and called her a b1tch in the Capitol was, well, pretty damned remarkable. Classic #MeToo moment - Yoho doesn't try to be intimidating to a guy. Only a woman. And he feels perfectly within his rights to behave that way. Disgusting.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/aoc-ted-yoho-confrontation/index.html

not_quite_last

pixelburp wrote: »

Problem with the "racist" angle as I see it, is that racists rarely think they're racist. It'll be phrased as merely concern for "urban crime", or even skirt full white supremacy with some waffle about preserving Christian culture or whatnot. As the saying goes it's very much "dog whistling", but it's rare you'll see or hear American racists simply admit "I don't like X people". And as we saw with 2016, if a public figure declares an entire demographic as racism adjacent - a deplorable if you will - you'll not only get those demographics double down on their beliefs, but lose some sympathetic independents too. Dismissing Trump supporters as merely racist, and so not worthy of consideration is short sighted and just further bunkers American politics. Not that their prejudices should be placated but as is often the case, exposure to other cultures works better than simple vilification. Not that the opposite end of the spectrum is healthy either: this current wave of American White Guilt manifest with meaningless cultural gestures is surface level self-flagellation. And again, this merely comes off as dismissive and plays into the narrative of "PC culture going too far" that entices those sceptical or cynical towards Coastal America.

So if some one's a racist, we shouldn't call them out then? Do we just see they're racist and let them keep being racist?
Trump takes a full page ad out that says the central park 5 should be executed even though they didn't do anything, and we should say nothing?

pixelburp

not_quite_last wrote: »

So if some one's a racist, we shouldn't call them out then? Do we just see they're racist and let them keep being racist?
Trump takes a full page ad out that says the central park 5 should be executed even though they didn't do anything, and we should say nothing?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Trump's a terrible example of most human behaviour because by all accounts nothing he does can be measured against anything resembling a norm. His flaws do not start and end with his racism. Rather, you'd have thought 2016 showed that dismissing or attacking an entire demographic - Trump's "base" and however that Venn diagram extends - as racist and therefore not worth considering is reductionist and just drives that grouping into further stubbornness. Individual acts of racism should always be challenged, but that shouldn't extend into generalisations.

not_quite_last

pixelburp wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying at all. Trump's a terrible example of most human behaviour because by all accounts nothing he does can be measured against anything resembling a norm. His flaws do not start and end with his racism. Rather, you'd have thought 2016 showed that dismissing or attacking an entire demographic - Trump's "base" and however that Venn diagram extends - as racist and therefore not worth considering is reductionist and just drives that grouping into further stubbornness. Individual acts of racism should always be challenged, but that shouldn't extend into generalisations.

We definitely agree his flaws don't start or end with his racism!
But with all he has said and done in the last 3 years, his base hasn't changed. They're jumped through so many hoops trying to justify what he's said and done, I think we all see, they aren't going to change. Whether you call them out or not.
They were never going to vote democrat whoever was in blue too.
Even now the non-racist republicans who Trump have lost, there's more chance of them just not voting than voting for Biden.

Water John

Genuine conservative republicans would vote for Biden. They would be Constitutionalists and believe in law. Two politicians I would expect to vote for Biden would be Romney and Kaisch, as example.

Foxtrol

Muahahaha wrote: »

AOC probably deserves her own thread at this stage, I cant ever remember a freshman representative causing such an impact in Washington.

Im beginning to think the constant attacks on her are derived from the fears of Republicans of what she actually has the potential to achieve. They look at Sanders' campaign in 2016 and it scares them how popular his ideas became in such a short space of time. HillaryDNC trickery aside had Sanders got the nomination he probably wouldnt have won v.Trump in 2016, his age being a sizeable impediment.

But his run wasnt in vein, what he did achieve was to open up peoples minds to such crazy ideas like healthcare for poor people. AOC continues on those ideas and she is a lot younger. Because of her age she cant run for the WH until 2028 at the earliest but that actually suits her. She already has a national profile which will only grow from now till then.

There is a real vitriolic hatred for her amongst Republicans. They get even more wound up when their attacks are batted off by her so easily and nothing seems to phase her. They try to attack her on policy and that fails, they try to attack her personally and that fails too. They're desperate to take her down but every attempt seems to increase her profile and make her more popular and likeable. They can see the very viable potential there for a Sanders-esque run for the White House in 2028. I think that scares them greatly.

It is great to talk up vitriolic hatred as some sort of badge of honour but that isn't helpful when it comes to winning general elections. As we saw with Clinton in 2016, firing up the opposition base only makes it harder for you to win. As we talk about racist elements in US society, there is also strong sexism.

Maybe US society will have changed by the time she can run but right now I don't see her being any sort of threat for a presidential run.

Quin_Dub

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is great to talk up vitriolic hatred as some sort of badge of honour but that isn't helpful when it comes to winning general elections. As we saw with Clinton in 2016, firing up the opposition base only makes it harder for you to win. As we talk about racist elements in US society, there is also strong sexism.

Maybe US society will have changed by the time she can run but right now I don't see her being any sort of threat for a presidential run.

Think her next step is the Senate - Maybe taking over from Schumer if he was to retire in a few years or possibly just taking him on.

Muahahaha

pixelburp wrote: »

Problem with the "racist" angle as I see it, is that racists rarely think they're racist. It'll be phrased as merely concern for "urban crime", or even skirt full white supremacy with some waffle about preserving Christian culture or whatnot. As the saying goes it's very much "dog whistling", but it's rare you'll see or hear American racists simply admit "I don't like X people".

I think thats because racism has evolved to be a lot more subtle, hence the use of dog whistles instead of outright 'I dont like X people'. They know a majority in society abhors racism so instead they have to disguise their racism. We even see it here on boards quite a bit, posters will never admit their racism but do a review of the threads they've started and you'll see a definite pattern of hatred of certain groups.

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Think her next step is the Senate - Maybe taking over from Schumer if he was to retire in a few years or possibly just taking him on.

Agree on that next step for her. I think she is politically astute enough not to challenge Schumer, as he won't last that much longer.

AOC pushes things but doing something like that just makes needless enemies that could scupper any future presidential run or getting senior roles.

Carfacemandog

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is great to talk up vitriolic hatred as some sort of badge of honour but that isn't helpful when it comes to winning general elections. As we saw with Clinton in 2016, firing up the opposition base only makes it harder for you to win. As we talk about racist elements in US society, there is also strong sexism.

Maybe US society will have changed by the time she can run but right now I don't see her being any sort of threat for a presidential run.

I think there's a very big difference between AOC and Hillary Clinton to be honest. Clinton drew all the hatred and vitriol but at the same time, never really motivated any kind of a true base on her side of the spectrum or opened up new demographics. AOC appears to very much have done so, and has caught the attention of younger voters and those to the left of the corporate wing of the democratic party.

Ironically enough, a better comparison might be Hillary's own husband, as he drew perhaps even more ire from the Republicans than she did but also motivated the hell out of, and somewhat even reshaped, what the Democrat base was while winning more EC votes for the democrats than anyone since FDR (in both 1992 and 1996).

Funny enough, Reagan and FDR were also hated by their critics but loved by their supporters, and both reshaped American politics and the bases of each party in general (I would apply the love/hate issue to truno also, but not reshaping bases - that happened with the Tea Party). The same can arguably be said for Bill Clinton.

Not to say Cortes definitely has that ahead in her future, especially this early on in her political career, but "hated by some, indifferent attitudes by others" which applied to Hillary Clinton is definitely not the case with her.

Water John

The family story told by Mary Trump discloses exactly how dysfunctional the family is;
'But one Thanksgiving, the eldest son, Fred Jr, found himself relegated to the junior end of the table with his daughter Mary. “During the course of the meal, my grandmother choked,” Mary Trump recalls. “My dad had been a volunteer ambulance driver in the late 60s and early 70s so he knew the Heimlich manoeuvre and he very gently manoeuvred her into the kitchen and gave her the Heimlich, and that basically saved her from choking.

“Nobody else moved; everybody kept eating. It was a sort of awkward, embarrassing thing that Gam [her nickname] choked.' Guardian

They fcuking well kept eating.

Foxtrol

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I think there's a very big difference between AOC and Hillary Clinton to be honest. Clinton drew all the hatred and vitriol but at the same time, never really motivated any kind of a true base on her side of the spectrum or opened up new demographics. AOC appears to very much have done so, and has caught the attention of younger voters and those to the left of the corporate wing of the democratic party.

Ironically enough, a better comparison might be Hillary's own husband, as he drew perhaps even more ire from the Republicans than she did but also motivated the hell out of, and somewhat even reshaped, what the Democrat base was while winning more EC votes for the democrats than anyone since FDR (in both 1992 and 1996).

Funny enough, Reagan and FDR were also hated by their critics but loved by their supporters, and both reshaped American politics and the bases of each party in general (I would apply the love/hate issue to truno also, but not reshaping bases - that happened with the Tea Party). The same can arguably be said for Bill Clinton.

Not to say Cortes definitely has that ahead in her future, especially this early on in her political career, but "hated by some, indifferent attitudes by others" which applied to Hillary Clinton is definitely not the case with her.

Bernie in 2016 and 2020 showed how smoke and mirrors the support of 'young' and 'left of corporate' groups of the democratic party are.

Until we see their noisy online presence actually translate into votes outside of blue/liberal strongholds then saying she is 'loved' by them doesn't add up to much.

StringerBell

duploelabs wrote: »

When you start using absolute terms like that you fall in the same rhetoric as Trump is using. Ie all protesters are socialists and therefore are all antifa

I'm aware of the possible pitfalls and it has taken me a long time to become comfortable with saying it, but yep. His core support is racist in my view. Not everyone who voted for him in 2016, not everyone who still supported him for his first few months, even a year into office, but now. Yep. That 30% that is his core voting block is racist.