President Trump

[Sideroxylon]

Where do Australian "conservatives" fit on the global political spectrum? People who call themselves "conservatives" in many countries would be moderate-to-liberal in the U.S.

This is true and the issues that frequently bind them are different. Immigration limitations, anti same sex marriage, tough on crime, cuts to welfare systems are some ideas in common that come to mind.

 

[Garrison]

I'm not defending Trump's past behavior (although I think labeling him a disgraceful partisan hack would be a few light-years off target). In any event, he wasn't a member of the government then, let alone a member of Congress. It is not irresponsible for a private citizen to proclaim the President is illegitimate. It probably happens millions of times a day, and it has negligible effect.

Trump claimed that a president was illegitimate because he mistakenly thought they lost the popular vote and now suddenly that's just fine with him and he bangs on about how he clearly won the election. It's rank hypocrisy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're clueless about politics. The President is the president of all of America. It's his job title. It's necessary for him to include those who didn't vote for him in his policy-making. If you don't know that, you're more than clueless.

That doesn't appear to be the approach taken by any president during my lifetime. They all appear to approach policy from their own party's platform... which is never really more than about half of the country, and definitely isn't including the beliefs and desires of those who didn't vote for them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nonsense. I'll give you an example of talk that not only should be censured but roundly condemned by Republicans:

McConnell: Our only objective will be to make Obama a one-term president.

The current pissing contest between Trump and Lewis isn't going to hurt anyone. McConnell has routinely put party ahead of country, hurting a lot of people. Your talk censure meter is broken.

Which politicians don't?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If this thread has shown anything, it is that Trump supporters lack a fundamental understanding of democratic elections.

How so?

 

[Sideroxylon]

That doesn't appear to be the approach taken by any president during my lifetime. They all appear to approach policy from their own party's platform... which is never really more than about half of the country, and definitely isn't including the beliefs and desires of those who didn't vote for them.

Trump's seeming shoot-from-the-hip policy making looks to be at odds with his own party's platform and even his own appointees' ideas. Half of the fun is going to be watching how these clashes play out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I love the Trump supporters.

If Trump says something stupid, it's not what's in his heart.
If Trump says something that contradicts something he's said before, well don't worry about it.
If Trump doesn't say something, he doesn't have to, it's obvious.

Can't lose.

And why would you not announce it, if it's obvious?

Caveat: This is my personal opinion, based on my observations of interactions between people with strong partisan preferences. It is not a statement of fact, nor should it be interpreted to imply any factual basis whatsoever.


In general, it has seemed to me that the traditional "left" has gained a lot of power by controlling the message and the narrative. They seem to anchor how the discussion takes place, and to additionally rub a significant amount of appeal to emotion on top of it. There has been a tendency to mock and ridicule those who disagree with their ideology and their policy suggestions.

It is my opinion that a large amount of the hatred for Trump (not all, by any means) is because he doesn't play by those rules. He doesn't care about the ground rules for discussion that they keep trying to lay out. He doesn't react the way they want him to, and he doesn't follow their lead. He rejects their narrative altogether and is immune to their ridicule. In fact, he responds to the veiled ad-hom of the left with egregious and blatant ad-hom. He doesn't try to defend himself against misleading accusations. In short, he refuses to answer "when will you stop beating your wife"... and instead responds with "you're a jerk" and walks away.

Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment or not, I firmly believe that controlling the narrative is an incredibly powerful tool. And it's one that the left has been very good at wielding in the past. But it only works as long as the opponent accepts the framework for that narrative. In the past, it hasn't always been the democrats that have taken this approach. Not that long ago, it was the republican party controlling the discussion, controlling the interpretation of discourse, and consequently pushing forth equal rights for black people.

The one who controls the discussion controls the belief. The left has lost control of the discussion at present, and Trump has established his own rules. They aren't good rules, but they're effective.

I suggest you try changing your approach so you can get back on top of the narrative here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How did Trump cheat?

There is sufficient evidence to suggest his campaign staff were in contact with Russia coordinating the interference in the election.

Umm... let's talk math here for a minute. Clinton won fewer popular votes overall than she won in California alone. She won CA by 3.4 million votes, but had only 2.9 million more votes in aggregate. Trump won significantly more than a "small lead in three states".

At the end of the day, the popular vote argument for this particular election boils down to "California voted for Clinton, so Trump should have lost!". I'm not personally convinced that California is representative of the entire nation

That's some classic cherry picking there. Why not take New York out of the picture too? Or do what Trump is doing, count by states.

Last I checked, California was in the US. Why should an individual in CA or NY's vote count less than a person in WY? Get real.

[snipped absurdity]

Speculation that can't be disproved does not constitute evidence, nor even support.

That can't be disproved? Seriously?

Why don't you look at the evidence that is there?

Denver Post: Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says. This has been confirmed. At first the Trump team denied it. Then they admitted one call to the Russian Ambassador. Now it turns out there were multiple calls to the Russian Ambassador before the election.

Why did they deny it, then only admit to one call when there were several?

Then there are Trump's picks that have ties to Russia, Paul Manafort and Rex Tillerson. Do you think that is a conincidence?

Yes, the case is early and circumstantial. But it is not pure speculation either or unprovable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd rather watch his supporters rot. Skunks aren't evil or mean on purpose.

Do you genuinely think that over 62 million americans are evil and are mean on purpose?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That doesn't appear to be the approach taken by any president during my lifetime. They all appear to approach policy from their own party's platform... which is never really more than about half of the country, and definitely isn't including the beliefs and desires of those who didn't vote for them.

Riiight, Obama never tried, according to Mitch McConnell who said publicly his top priority was making Obama look bad.

Does that mean you were born after Bill Clinton left office? Because he made many deals with the Republicans.

 

[Mumbles]

Riiight, Obama never tried, according to Mitch McConnell who said publicly his top priority was making Obama look bad.

Does that mean you were born after Bill Clinton left office? Because he made many deals with the Republicans.

I seem to recall GWB working with congressional democrats on many issues as well, even before 9/11. No Child Left Behind, the tax rebates that Americans got to stave off the recession, and so forth...

 

[kookbreaker]

That's some classic cherry picking there. Why not take New York out of the picture too? Or do what Trump is doing, count by states.

Last I checked, California was in the US. Why should an individual in CA or NY's vote count less than a person in WY? Get real.

You see, you don't understand! If you take away votes from Hilary, then Trump wins the popular vote! Easy!

In fact if you don't count all the votes for Hillary then Trump wins the popular amount by a YUGE margin!

 

[Spindrift]

Caveat: This is my personal opinion, based on my observations of interactions between people with strong partisan preferences. It is not a statement of fact, nor should it be interpreted to imply any factual basis whatsoever.


In general, it has seemed to me that the traditional "left" has gained a lot of power by controlling the message and the narrative. They seem to anchor how the discussion takes place, and to additionally rub a significant amount of appeal to emotion on top of it. There has been a tendency to mock and ridicule those who disagree with their ideology and their policy suggestions.

It is my opinion that a large amount of the hatred for Trump (not all, by any means) is because he doesn't play by those rules. He doesn't care about the ground rules for discussion that they keep trying to lay out. He doesn't react the way they want him to, and he doesn't follow their lead. He rejects their narrative altogether and is immune to their ridicule. In fact, he responds to the veiled ad-hom of the left with egregious and blatant ad-hom. He doesn't try to defend himself against misleading accusations. In short, he refuses to answer "when will you stop beating your wife"... and instead responds with "you're a jerk" and walks away.

Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment or not, I firmly believe that controlling the narrative is an incredibly powerful tool. And it's one that the left has been very good at wielding in the past. But it only works as long as the opponent accepts the framework for that narrative. In the past, it hasn't always been the democrats that have taken this approach. Not that long ago, it was the republican party controlling the discussion, controlling the interpretation of discourse, and consequently pushing forth equal rights for black people.

The one who controls the discussion controls the belief. The left has lost control of the discussion at present, and Trump has established his own rules. They aren't good rules, but they're effective.

I suggest you try changing your approach so you can get back on top of the narrative here.

Sorry, if the other side goes insane, the resolution isn't to join the insanity.

 

[Fudbucker]

Do you genuinely think that over 62 million americans are evil and are mean on purpose?

I think anyone that would give Trump a pass on the stuff he was caught on camera saying is not someone I want to be around. Trump bragged about assaulting women, said pervy stuff about dating little girls, said pervy incestuous stuff about his daughter, said a talk show host could call his daughter a "piece of ass", etc.

People that support a person like that are not what I would consider "nice" people. They might not be evil, but I don't want much to do with them. I understand things are bad in the rust belt. Neither party has done much to help. That doesn't justify supporting someone like Trump.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Do you genuinely think that over 62 million americans are evil and are mean on purpose?

“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
― Hannah Arendt

 

[BobTheCoward]

What, by disagreeing with your politics?

Not for me. Political enemies can warrant respect. I can respect both Paul Ryan and Nancy pelosi. I respect some writers at redstate and dailykos.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He's the legitimate president and narcasisric bonehead.

True statement

 

[Emily's Cat]

I just heard one commentator make a distinction between "legal" and "legitimate." Trump is indisputably the lawful, elected President. But if his election was the result of improper manipulation by the Russians, the FBI or anybody else, you could still argue that it's not legitimate.

Couldn't you make that argument for ANY type of advertisement, blog, news article, or statement made by anyone who isn't a direct representative of the candidates themselves?

All those commercials and statements made in support of, or against, a particular candidate at any point in the past are things that influence election decisions made by voters. I don't think that any of them, including Russia's actions, count as "improper manipulation". It's all, each and every one, a propaganda play.

 

[NoahFence]

I doubt any on the left will understand this, its more proof of why you lost, bigly!

But main stream comedians never make fun of democrats. I mean who could offer more material than joe Biden, chuck you shumer, nanny Pelosi, or Debbie was a man Shultz.
Comedians don't make fun of the left. So the right will settle for a guy who yells back. Its obviously working, look how jazzed he has the fine leftists on here.

There's a reason for that.

They're not as easy a target, and comics are usually intelligent people - therefore they're on the left for the most part.

Crude comedy comes from the right, because it doesn't take much in the noggin to create or enjoy that kind of comedy.

Just and FYI from your good buddy Noah.

 

[Fudbucker]

“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
― Hannah Arendt

You might like this,if you haven't already read bout it (Reserve Police Battalion 101):
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-9/reserve-police-battalion-101