President Trump: Part II

[Bob001]

Yes, there were many cherry picked and edited statements used against Clinton. That's what the GOP is good at.

And unfortunately it's not something the Democrats have been effective countering.

But there you go with your narrow view of the events in this election. You bought the narrative Clinton was out to screw the coal miners when had you bothered to look at her actual platform, or had Clinton done a better job selling it, you would know that sound bite was a distortion of the facts.

No, I didn't buy it. Coal is dying around the world because gas is cheaper and cleaner, among other reasons. And working-class whites have a long history of voting against their own interests. The point is that a more adept politician would never have handed the opposition that kind of ammunition.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

So powerful that it has warped reality to the point where it almost feels like we are living in an alternate Universe!

But that is no reason to stoop to the same level. I will never call Trump names - not because it's mean or disrespectful, but because it's dishonest. And unnecessary anyway, because using the word 'Trump' itself is enough. Why embellish reality when it is already worse than you could have imagined?

Hilary was far from a ideal candidate.

Of course she wasn't an ideal candidate, nobody could be. But why do you feel she was 'far from' ideal? Let me guess:- "Crooked Hillary", "Killary", "Billary", "Goldwater Girl"... the list goes on. All lies condensed into a nickname, designed to warp your reality enough to get a Republican into power. And clearly it worked.

Trump supporters chose 'alt-facts', they can blame no one else for doing so.

Don't be silly. Of course they can, and they will.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

How much longer are we going to be hearing "Let's just wait and see..."?

You'll be hearing it less and less from me.

 

[dudalb]

So powerful that it has warped reality to the point where it almost feels like we are living in an alternate Universe!

But that is no reason to stoop to the same level. I will never call Trump names - not because it's mean or disrespectful, but because it's dishonest. And unnecessary anyway, because using the word 'Trump' itself is enough. Why embellish reality when it is already worse than you could have imagined?

Of course she wasn't an ideal candidate, nobody could be. But why do you feel she was 'far from' ideal? Let me guess:- "Crooked Hillary", "Killary", "Billary", "Goldwater Girl"... the list goes on. All lies condensed into a nickname, designed to warp your reality enough to get a Republican into power. And clearly it worked.

Don't be silly. Of course they can, and they will.

Uh, I voted for Hilary.
She was not ideal because she seemed to have a totally deaf ear when it came to the blue collar/rural voters she needed to win in the Rust Belt.

 

[dudalb]

No, I didn't buy it. Coal is dying around the world because gas is cheaper and cleaner, among other reasons. And working-class whites have a long history of voting against their own interests. The point is that a more adept politician would never have handed the opposition that kind of ammunition.

This.
I am afraid the Ginger regards Hilary as a flawless candidate who was only rejected because the American people are stupid.

 

[Belz...]

No. That is what is going on now. The solution is to call out both sides, or neither. Being more ready to "virtuously" call out one side means that is the only side being called out. Really, do we see anyone here on the conservative side calling out their own?

That makes no sense. If you're refering to Phiwum, I don't believe he said your side should only criticise itself. He specifically said that you have to criticise both.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, I didn't buy it. Coal is dying around the world because gas is cheaper and cleaner, among other reasons. And working-class whites have a long history of voting against their own interests. The point is that a more adept politician would never have handed the opposition that kind of ammunition.

This was such a weird year. Hillary made a few verbal missteps and got raked over the coals, just like a normal politician.

Trump made a complete ass of himself over and over, and got almost as many votes, and just a few more of the ones that counted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The problem is that this results in nobody, or virtually nobody, calling out one side (Trump's side)

I'm really not sure what your perspective is on this. I'm not seeing that nobody is calling out Trump's side. It has seemed to me that there's been an overzealous approach to calling out Trump, all of Trump's supporters, and the non-Trump supporters who didn't support Hillary. It's not like there's a lack of media coverage about Trump's shortcomings, nor is there a lack of discussion of them in this thread. And there's certainly not a lack of broad-brush blaming of huge swaths of people for the current situation.

The idea that virtually nobody is calling out Trump's side seems a bit blind.

 

[Stacko]

The plot thickens on Trump's Holocaust Remembrance statement.

The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Monday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Clearly some of the white nationalists exist. Are you one of them? Is Bannon your guy?

It's these sorts of derisive and insulting insinuations that completely destroy your claims to be "discussing" anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There were 3 states where she lost by a small margin.

Read it again

I don't know that this makes it any better. She lost three states by a small margin and won the popular vote seems to purposefully obfuscate the fact that she lost several states by quite large margins.

It is an interesting observation point certainly. But it's no more valid as an argumentative point than was my observation that her overall US popular vote margin was smaller than her popular vote margin in CA alone. Interesting from a mathematical perspective at best, but ultimately useless for anything else.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Different than threatening to invade Mexico.

And did he actually threaten to invade Mexico?

Or did he threaten to step in against criminals that are threatening the US, in a very similar fashion to the US entering Afghanistan to take action against Al Qaeda when the government of Afghanistan was either unable or unwilling to do so on their own? Is there a material difference in the potential for US intervention, other than the person in charge?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Especially if one starts from the presumption that anyone who failed to vote for Clinton could only have done so by being conned, and then discarding any alternative reasoning presented as being false. Aren't tautologies awesome?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I cited a CNN interview where voters expressed the belief that Trump would do something for them, and Clinton wouldn't. I think a lot of Trump voters felt that way. And Clinton didn't give them a basis to counter that belief.

No,. no no, you don't understand - they only believe that Clinton didn't give them a basis to counter that belief because they bought in to the false narrative and lies about her! You're missing the point!


*** Apologies for the sarcasm. It isn't targeted at you.

 

[Stacko]

And did he actually threaten to invade Mexico?

Yes.

Or did he threaten to step in against criminals that are threatening the US, in a very similar fashion to the US entering Afghanistan to take action against Al Qaeda when the government of Afghanistan was either unable or unwilling to do so on their own? Is there a material difference in the potential for US intervention, other than the person in charge?

Engaging in military operations in the territory of a sovereign nation without their permission is an invasion. We were OK with the invasion Afghanistan since the country was under control of the Taliban at the time. It was still an invasion regardless of how you try to dress it up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And why in election where Trump repeatedly lied and his supporters were seemingly only interested in fact free policies expressed 140 characters at a time do you think people were going to listen. I realize you have some desperate drive to exonerate Trump supporters from responsibility for the actions of the Trump presidency. Trump supporters chose 'alt-facts', they can blame no one else for doing so.

I don't believe that Bob001 is attempting to exonerate Trump supporters. I believe that he is trying to explain what Clinton should have done differently in order to win this election - it's a lesson that democrats in general need to consider an apply prior to the next election cycle. I don't really want Trump to win again simply because democrats can't field an effective candidate who can build resonance with the citizenry.

Seriously folks. At the end of the day I still don't see this as Trump winning so much as Clinton losing.

 

[acbytesla]

Uh, I voted for Hilary.
She was not ideal because she seemed to have a totally deaf ear when it came to the blue collar/rural voters she needed to win in the Rust Belt.

I was always concerned that Hillary would lose even though I think she is brilliant. She is a so so politician and just isn't very charismatic. Trump is a turd, but he is a character. I'm still shocked that this piece of feces won. Well never know if Bernie would have beaten Trump. I think he has some characteristics that quite a few people wouldn't like as well. I think Biden would have won. But that's just my opinion and we'll never really know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This was such a weird year. Hillary made a few verbal missteps and got raked over the coals, just like a normal politician.

Trump made a complete ass of himself over and over, and got almost as many votes, and just a few more of the ones that counted.

100% true, and 100% irrelevant.

Clinton made a few completely disastrous verbal missteps that insulted and dismissed the people she needed to convince to vote for her.

Trump made an ass of himself over and over, but also spoke to the fears and worries that his voters had .

It's all about who felt the effect of those errors, and who perceived them as potentially being aimed at them as voters. It's about who was seen as understanding and sympathizing with their plight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I didn't buy it. Coal is dying around the world because gas is cheaper and cleaner, among other reasons. And working-class whites have a long history of voting against their own interests. The point is that a more adept politician would never have handed the opposition that kind of ammunition.

Did you ever look at Clinton's energy or jobs policy platforms? Of course you didn't.

As for Clinton not communicating her message effectively, re-read my posts.

There is a difference between saying she didn't give a rip about XYZ and she didn't communicate the message that she did give a rip.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This.
I am afraid the Ginger regards Hilary as a flawless candidate who was only rejected because the American people are stupid.

That's bullpucky.