President Trump: Part II

[3point14]

I disagree with this assessment. Only calling out one's own side when both sides do it, or when the other side is doing it to a much greater degree, doesn't give one the high ground. It actually makes one's own side look worse to a casual observer to be called out for a trivial thing that the other side is allowed to do with impunity. I think this sort of thing played into Trump's win, actually, because the press was far more interested in reporting on/calling out Clinton than Trump.

I think we should call Donald Donald and Hillary Hillary.

Unfortunately, I think that inventive and childish name calling actually has an effect. If one can make it stick. Very similar in concept to constantly lying in order to erode the critical thinking skills of one's audience.

I think name calling is actually advantageous but I still condemn it from both sides. I'm trying to be a grown up.

 

[dudalb]

Except Trump doesn't understand nor even attempt to practice diplomacy. He's a school yard bully. Give him what he wants and he will only want more.

Must....not....make....Godwin.....

 

[Spindrift]

A lot of people are quoting the first chapter of Trump's ghost written book
Art Of The Deal where he says that insulting and belittleing someone you are nogotaiting with is a horrible first move.....

You don't expect Trump to have read his own book, do you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought the Trumpmeister was taking us back to the 20th century, back to the 1950s, but this is like a headline from the 19th century.

What I don't get is his hostility to Australia. Australia? What did Australia do to us? Or to him?

Trump wants to scrap a prior agreement for the US to take some of Australia's refugee population which are currently an issue for them.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I disagree with this assessment. Only calling out one's own side when both sides do it, or when the other side is doing it to a much greater degree, doesn't give one the high ground.

Let me say that "Obummer" is exactly as stupid and inappropriate as "The Hair". That "libtard" is exactly as stupid and inappropriate as "republicker". I don't think I'm alone in that.

I just don't get what someone thinks they're gaining with the derogatory names. Maybe it gets a grin from like-minded forum members. Maybe they think it's clever. Maybe it makes them feel superior.

But one thing it does NOT do is advance their cause nor strengthen their argument. Quite the inverse is true.

 

[sts60]

Trump wants to scrap a prior agreement for the US to take some of Australia's refugee population which are currently an issue for them.

He apparently ranted on the call about having to take "illegal aliens", never mind the fact that if the U.S. has agreed to take them they are, by definition, not illegal. Jackass.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Both of these people want their country to have good relations with the US. Making a big deal of Trumps behavior would help sour relations since then they are supposed respond in kind.

Modern international relations are built upon the notion of reciprocity: if you treat me badly I'll treat you badly. By denying, at least officially, that they were treated badly it lowers the desire for retaliation and save face if they choose to deal with America in good faith despite Trumps rudeness.

Wishful thinking on their parts that they can make nice with Trump. Record the conversations and save them to use if/when needed.

 

[3point14]

Let me say that "Obummer" is exactly as stupid and inappropriate as "The Hair". That "libtard" is exactly as stupid and inappropriate as "republicker". I don't think I'm alone in that.

I just don't get what someone thinks they're gaining with the derogatory names. Maybe it gets a grin from like-minded forum members. Maybe they think it's clever. Maybe it makes them feel superior.

But one thing it does NOT do is advance their cause nor strengthen their argument. Quite the inverse is true.

In this space, you're right.

In the real world it creates an ingroup/outgroup thing and, if you can get a reasonable amount of people referring to 'Crooked Hillary' then you can get some people to believe it.

It's all part of the post-fact political world, fatigue or bypass the critical thinking skills of those you want to befuddle then win an election.

It's all part of the same tactic - I can understand, but not condone, it out in the real world. In here it just makes people, from both sides of the divide, look like name-calling children with no argument beyond the insults.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Seems to me that we are all suffering the consequences of the myopic tactic of only calling out one's own side when the other side is far worse.

One side has the benefit from having acted ethically. That outweighs the physical costs.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Unfortunately, I think that inventive and childish name calling actually has an effect. If one can make it stick. Very similar in concept to constantly lying in order to erode the critical thinking skills of one's audience.

I think name calling is actually advantageous but I still condemn it from both sides. I'm trying to be a grown up.

I think I agree to some extent. "Little Marco" repeated enough times can "stick" and make him seem small. "Lying Ted" can make one start to notice inconsistencies in his future statements, as can "Hilliary" or "Crooked Hillary".

But the very nature of such slurs are ad hominem attacks, attacking the person rather than particular arguments. Something I'd expect more on Facebook than a forum with "skeptics" in its name.

note: written before I read your most recent post. I think we're definitely on the same page.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

As to the name-calling issue, one must recognize there are degrees along the way, and then there are, in a category of their own, the very tippy-tip ends of the scale. This presidency is not normal. The policies advocated break with decades of sound bilateral practice internally, and multilateral cooperation externally, created in response to not just wars and warfare, but to world wars. Global conflicts. The weapons available today are not normal, and break with all that have gone before, including the atomic bombs used on Japan. The degree of interdependence and need today for integrated supply chains across the planet is not your world of the mid-20th century, when isolationism still seemed possible as sound policy.

Trump, and the GOP as a whole, are breaking with all that. If only a business deal and an exorbitant rip-off of shareholders and suppliers were all that were at stake, we could call Trump what he is and has consistently been, a dishonest con artist. This is a matter of record, not insult. But it is not business only, or business as usual. The bully tactics of a back alley shakedown are in vogue, and every time the planet sees leadership of that nature, blood flows.

It is fair and proper, as a result of due diligence and matter of honesty from historical perspective, to call Trump a strutting egomaniac whose ignorance is only superseded by his greed. President Jerk of All Time, please prepare for the perp walk that is coming, sooner or later.

***

But he was legitimately elected, you say? He is the leader; get over it? Fine, in that case:

There should be no fig leaves to hide the very real support, among very real people, acting in real numbers, for might-alone-makes-me-right. Call it fascism or call it extreme nationalism; the poison is as deadly to comity among nations and peoples in any case. All three branches of the Federal government are now unequivocally aligned, as are the majority of state legislatures, and put forth undemocratic, autocratic policy and action. One may thank the GOP for the fact that, even if they do not have the raw numbers for a real national majority, the guilty charges for what Trump does and will do can be laid fairly and very squarely at the feet of the entire nation.

In this cowardly old world - nothing new or brave about it - it's spread cheeks, or join the resistance.

 

[newyorkguy]

Trump wants to scrap a prior agreement for the US to take some of Australia's refugee population which are currently an issue for them.

Thanks.

What's interesting is, I have seen people from State and Homeland Security say in interviews that the vetting process is very extensive. It's no coincidence that none of the people granted entry from countries that pose risks have turned out to be involved in terror attacks or clandestine activities. That we shouldn't confuse U.S. procedures with Europe's because ours are much more involved. In fact it normally takes 12-24 months before someone from Somalia or Yemen etc. will be granted entry status.

One example was the two Iraqis that were taken into custody (and subsently deported) in Kentucky in 2011. They were caught after the military developed a data base of fingerprints lifted off IEDs that were used in attacks on American troops. Their fingerprints were run through the data base and got hits. Btw, the two Iraqis weren't members of radical jihadist groups either; they had been members of a militia that fought against U.S. forces during the Iraq insurgency.

I saw Pence interviewed on PBS last night and when questioned about the Trump immigration EO he just answered in generalities. We want to do everything to keep the American people safe, we want to make sure we check people. This is one of the complaints the security people have voiced. They wish Trump would identify what exactly he thinks is lacking in the current programs. What needs to be fixed. That by implying there is little vetting or it's poorly done he is doing a huge disservice to the people who have been doing this work.

But Pence seemed to pretty clearly state, during the campaign Trump promised that if he was elected he would interrupt immigration from the Middle East and that's why he's doing this. It's not because he necessarily thinks the current programs are inadequate it's because he said he was going to stop the immigration and that's what he's doing.

It's politics aimed at domestic voters.

 

[wareyin]

One side has the benefit from having acted ethically. That outweighs the physical costs.

What benefit, other than a warm, fuzzy feeling as one loses? The physical, real world costs far out last and out weigh the nebulous feeling.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Name-calling can serve a function if the insult refers to a specific failing of the person you want to draw attention to: Killary, Il Douche, $hillary and so on can become shorthand for what would otherwise require a longer explanation.

 

[eeyore1954]

Trump wants to scrap a prior agreement for the US to take some of Australia's refugee population which are currently an issue for them.

President Trump may want to scrap a deal that I believe was made between President Obama and Australia that was made after the election. I would have to assume both parties knew that this deal would go against the new administrations policies and no one should be surprised at the reaction.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What benefit, other than a warm, fuzzy feeling as one loses? The physical, real world costs far out last and out weigh the nebulous feeling.

For an atheist, I practice a slavish adherence to morality like a religious zealot. My benefit is much like theirs.

 

[phiwum]

I disagree with this assessment. Only calling out one's own side when both sides do it, or when the other side is doing it to a much greater degree, doesn't give one the high ground. It actually makes one's own side look worse to a casual observer to be called out for a trivial thing that the other side is allowed to do with impunity. I think this sort of thing played into Trump's win, actually, because the press was far more interested in reporting on/calling out Clinton than Trump.

I can understand that sentiment. But intellectual honesty requires calling out both sides, I think.

My own tendency is to call out my own side more readily, since others will call out their opponents. This probably gives the false impression of which side I agree with, but so be it. I don't want to be silent when my allies make bad arguments.

 

[wareyin]

I can understand that sentiment. But intellectual honesty requires calling out both sides, I think.

My own tendency is to call out my own side more readily, since others will call out their opponents. This probably gives the false impression of which side I agree with, but so be it. I don't want to be silent when my allies make bad arguments.

The problem is that this results in nobody, or virtually nobody, calling out one side (Trump's side), while everyone "virtuously" calls out the side that doesn't rise to his level. It doesn't just give a false impression of which side you agree with, it gives a false impression of who is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that this results in nobody, or virtually nobody, calling out one side (Trump's side), while everyone "virtuously" calls out the side that doesn't rise to his level. It doesn't just give a false impression of which side you agree with, it gives a false impression of who is wrong.

Ah, so the solution is to be entirely partisan, then!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I think we should call Donald Donald and Hillary Hillary.

Unfortunately, I think that inventive and childish name calling actually has an effect. If one can make it stick. Very similar in concept to constantly lying in order to erode the critical thinking skills of one's audience.

I think name calling is actually advantageous but I still condemn it from both sides. I'm trying to be a grown up.

It does have an effect; it's a dehumanization tactic. If I can change your name, I can change your identity. If I can change your identity, I can change your classification.

It's a lot more powerful than most people realize.