Cont: President Trump: Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Exactly what proof do you have that they are a significant portion? Can you give me a list of their names? Can you give me a list of all the other supporters, so as to prove that they actually compromise a significant amount?

On what actual data and information do you base your opinion?
Click to expand...


Watching the people who went to his rallies. Listening to the things he has said and the way those things were lauded by so many of his supporters. Seeing and hearing the the words of those supporters.

Real guns and bullets revolutions have been won through th active support of a tenth of the populace. This abomination of an election certainly had a higher percentage of voters for Trump who were welcoming his pandering to bigotry.

That is a significant portion.


It doesn't always take a survey to perceive the patently obvious.

By your own account you willfully avoided all the coverage of his campaign until the very end. You have basically admitted that you have no basis to have an informed opinion of what went on during that campaign.

Don't try and school others about evidence you chose to ignore. It only makes you look silly.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, no doubt, as long as the news media keeps immortalizing his every word anyway.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what choice they have, though.

Their job is to cover the news that people want to get. If they don't then they'll be gone and someone else will be doing it.

The consumers of news have responsibilities too. They are not just passive receptacles.

Well ... they don't have to be.

I am reminded of all of the outcry after Princess Di's tragic death about how terrible the paparazzi were and how they were to blame because of their insistence on getting news and pictures.

I suspect that much of that outcry was coming from the very same people who bought and read all of the magazines and news outlets that the paparazzi were selling their pictures and stories to.

Dealers only exist when there are users to buy what they are selling.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
I'm not sure what choice they have, though.

Their job is to cover the news that people want to get. If they don't then they'll be gone and someone else will be doing it.

The consumers of news have responsibilities too. They are not just passive receptacles.

Well ... they don't have to be.

I am reminded of all of the outcry after Princess Di's tragic death about how terrible the paparazzi were and how they were to blame because of their insistence on getting news and pictures.

I suspect that much of that outcry was coming from the very same people who bought and read all of the magazines and news outlets that the paparazzi were selling their pictures and stories to.

Dealers only exist when there are users to buy what they are selling.
Click to expand...

I don't think the news media is doing their job to put every Trump word on live, every Spicer news conference on live, and then spending hours with pundits revisiting those every words.

I am pleased at least they are calling Trump's lies, lies. But there's still something wrong with this picture.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
It is a quite a bit harder now to use the CIA Wikileak to suggest the CIA hacked Trump disguised as Russians, and it is now factually not imaginary to state the the Putin government is strikingly untrustworthy and acting contrary to US govt interests.
Click to expand...

Well, that should not be a news bulletin to anyone. In fact, it would be quite dumb to do so.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Because half of Trump's supporters probably aren't RACISTS. That's a hyperbolized insult tossed at people who hold a negative stereotype about black people...
Click to expand...


Wait. ... What? How is "a negative stereotype" about a particular race of people not racism?

You seem to be agreeing with Clinton's assessment.

And also the exact same view that ONE THIRD of Clinton's supporters ALSO HOLD.
Click to expand...


Tu quoque: You're doing it wrong.

Are you seriously offering this up as yet another justification for voting for the candidate with the greater percentage of deplorable and irredeemable supporters? Can you even grasp how tortured and insane your argument is becoming?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't think the news media is doing their job to put every Trump word on live, every Spicer news conference on live, and then spending hours with pundits revisiting those every words.

I am pleased at least they are calling Trump's lies, lies. But there's still something wrong with this picture.
Click to expand...

It's the legal occupant of the Oval Office. The media has no choice but to cover its every word.
 
Babbylonian said:
It's the legal occupant of the Oval Office. The media has no choice but to cover its every word.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Since when is the news media obligated to cover every press conference and every Trump speech live?

They do it because it is cheap production content.
 
One of Trump's closest advisers is an actual Nazi:
Reporters Lili Bayer and Larry Cohler-Esses found strong evidence that Gorka swore a lifetime oath to a far-right Hungarian group, the Vitézi Rend. The State Department classifies the Vitézi Rend as having been “under the direction of the Nazi Government of Germany” during World War II; as such, members are “presumed to be inadmissible” to America under the Immigration and Nationality Act and must disclose their membership on immigration applications.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...has_been_strongly_linked_to_a_nazi_group.html
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nonsense! Since when is the news media obligated to cover every press conference and every Trump speech live?

They do it because it is cheap production content.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that coverage enhances the Trump crowd. Covering them exposes them for the idiots they are. Sean Spicer looks like a lying fool -- because he is. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And in fact, anything the president does is legitimate news. The real problem is when Trump ditches the press.
 
Bob001 said:
You seem to think that coverage enhances the Trump crowd. Covering them exposes them for the idiots they are. Sean Spicer looks like a lying fool -- because he is. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And in fact, anything the president does is legitimate news. The real problem is when Trump ditches the press.
Click to expand...

Sunlight vs repetitive messaging....

Hard to say which wins that contest.
 
Bob001 said:
You seem to think that coverage enhances the Trump crowd. Covering them exposes them for the idiots they are. Sean Spicer looks like a lying fool -- because he is. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And in fact, anything the president does is legitimate news. The real problem is when Trump ditches the press.
Click to expand...

I think the "problem" is that whilst to you (and me) nearly every time President Trump, Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway open their mouths they look like lying fools, to many (most ?) Americans what they're saying confirms their fears and suspicions and so helps to build, not destroy credibility.

I saw Trumps claims about being bugged as being ridiculous lies but now his supporters (including some on this board) have managed to morph them from ridiculous lies about being personally bugged to a general (and IMO reasonable) concern about the level of surveillance within U.S. culture and the lack of accountability for that surveillance. To them he looks like a good guy looking after their interests.

You really cannot fight against that level of mental suppleness :boggled:
 
Bob001 said:
One of Trump's closest advisers is an actual Nazi:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...has_been_strongly_linked_to_a_nazi_group.html
Click to expand...

You say that like most of his supporters would think it's a bad thing and like a significant majority of the U.S. electorate care. If they cared, Bannon would have been reason enough not to vote for Donald Trump and to turn against him once in office. Instead his GOP approval ratings are still running close to 90% despite Jeff Sessions' perjury, the failed "Muslim Ban" and the dog's breakfast which is the replacement for the ACA. :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nonsense! Since when is the news media obligated to cover every press conference and every Trump speech live?

They do it because it is cheap production content.
Click to expand...


I despise Teh Donald on various levels, and detest when coverage takes up who knows how much of a days' (need to fill 24 hr cable channel) coverage but, just as "when the President walks into a room, every able body stands"... when POTUS speaks, it should be reported/covered.

The downside is... when such a high percentage of the message is either crap, or trolling.

But they can't risk missing the inevitable bi-weekly blooper. :boggled:
 
dudalb said:
A lot of the blue collars who voted for Trump should be allies.
In the end, it's the old problem that the Dems have a serious problem with Blue Collar white voters....and they seem unable to fix it.
I am not a big Michael Moore fan, but he is right in being a relentless critic of the Democrats on this issue.
Click to expand...

They need to figure out how to sell them on things that can actually be done, not the lets go back to the 1950's that these voters want to hear. They want coal and manufacturing jobs back like they used to be, not retraining in economically viable growth industries.
 
Emily's Cat said:
They exist within the democrat base as well. You know that right?
Click to expand...

I doubt it, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Point is, there's not many of them if they exist at all, and they hold no influence. In the GOP there's loads of them and they won the presidency. No equivalency.
 
Emily's Cat said:
We're really talking at cross purposes here.

Imagine it's a completely different topic.

Let's say it's abortion rights. Let's say there's a study that someone references, and they come to you and say "70% of men are pro-life" and then says that those men are despicable horrible people because they want to keep women down.

I can see that argument. I can see how they get to that from where they started. It's a bit extreme, and I'd still be pretty angry about the chosen language and the implied othering... but I can see the path.

Now... Let's say you go pull up that study and look at it... and it turns out that 55% of women were also pro-life. Sure, more men than women were pro-life, but there's still a pretty substantial chunk of women with that view.

Does that change your opinion of the validity of the argument made? Does it influence how much credibility that you give to specifically calling out only men as being despicable? Wouldn't that same logic apply to the women that are pro-life?

Wouldn't it bother you that the information is being cherry-picked to support an agenda that casts only one side as being bad people, when the same view is held by a not-insignificant chunk of the other side as well?

Would it bother you if a sizable chunk of people with whom you interact continued to say that men are despicable in general because of that study, and furthermore to say that the claim of 70% is being generous - that more than that are actually despicable?
Click to expand...

Is it right to judge someone by their friends? If I see you hanging out you a lot of racists, how can I not infer you at least tacit acceptance of racism?

Trump racism was very appealing to many of his voters, but you can't ever say that just like you can't say your tolerance for your racist friends reflects badly on you. Just like Alito knows it is totally unacceptable to be called a bigot just because you think gays need to have corrective surgery. Calling out someones bigotry is worse than those who hold such bigotry.
 
Argumemnon said:
Hard to say. I think that the polls overestimated how many Democratic voters would actually get off of their asses and vote, vs how many Republican voters would.



It is possible but that's not usually what happens, sadly.



The one you keep harping about, of course; the one that the "deplorables" comment made a huge difference. The one that Trump supporters and Trump apologists use to whitewash Trump voters' decision to vote for him.
Click to expand...

She insulted white men, that is far more important than any sexism or racism that trump displayed. When you see the highest ideal of humanity insulted like that how can you not vote for the just who only insultes lower forms of humanity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom