• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armitage72 said:
Donald "Windrip" Trump.
The problem is that a lot of people, almost certainly including Trump, wouldn't get the reference, and would probably think it was a flatulence joke.
Click to expand...

Nice one, and it illustrates my point: one name and many people know exactly what you are talking about.
Politics creates its own nomenclature.
 
Emily's Cat said:
In other words, it is your opinion that anyone who didn't support Clinton was either stupid... or stupid. Their actual beliefs and positions are irrelevant and can't possibly have any validity to them or anyone else. At the end of the day, they're just stupid. :boggled:
Click to expand...
I would not say that, because there is always a difference between being stupid and doing a stupid thing. I think, unfortunately, that electing Trump was a stupid thing to do, and therefore that voting for Trump was a stupid thing to do. I know some people who are not, thereby, what one would rightly call stupid people. But exempting them from the basket of deplorables does not exempt them from having done a stupid thing.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If they are good or bad at, it does not alter my vote gaining strategy. I refuse to support a campaign that disqualifies the candidate.
Click to expand...
You just promised to never support the same party I do because of my opinion that a large percentage of people are easily misled and bad at assessing the facts. Trump's victory is evidence that my opinion is correct.

Your vote gaining strategy is do disproportionately criticize the less egregious actors more loudly than the worst offenders. I do not see that as effective. I also don't see how disqualifying a candidate* applies at all.


*(as Trump did when he claimed Clinton should be in jail for acts which were not criminal?)
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I thought it was childish and worthy of reproach when Trump began the juvenile name-calling about a year and a half ago.

I simply feel the same about the juvenile name-calling going on now.

Speaking only for myself, the minute I see "The Hair" or "tinyhands" or whatever, any argument the person might be making is slightly diminished by the childish presentation.

But I'm getting somewhat used to it. Only occasionally do I feel the need to speak out and condemn the behavior. As I did back then.

But carry on if it makes you feel good!
Click to expand...

I have no objection to people belittling and insulting Trump. By all means, go for it. the fuzzy-haired orange guy is in a public position that merits both scrutiny and satire.

My only disagreement is with the belittling and insulting of Trump supporters. even more so with not-Hillary-supporters.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
.....
Buying a false narrative does not equate to stupid. Very intelligent people who don't recognize narrative propaganda often buy into it.
....
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to keep insisting that anybody who didn't vote for Clinton was suckered by a "false narrative." In fact, I think you're making the same mistake she made: That it was all about her. The fact is that a lot of people have felt left behind in America, and that goes back to Obama failing to aggressively investigate and at least try to prosecute the instigators of the financial crisis. Trump made promises about jobs and the economy that sounded good to people who have seen their communities and their hopes collapse; Clinton offered nothing except to call them deplorable. Clinton's primary message -- if she even had one -- is "I'll give you more of the same, and besides, I'm not Trump." That was a great case to make to people who already supported her; but not very compelling to people in 30+ states who didn't.

One CNN commentator made an observation along these lines: He asked Trump supporters who had voted for Obama in 2008 "How could you do this?" They said, "We wanted change then, and we want change now. We'll vote for whoever gives it to us." And it wasn't Clinton.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
You just promised to never support the same party I do because of my opinion that a large percentage of people are easily misled and bad at assessing the facts. Trump's victory is evidence that my opinion is correct.

Your vote gaining strategy is do disproportionately criticize the less egregious actors more loudly than the worst offenders. I do not see that as effective. I also don't see how disqualifying a candidate* applies at all.


*(as Trump did when he claimed Clinton should be in jail for acts which were not criminal?)
Click to expand...

I'm saying that pursuing your strategy is so egregious it disqualifies a candidate for the office.

If it is a less effective strategy that is fine. I won't be a bad human being for the sake of political power.
 
I keep hearing about "extreme vetting... extreme vetting" before allowing refugees into the country.

How about some extreme vetting for Cabinet and SCOTUS nominations? "No, we have to speed up the process."
 
wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which press you have. My press appeared to spend a lot more time lambasting Trump. Granted I also ignored a lot of the campaign nonsense, so perhaps I just had really skewed timing.
 
Emily's Cat said:
How would you characterize US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't need to be explained to you. But Mexico is a close ally and primary trading partner. Afghanistan and Iraq were enemies who were seen as immediate threats to the U.S.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Are you speaking as a psychologist in the medical profession, or as an anesthesiologist, or pharmacist, or orderly? Simply being broadly "in the medical profession" doesn't necessarily grant one the expertise required to make a diagnosis. i'm inclined to say that those with the expertise would be significantly more reticent in making a diagnosis from second-hand observations without having evaluated the individual under consideration.

Of course, my opinion is based on nothing more than an understanding of professional ethics and the opinions of friends and family members who are actually psychologists. I could be wrong. You could be completely qualified to issue an armchair diagnosis.
Click to expand...
This has been addressed ad nauseum.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Pretty sure Clinton lost in many more than three states.
Click to expand...

Here's a lesson in logic, for what it's worth.

Claiming Clinton only won because of California when she won by large margins in all the blue states and more, is not the same as the reverse:

Taking the closest states Clinton lost in that would have switched the Electoral College outcome.

But I don't expect you to understand the difference.
 
Bob001 said:
I think it's a mistake to keep insisting that anybody who didn't vote for Clinton was suckered by a "false narrative."
Click to expand...
I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a voter who voted against Clinton that didn't buy into much or all of the false narrative.

Bob001 said:
In fact, I think you're making the same mistake she made: That it was all about her. The fact is that a lot of people have felt left behind in America, and that goes back to Obama failing to aggressively investigate and at least try to prosecute the instigators of the financial crisis. Trump made promises about jobs and the economy that sounded good to people who have seen their communities and their hopes collapse; Clinton offered nothing except to call them deplorable. Clinton's primary message -- if she even had one -- is "I'll give you more of the same, and besides, I'm not Trump." That was a great case to make to people who already supported her; but not very compelling to people in 30+ states who didn't.

One CNN commentator made an observation along these lines: He asked Trump supporters who had voted for Obama in 2008 "How could you do this?" They said, "We wanted change then, and we want change now. We'll vote for whoever gives it to us." And it wasn't Clinton.
Click to expand...
You ignore the very intense and decades long Clinton trashing using false accusations.

No other politician has been subject to the GOP obsession like the Clintons have been. You can't compare it to a normal situation. Even those who were totally destroyed during their campaigns didn't have a forty year history of negative campaigns being thrown at them. How many Benghazi hearings was that again?

Add to that Trump's incredibly deceitful campaign and you have a perfect storm.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nominated.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump is a member of his party - it would be their job to prevent Trump from taking a dump on our allies, not clean up after him.
Click to expand...

That could easily leave them open to primary challenges and since American politics is mainly about self-enrichment most of them aren't going to risk losing their party's nomination and their lively-hood.

This is one the core problems with American national politics: individual politicians have to constantly worry about whether or not they will be reelected to congress rather than doing politics. I mean they spend roughly half of the time on electioneering and looking for donations rather than legislating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom