Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[Script]

I can't help but feel that there's now a significant portion of people who are upset about the tone of discourse but fail to see how they're actually holding the people discussing the election to a far higher standard than the president himself. Trump can say all sorts of things and yet here we are arguing that we need to be polite and not swear.

I guess I agreed. But:

Ain't "significant" a little vague?
Who's "upset" here?
"Discussing": words can be violent too. (Quid pro quo or what?)
"Higer standard"? -- No, same standard (physical self-defence is a different matter though).
Who's "arguing"?

Overall, much better -- as I expected bar stools flying.

As a person who didn't support Trump I have to ask: "What difference does it make?"...

It makes all the difference. You make the difference! Just don't let that thing consume you. Better stay focused -- believe me...

 

[mattiasNYC]

John,

What did Hillary say her stance was on changing the constitution - or alternatively what did she say her would-be SCOTUS judge would or should do when on the court?

I'm genuinely curious to hear just which issues these were.

 

[JohnRoberts]

John,

What did Hillary say her stance was on changing the constitution - or alternatively what did she say her would-be SCOTUS judge would or should do when on the court?

I'm genuinely curious to hear just which issues these were.

Another homework assignment?

Candidate Trump shared a list of conservative prospective SCOTUS jurists, Hillary didn't have to as she promised to continue the "progress" that Pres Obama has accomplished with his appointments. I have seen prospective democratic lists but none literally from the Hillary campaign (she didn't have to because her base didn't question her leaning). Trump was the only unknown  regarding future SCOTUS appointments so he wisely published his list. 

Arguably the Roberts ACA decision already stretched the constitution (calling the ACA a "tax" that is constitutional and not a government forced mandate that is in opposition to the commerce clause. )

There are several pending cases that could likewise make/break law that were postponed due to the evenly divided (deadlocked) court. Future liberal/progressive jurists could tilt these outcomes away from strict interpretation of the constitution and weaken it further.

I really don't enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I think its time for me to take another break from this. 

JR

 

 

[mattiasNYC]

How come when people ask for specifics it's "another homework assignment" and "arguing just for the sake of arguing"?

Did I not say I was genuinely curious about it?

I'm detecting a pattern.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Has this thread run its course? It seems to have devolved into arguing and unkindness.

 

[pucho812]

maybe?

I think  a few of the main guys who were commenting often have decided not to do so for various reasons. I never thought it would get this long...  But what else can we really discuss? Trump got the election and now it's tiime to see what he do or don't do. 

 

[Matador]

Internet politics...A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.  ;D

 

[Phrazemaster]

Internet politics...A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.  ;D

;D
Resistance rises inversely with agreement, leading to overheating. Reasoning capacitance lowers and mental circuits fry.

What's not to love?

 

[micaddict]

^
Like

 

[Phrazemaster]

^
Like

Thx Henk. If I was feeling clever I'd come up with an ohms law for this. Anyone wanna play?

 

[hodad]

John, I think you're missing 2 big points.  First, politics.  For Trump, who is nothing if not media savvy, any publicity is good publicity.  In fact, negative press from the "liberal" media probably worked to his advantage as often as not.  And any presidential candidate who calls global warming a Chinese hoax (not to mention his late-night twitstorms etc.) deserves bad press.  And the mainstream tv media saw Trump as a ratings (read profits) center--for them this was a bonanza for them, and it was in their best interest to help prop Trump up and keep the race tight.  If you bothered to look at HRC's news coverage, you'd find that negative coverage far outweighed any discussion of her policies.  And a friend who has a friend in the CNN newsroom said there's definitely been some handwringing about their role in getting Trump elected--they can see the impact they had, even if you care not to.  Of course, at the news networks the bottom line that matters is the financial one, and those pangs of conscience can be easily washed away by a hefty year-end bonus. 

Second, you take from your experience living in a middle class black neighborhood in ATL (was it in the Cascade Road area?  That was the big neighborhood for black professionals when I was growing up)  that anybody can discriminate.  And while that's certainly true, my takeaway from years and years of living in racially and economically mixed urban neighborhoods is far different.  I think it's worth realizing that this mild discomfort is nothing compared to what US blacks live with every single day of their lives.  Yes, anybody can be prejudiced--it's the human condition.  But you're completely missing the real lesson about discrimination and prejudice against African Americans, and how this affects--well, more than I know or am able to enumerate here.  If all you can take away is that everybody can be prejudiced, you've missed it. 

 

[fazer]

Ya resistance is futile.  I tell myself to avoid this thread and then I check it again. 

I need an intervention.  Somebody take this computer and iPhone away at night so I can play some more music on my guitar.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Ya resistance is futile.  I tell myself to avoid this thread and then I check it again. 

I need an intervention.  Somebody take this computer and iPhone away at night so I can play some more music on my guitar.

Like the B.O.R.G.

This thread will assimilate you.

 

[hodad]

Can I recommend one more time that folks read the article about Bannon in the Hollywood Reporter?  His responses got me thinking about a quote from a Ron Suskind piece about W from many years ago:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This apparently was eventually attributed to Karl Rove, and Bannon is kind of like Rove on steroids and crystal meth.  And Donald Trump is the perfect tool for selling lies as truth, and then moving on to the next lie before the first one is even fully debunked.  Trump has no issue with contradictions, exaggerations, and outright lies--it's where he lives.  And you have apologists like JR who say, "Well, anybody with any sense knows he was never going to do those crazy things," which makes JR a useful idiot (Stalin's term, I believe, not mine) of one sort--because when does the lie end and the truth begin?  Trump has even made some noise that he thinks global warming might be human caused--are we to believe that, or are we to believe that it's a Chinese hoax?  Are we to believe he's going to do something about global warming, or is he going to revive the US coal industry as he promised? 

The next useful idiot is the one who reads a Trumpian lie or distortion on facebook, or even in the mainstream media, and accepts it as truth.  When debunking happens, it's ignored, or simply missed, or treated with suspicion.  These folks can present lies as truth for decades with nary a doubt as to the veracity of what they're saying. 

And then there are those who revel in lies and distortions, who don't care if what they say is write or wrong as long as it riles up those liberals, or Blacks, or Mexicans, or whoever they're interested in ticking off on a given day.  Sadly, I know a couple of these personally. 

And then there's Trump, whom I fancy as the projection of the great and powerful Oz, larger than life and full of bluster.  And I think Bannon fancies himself as the man behind the curtain, pulling strings and getting things done while everybody is distracted by Trump's giant nuttiness. 

But what do you do about this sort of thing?  How does a sane person, or a person who values the truth in any way at all, do battle with this?  The Dems have been pretty bad at it, honestly--they regularly get beat because they're not even playing the same game.  And you have a veritable army of folks who've been brainwashed for decades by Fox and Limbaugh, along with all the folks who'd just rather tune it all out and are anesthetized by sports and sitcoms and superheroes (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with those--just when you use them as an excuse to ignore the rest of the world.)  Too many people seem far too content to have prejudices confirmed rather than to learn and question.  It's so much easier when the world was exactly as the worst part of you suspected it was.  And Trump is there to comfort and soothe and nurture your hate, your spite, your paranoia and bitterness.  And doesn't it feel so good? 

And while you're soaking in your soothing seething, please.....pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Oh, and somebody else was thinking along these general lines--here's a link:
https://thinkprogress.org/when-everything-is-a-lie-power-is-the-only-truth-1e641751d150#.ugnmtm6qk

 

[Phrazemaster]

I hate to even jump in but...the huge elephant in this room is that ALL POLITICIANS LIE - and ALL POLITICIANS have an agenda that is controlled by other, often hidden, often dark, interests.

It matters not if the devil of the day is Trump, Hillary, or even good ol' Bernie. They are actors - get it? We didn't elect Trump. We don't elect any president. They are already bought and paid for by others. And they get us well-meaning folks to argue back and forth about nothing. It's divide and conquer - Rs vs Ds, with a little Libertarians in the mix just for sport.

Do you really think we have anything to do with what happens in WA?

 

[DaveP]

As a European, I have listened to US members here from both sides of the argument, digging deeper and deeper into the minutia of who said this and that, as if some small neglected detail would somehow reveal a conspiracy or fact that would explain what is going on or what happened.

From this distance, it's the American cultural system itself that has produced the situation.  You have developed a culture of Bigger, Better, Faster, Louder. Richer, More, over a very very long time.  This is light years away from the modest world your founding fathers lived in.  (Like the Amish in fact).

In theory, any US citizen can become President, but you have made it so much easier for the rich and well connected than it is for the man in the street.  I heard that Trump used about $50 million of his own money, presumably because the GOP would not fund him.

In the light of your culture, is it any wonder that you ended up with a choice between Hillary and Donald?  I have a lot of American friends and I don't mean this in an unkind way at all, Europe has a lot to thank the USA for, but sometimes you need others to hold up a mirror to get a clearer view.

DaveP

 

[rob_gould]

Can I recommend one more time that folks read the article about Bannon in the Hollywood Reporter?  His responses got me thinking about a quote from a Ron Suskind piece about W from many years ago:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This apparently was eventually attributed to Karl Rove, and Bannon is kind of like Rove on steroids and crystal meth.  And Donald Trump is the perfect tool for selling lies as truth, and then moving on to the next lie before the first one is even fully debunked.  Trump has no issue with contradictions, exaggerations, and outright lies--it's where he lives.  And you have apologists like JR who say, "Well, anybody with any sense knows he was never going to do those crazy things," which makes JR a useful idiot (Stalin's term, I believe, not mine) of one sort--because when does the lie end and the truth begin?  Trump has even made some noise that he thinks global warming might be human caused--are we to believe that, or are we to believe that it's a Chinese hoax?  Are we to believe he's going to do something about global warming, or is he going to revive the US coal industry as he promised? 

The next useful idiot is the one who reads a Trumpian lie or distortion on facebook, or even in the mainstream media, and accepts it as truth.  When debunking happens, it's ignored, or simply missed, or treated with suspicion.  These folks can present lies as truth for decades with nary a doubt as to the veracity of what they're saying. 

And then there are those who revel in lies and distortions, who don't care if what they say is write or wrong as long as it riles up those liberals, or Blacks, or Mexicans, or whoever they're interested in ticking off on a given day.  Sadly, I know a couple of these personally. 

And then there's Trump, whom I fancy as the projection of the great and powerful Oz, larger than life and full of bluster.  And I think Bannon fancies himself as the man behind the curtain, pulling strings and getting things done while everybody is distracted by Trump's giant nuttiness. 

But what do you do about this sort of thing?  How does a sane person, or a person who values the truth in any way at all, do battle with this?  The Dems have been pretty bad at it, honestly--they regularly get beat because they're not even playing the same game.  And you have a veritable army of folks who've been brainwashed for decades by Fox and Limbaugh, along with all the folks who'd just rather tune it all out and are anesthetized by sports and sitcoms and superheroes (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with those--just when you use them as an excuse to ignore the rest of the world.)  Too many people seem far too content to have prejudices confirmed rather than to learn and question.  It's so much easier when the world was exactly as the worst part of you suspected it was.  And Trump is there to comfort and soothe and nurture your hate, your spite, your paranoia and bitterness.  And doesn't it feel so good? 

And while you're soaking in your soothing seething, please.....pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Oh, and somebody else was thinking along these general lines--here's a link:
https://thinkprogress.org/when-everything-is-a-lie-power-is-the-only-truth-1e641751d150#.ugnmtm6qk

Like, like and like again.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I hate to even jump in but...the huge elephant in this room is that ALL POLITICIANS LIE - and ALL POLITICIANS have an agenda that is controlled by other, often hidden, often dark, interests.

It matters not if the devil of the day is Trump, Hillary, or even good ol' Bernie. They are actors - get it? We didn't elect Trump. We don't elect any president. They are already bought and paid for by others.

It's interesting you should write the above right after Hodad's long post which culminated in a link to an article, because the article actually points out an important distinction. I'll just highlight one paragraph here:

"If Bush and Rove constructed a fantasy world with a clear internal logic, Trump has built something more like an endless bad dream. In his political universe, facts are unstable and ephemeral; events follow one after the other with no clear causal linkage; and danger is everywhere, although its source seems to change at random. Whereas President Bush offered America the illusion of morality clarity, President-elect Trump offers an ever-shifting phantasmagoria of sense impressions and unreliable information, barely held together by a fog of anxiety and bewilderment. Think Kafka more than Lord of the Rings."

So in my opinion we're back to what I said before;

- there's saying something one is convinced is true, but isn't
- there's saying something one knows is untrue
- there's saying things without any concern of what the truth is

Those are very different issues. Even during the most anti-W time of his presidency I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm still convinced that he believed in most of what he said. Within the context of what you wrote above that's entirely plausible. He was led by some in my opinion really bad people, and they are likely responsible for what we would more casually call 'lying'. Hillary on the other hand seems to me to mostly fall into a different category, one where the issue isn't primarily stating something that isn't true, but rather omitting information or misleading the listener by answering a slightly different question.

Back to what you said above though; you imply that it doesn't matter that politicians lie because they all lie, but that ignores two very important issues in my opinion:

1) There's a difference between what we can tell about the competence of a politician based on "the nature of their lies". While we could possibly accuse W of being somewhat gullible, or Hillary of being 'calculating', both of them seem to have a relatively firm grasp of reality and ideology based on what they (think they) know. It's a vastly different proposition compared to someone who simply doesn't care.

2) Therefore, it is in the interest of the population to understand just what type of person they get in power. While we may sit back and simply say that this is "democracy" in action, or lack thereof, and that it therefore 'is what it is', that's never ever the entire truth. There are always options on the table, and whether or not they're taken seriously is really a result of having a conversation about them and evaluating them. So, in other words, the "All politicians lie" only serves to kill nuance and kill that discussion. Sorry if I'm misrepresenting your intent, because I didn't mean to imply that you're essentially telling people to just 'give up', but a lot of times the objection that 'everyone lies' to the objection that 'politician X lied' really does sound like that.

And they get us well-meaning folks to argue back and forth about nothing. It's divide and conquer - Rs vs Ds, with a little Libertarians in the mix just for sport.

In general I agree in a sense. But to me the issue is the process of evaluation itself. By evaluating candidates and doing research on what they say/do and how they say/do it, we actually achieve something. It is far worse to write it all off as "all the same". I would for example argue that by investigating the difference between Democrat and Republican politics in general, we end up learning the similarities. That is how we can see that they are both more or less squarely right-of-center when taking all political ideology and though into account.

But yes, I actually do agree that a lot of this is great for those with true power, as we end up arguing over things that never in a million years will affect them, while we don't discuss what does.

-- Ironically though, a lot of Americans voted Bernie / Trump because of financial issues, something that certainly is relevant to those in true power.

Do you really think we have anything to do with what happens in WA?

As a mass, yes. It is ultimately up to the individual to make the determination of how and whether to act of course.

 

[mattiasNYC]

In the light of your culture, is it any wonder that you ended up with a choice between Hillary and Donald?  I have a lot of American friends and I don't mean this in an unkind way at all, Europe has a lot to thank the USA for, but sometimes you need others to hold up a mirror to get a clearer view.

DaveP

I agree 100% Dave.

 

[micaddict]

https://thinkprogress.org/when-everything-is-a-lie-power-is-the-only-truth-1e641751d150#.8yzsoe9gw

Yup, managed democracy. That was pretty much my drift when I wrote this on October 12th:

Although I strongly prefer the first over the latter (and that's an understatement), in some ways democracy (in practice) is more dangerous than dictatorship.
In the latter it' usually more clear who's pulling the strings, who really owns the goodies, and who's manipulating whom.