The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean President...Trump?!

Huh huh huh, I said “trump”! Huh huh huh! Huh huh!

See now that's funny.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump Tweets

When I looked up to the sky and jokingly said “I am the chosen one,” at a press conference two days ago, referring to taking on Trade with China, little did I realize that the media would claim that I had a “Messiah complex.” They knew I was kidding, being sarcastic, and just....

....having fun. I was smiling as I looked up and around. The MANY reporters with me were smiling also. They knew the TRUTH...And yet when I saw the reporting, CNN, MSNBC and other Fake News outlets covered it as serious news & me thinking of myself as the Messiah. No more trust!

What trust is he talking about?

 

[angrysoba]

He's the incumbent, 40% approve of him, the Democrats will have a pathetic nominee, Gerrymandering, and more media manipulation, so pretty good. [insert sad emoji here]

How will gerrymandering help him win the presidential election? Are there serious plans to change the electoral college vote to distribute votes according to congressional districts?

 

[The Norseman]

Playing devil's advocate doesn't mean "I know that this isn't happening, but let's pretend it is."

That sounds like a reasonable use of the phrase; not sure why you think otherwise.

But we needn't guess what Soba meant. He can tell us whether he mistakenly thought Trump was pursuing universal background checks.

Sure, again sounds reasonable.

ETA: you're making way more of this than it deserves. You think I've used poor reasoning and that's fine. You may have the last word if you wish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump Tweets

The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”

Oh brother! This one goes in the mentally ill thread right up there with Trump's claim doctors came out of their operating room to meet him. I'll retweetpost it over there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does anyone actually believe that pile of horse manure?

Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is very much a lie.

Hans

Ya think?

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump.

I meant anyone not suffering from NPD.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ya think?

Ya, I think. I don't even think they pretended. They were polite, of course. Real leaders are. But they said nothing like that.



Hans

 

[Stacyhs]

I suspect that there will be a large amount of books/comments released after Trump is out of office by politicians (both domestic GOP and foreign) revealing their true feelings about him. And they are not going to be complimentary. But it will be interesting to see the Republicans defending why they didn't speak out while Trump was in office...and I doubt "because I was a coward" will be among them.

 

[angrysoba]

That sounds like a reasonable use of the phrase; not sure why you think otherwise.



Sure, again sounds reasonable.

ETA: you're making way more of this than it deserves. You think I've used poor reasoning and that's fine. You may have the last word if you wish.

FWIW, my comments refer to the possibility he raised and repeated (FWIR) that he was pursuing background checks. I think he even repeated it in the “Chosen One” press meeting along with a number of bizarre statements and policy aspirations he sent forth into the ether.

My point was to assume he was serious, for a second, that he wanted to have background checks and that he was working with Democrats to bring these in (that’s what he said he was doing - yes, I get that he is always emitting BS, but let’s assume, generously, that he is serious about it), and he even said that he knows the NRA are not in favour but he is talking to them anyway to persuade them (again, for what it is worth, that’s what he said) and he says his buddy Wayne could be talked round. My point then is to say, maybe, just maybe, Trump is the best person to do it. He can’t be easily dismissed as some closeted liberal trying to subvert the 2nd amendment, whereas all previous presidents could easily be painted as commies or weak-kneed etc...

My point was that IFF this were true, wouldn’t it be a good thing? Wouldn’t it be worth supporting?

I understand the Norseman’s cynicism but think, as phiwum says, it is not a helpful way to approach it. If the Democrats are trying to get this passed as well and have been writing bills to this effect then wouldn’t it be worth trying to get this bill through rather than just assuming that any eventual law is going to target minorities? If so, then you may as well say that you are not interested in that particular form of gun control. In fact, if you believe that the Republicans won’t pass anything unless they can be convinced that those laws will be a priori discriminatory then there is no point calling for any form of gun control unless you feel the discrimination is a price worth paying.

In phiwum’s case, I thought that the article you posted suggested that universal background checks were not only amongst the most popular but also believed by experts to be among the most effective. You can argue that mass shooting X or mass shooting Y would not be prevented by universal background checks but that seems to be making the perfect the enemy of the good. There may be no magic bullet but there may be piecemeal legislation that brings down the number of mass shootings. It seems going for something that is even one percent effective is better than nothing instead of blanket dismissal.

So once again, we have Trump’s words that he is interested in background checks. Would it not be useful for Democrats to pressure him to follow through and, let’s face it, some of the media who were there when he said these words, instead of just focusing on the Chosen One comments of his “wonderful vagina” comments?

 

[MRC_Hans]

FWIW, my comments refer to the possibility he raised and repeated (FWIR) that he was pursuing background checks. I think he even repeated it in the “Chosen One” press meeting along with a number of bizarre statements and policy aspirations he sent forth into the ether.

My point was to assume he was serious, for a second, that he wanted to have background checks and that he was working with Democrats to bring these in (that’s what he said he was doing - yes, I get that he is always emitting BS, but let’s assume, generously, that he is serious about it), and he even said that he knows the NRA are not in favour but he is talking to them anyway to persuade them (again, for what it is worth, that’s what he said) and he says his buddy Wayne could be talked round. My point then is to say, maybe, just maybe, Trump is the best person to do it. He can’t be easily dismissed as some closeted liberal trying to subvert the 2nd amendment, whereas all previous presidents could easily be painted as commies or weak-kneed etc...

My point was that IFF this were true, wouldn’t it be a good thing? Wouldn’t it be worth supporting?

I understand the Norseman’s cynicism but think, as phiwum says, it is not a helpful way to approach it. If the Democrats are trying to get this passed as well and have been writing bills to this effect then wouldn’t it be worth trying to get this bill through rather than just assuming that any eventual law is going to target minorities? If so, then you may as well say that you are not interested in that particular form of gun control. In fact, if you believe that the Republicans won’t pass anything unless they can be convinced that those laws will be a priori discriminatory then there is no point calling for any form of gun control unless you feel the discrimination is a price worth paying.

In phiwum’s case, I thought that the article you posted suggested that universal background checks were not only amongst the most popular but also believed by experts to be among the most effective. You can argue that mass shooting X or mass shooting Y would not be prevented by universal background checks but that seems to be making the perfect the enemy of the good. There may be no magic bullet but there may be piecemeal legislation that brings down the number of mass shootings. It seems going for something that is even one percent effective is better than nothing instead of blanket dismissal.

So once again, we have Trump’s words that he is interested in background checks. Would it not be useful for Democrats to pressure him to follow through and, let’s face it, some of the media who were there when he said these words, instead of just focusing on the Chosen One comments of his “wonderful vagina” comments?

Obviously, anything good coming from ... anybody ... is worth taking, no matter who it came from. But .... exactly why should anybody think he is serious about this .... or anything else he says?

Hans

 

[alfaniner]

I suspect that there will be a large amount of books/comments released after Trump is out of office by politicians (both domestic GOP and foreign) revealing their true feelings about him. And they are not going to be complimentary. But it will be interesting to see the Republicans defending why they didn't speak out while Trump was in office...and I doubt "because I was a coward" will be among them.

That is going to piss me off almost more than anything else The PDJT has actually done so far. And I agree, I fully expect that to happen.

 

[angrysoba]

Obviously, anything good coming from ... anybody ... is worth taking, no matter who it came from. But .... exactly why should anybody think he is serious about this .... or anything else he says?

Hans

Just call him on it. “I know you’re a man of your word so I would like to get you to help push through your he background checks you called for yesterday. Let’s call it the Donald J Trump Background Check Act 2019...”

 

[phiwum]

In phiwum’s case, I thought that the article you posted suggested that universal background checks were not only amongst the most popular but also believed by experts to be among the most effective. You can argue that mass shooting X or mass shooting Y would not be prevented by universal background checks but that seems to be making the perfect the enemy of the good. There may be no magic bullet but there may be piecemeal legislation that brings down the number of mass shootings. It seems going for something that is even one percent effective is better than nothing instead of blanket dismissal.

Here's the problem.

Suppose that background checks make no or almost no difference in the case of mass shootings. Indeed, I think this is very plausible.

Then the attention on mass shootings will be focused on something that won't actually help solve the problem. Once the checks are in place, attention will go elsewhere. You can bet that, if the Republicans cave for this solution, they will not react well when another solution, say an assault weapon ban, is suggested hereafter. They've already compromised their position.

Thus, focusing on checks as a fix for the mass shooting problem will make more effective solutions less likely.

Now, the limit to this argument should be obvious. While I doubt such checks will prevent mass shootings, they may prevent other deaths and hence be a not insignificant positive. However, if our aim is shooting deaths in general, then we're being misled. The checks are being suggested specifically to deal with mass shootings and if they are adopted and do no good in that respect, how will the public react? Will this make it easier or harder to do something that actually addresses the problem?

I'd much rather that, if one wants universal background checks, they support it for gun deaths generally rather than pretend that mass shootings will be less likely.

 

[phiwum]

Just call him on it. “I know you’re a man of your word so I would like to get you to help push through your he background checks you called for yesterday. Let’s call it the Donald J Trump Background Check Act 2019...”

Man, that would be a great move. That would force Trump to come out and say he's changed his mind. That would hurt.

 

[bruto]

That is going to piss me off almost more than anything else The PDJT has actually done so far. And I agree, I fully expect that to happen.

Oh quite. Suddenly the good Germans and secret resistance fighters and anti-segregationists will come out of hiding. They will prove to have been valiantly fighting from within. It's not their fault the tiny few evil people were so terribly powerful.

If they thought there was a chance of another conservative justice being appointed, I think most Republicans would find a way to spin Trump dancing naked on the desk and pissing on them as just a good humored commentary on Hillary's emails.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

However, the workers attendance wasn't "mandatory" in that same way. They were offered more money to attend than not to attend. Just like you get offered more money to attend than not to attend when approached on the street to be paid to attend.

Not quite. They were offered the same money to attend than if the event had not taken place. They were threatened with making LESS money than if the event never happened.

It was "go to the event and look supportive or have your pay docked".

 

[jimbob]

Not quite. They were offered the same money to attend than if the event had not taken place. They were threatened with making LESS money than if the event never happened.

It was "go to the event and look supportive or have your pay docked".

With an implicit side order of "the management will disapprove of your not attending"

 

[quadraginta]

I really hope he keeps up this attack on Faux News... if he does, then sooner later, they will turn on him!

Only if they think it will boost their ratings.

Mebbe if too many advertisers bleed off, That would do it too.