Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stop moaning ffs

Christy42 wrote: »

I think she will also struggle getting away with being as aggressive as Trump. Trump also played heavily on peoples biases were she needs to shut a lot of them down.

She certainly has a massive step up vs other future contenders. We will see. Trump does not have a natural "heir" to run in 6 years time (presuming he pulls off a second term). We will see how much of that cult can be shifted onto a different but linked personality.

I am certainly not counting on republicans gaining a conscience after Trump though. McConnell has shown where they stand.

By those lights she’s a shoe in. A kinder gentler trump, who has world experience, and she’s a woman! Look how progressive we are us Republicans electing a woman.


Terrifying

dr.fuzzenstein

pixelburp wrote: »

Samantha Bee said, not in jest but in all seriousness, and I think she's right: the first female US president is likely to be Ivanka Trump. She's grooming, or being groomed, for high office so that when she takes a stab at a senate seat she can trot out moments like this. Look at the "good Trump", already experienced in the trade politics.

And can we please give the reductionism over Trumps election as some kick against a fictional Left a rest?

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, I sometimes wonder if I've slipped into some fcuked up parallel dimension at some point, or maybe something fell on my head and I'm in a coma.
Because there is no way that this is reality, I refuse to believe that any person on the face of this planet would seriously consider Ivanka as President. This is fcuked up beyond belief. If this happens I will become an evil genius and build a Doomsday machine.

As for your last point. This is a bugbear of mine.
People have been saying "I voted Trump because of PC nonsense/SJWs/feminists/eco nuts.
If you vote Trump because you think that being polite/socially aware/not racist/concerned about the planet is somehow the fault of "the left", it's not my problem.
It is absolutely no fault of mine if you are an asshole.

Rjd2

Christy42 wrote: »

Doubtful. Republicans tend to vote less women in than Democrats. I don't see them voting in the first female president. I think it will turn off a section of their voter base.

If Trump or a male Dem wins in 2020 then yeah its quite possible the first female president will be a republican. Hailey will be the 2024 candidate for the republicans and its a two party country.

peddlelies

A lot of political violence in Portland yesterday, apparently the mayor told the police to stand down. I don't know anything about Andy Ngo besides that he's a gay immigrant but he ended up with bleeding on the brain. Police would want to do something about it because it's going to all kick off in 2020.

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

It's just not true. You're making a single point over and over and over and saying it determined the entire election.
Find statistics or exit polls showing that people voted for Trump as a backlash against liberal values and online issues. Otherwise, stop this constant posting about the same thing over and over.

An estimated 13% of people that voted for Obama switched to Trump.
Lots of blue collar Democrats swtiched to Trump.

If you bother researching it they say they saw Trump as a continuation of the 'change' that Obama promised. Globalisation had failed middle america and Trump was the voice of the little person.

Saying "It's not true" is not proof of anything. It just proves your failure to accept facts.
You and others can continue the ignore the elephant in the room if you wish.
I wouldn't have to address the point over and over, if people keep saying the point is mute.

13% of people switch from Obama to Trump. Why? Because they were disillusioned. Obama promised change that never happened. What came was more of the same identity politics crap.

Here is a clip of Obama saying the 77c gap is an embarrassment in 2014. He advocates for change. While at the same time there was a wage gap within his administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB70CPJIsgE

(Reuters: "its not 77c, why does the president call it 77c?, his own labour department says its not 77c, even you're saying [of the white house administration]that its not 77c"")
(Carney calls Reuters fake news)
(Reuters: "Why is that evidence of discrimination at large, but it's not evidence of discrimination within the white house"?)
(Carney then starts to sound like KellyAnne Conway)
(longer clip in full context from c-span https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4495044/jay-carney-answers-questions-gender-pay-gap)

Hypocrisy/double standards/identity politics
Can you see it?

The vote for Obama was for change, for hope. What we got was more of the same and disillusionment.

The vote for trump was a big middle finger to the system.

everlast75

I guess Carlson's quid pro quo for his exclusive press invite is to defend Trump's new bestie...


https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status/1145320896300814336?s=19

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

I guess Carlson's quid pro quo for his exclusive press invite is to defend Trump's new bestie...

What ideology led to North Korea becoming as it is today?
I wonder...

Apparently that red star on their flag has some meaning.

Would you appreciate it if people didn't speak to you, because of an ideology that you held to?
This comes back to biden's quote earlier in the week about how he had to work with nazis to get things done:

“Well guess what?” Biden continued. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”

" Its a disgusting place, no one is defending it. Its not a choice between evil people and great people. Its a choice most of the time between the bad people and the worst people. I do agree there is a Samantha Power, sort of dorm-room, "They're so mean!" and its kind of silly and stupid, and not helpful."-Carlson

I think we've seen multiple times already how things can be taken easily out of context, and how those things are used to attack others. Endorsing this kind of politics is playing alongside Trump in the dirt.

pixelburp

"I'm not defending North Korea", says Tucker Carlson, before proceeding to defend North Korea by false equivalence. So, plain lickspittle or dangerous ideologue? Or just a contrarian toad? Not sure which is the worse look, though musing that running a country means "killing people..." is a grotesque parody of Fox, or at least it would be were this a fictional satire of the station. Beyond parody at this stage but when a rush to defend the actions of Trump requires this level of equivocation, there has to be a reckoning at this stage.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

What ideology led to North Korea becoming as it is today?

Political correctness?

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

Political correctness?

Why not try reading the post beyond the first line.

pixelburp wrote: »

"I'm not defending North Korea", says Tucker Carlson, before proceeding to defend North Korea by false equivalence. So, plain lickspittle or dangerous ideologue? Or just a contrarian toad? Not sure which is the worse look, though musing that running a country means "killing people..." is a grotesque parody of Fox, or at least it would be were this a fictional satire of the station. Beyond parody at this stage but when a rush to defend the actions of Trump requires this level of equivocation, there has to be a reckoning at this stage.

It might help if you include Carlson's comments in full. Dissecting 5 words out of context doesn't seem fair, as I've proved multiple times how readily and easily things are being taken out of context these days to attack such conservative thinkers.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

Why not try reading the post beyond the first line.




It might help if you include Carlson's comments in full. Dissecting 5 words out of context doesn't seem fair, as I've proved multiple times how readily and easily things are being taken out of context these days to attack such conservative thinkers.

I listened to the whole thing, he equivocated, including his entire comments in my post does not change my interpretation of his words.

And in any case, please. Tucker Carlson is NOT a thinker. He's a professional contrarian who runs a series of bad takes that represent every crude stereotype of American conservatism going, including several dog whistles. At best he's a troll who knows his bullishness gets ratings He's precisely the kind of intentionally skewed mouthpiece that the Fairness Doctrine, once upon a time, was meant to curb.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

I listened to the whole thing, he equivocated, including his entire comments in my post does not change my interpretation of his words.

And in any case, please. Tucker Carlson is NOT a thinker. He's a professional contrarian who runs a series of bad takes that represent every crude stereotype of American conservatism going, including several dog whistles. At best he's a troll who knows his bullishness gets ratings He's precisely the kind of intentionally skewed mouthpiece that the Fairness Doctrine, once upon a time, was meant to curb.

Such claims require evidence. Quoting Carlson in full about North Korea would be a good start. Evidence please, these are ludicrous claims.

Or do you also agree that "Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next.." is a racist thing to say?

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

Why not try reading the post beyond the first line.

In my defence, 90% of your posts allocate blame on PC for most things. Why not north korea!?

The idea that the President pulled back from a potentially war-inducing act as a result of a tv pundit is absolutely ridiculous. That's a fact.

Professor Moriarty

Tucker Carlson made quiet a droll comment about North Korea last year when said that it was a country where the "population is starving and its leader is dying of obesity.”

peddlelies

Here's what Carlson said in full. His comments were mainly about Trump's approach to dealing with such rogue Countries, not an actual defense of North Korea. Context matters.

"There's no defending the North Korean regime, which is a monstrous regime. It's the last really Stalinist regime in the world. It's a disgusting place, obviously. So there's no defending it.

On the other hand, you know, you gotta be honest what it means running a country, it means killing people, not on the scale the North Koreans do but a lot of countries commit atrocities including a number that we're closely allied with. So you know I'm not a relativist or anything, it's important to be honest about that. It's not necessarily a choice between the evil people and the great people. It's a choice most of the time between the bad and the worst people. That's the nature of life and certainly the nature of power.

I do think that's how the President sees it, he's far less sentimental about this stuff and I think more realistic about it, I don't agree with everything Trump says but this is one thing I do agree with. There is a kind of Samantha Power *OH THEY'RE SO MEAN* and it's kind of silly and stupid and not helpful. In the end what matters is what's good for the US, and you deal with bad people a lot of the time in order to help your own Country. That's kind the way I think Trump sees it."

Kimsang

Banned.

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

In my defence, 90% of your posts allocate blame on PC for most things. Why not north korea!?

The idea that the President pulled back from a potentially war-inducing act as a result of a tv pundit is absolutely ridiculous. That's a fact.

Most things I describe that are bad, are akin to North Korea. North Korea is the ultimate destination that I'm warning against. What more do you want me to say?

I see large swaithes of society blindly accepting the ideology of North Korea, while at the same time dismissing and opposing how it works in practice.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

Most things I describe that are bad, are akin to North Korea. North Korea is the ultimate destination that I'm warning against. What more do you want me to say?

I see large swaithes of society blindly accepting the ideology of North Korea, while at the same time dismissing and opposing how it works in practice.

Grand.

Would you agree the idea that a President pulled back from a potentially war-inducing act as a result of a tv pundit is absolutely ridiculous?

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

Such claims require evidence. Quoting Carlson in full about North Korea would be a good start. Evidence please, these are ludicrous claims.

Or do you also agree that "Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next.." is a racist thing to say?

No. I'm not going to because I'm not going out my way to validate a commonly held view that Tucker Carlson is a professional contrarian, one who takes intentionally aggressive conservative views throughout his tenure. He's a troll whose show intentionally presents as outrage. Tucker Carlson is Eamon Dunphy, John Waters, Piers Morgan and all those "journalists" who make hay from intentional abrasiveness. This is not a new phenomenon and like everything else, America mutates it into something grotesque.

There are plenty of legitimate conservative "thinkers" out there who postulate of issues of economy or whatnot. Don't include Carlson among them them.

EltonJohn69

Joe Biden is so uninspiring.... very much stuck in the past.....If he were to be the democratic candidate, I think he would be a disaster, would loose badly.... I think a lot of people are already realising that.
I think Harris is going to be the next president.... I think I might some serious hard cold cash on her to win... paddy power have her at 5/1

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

There are plenty of legitimate conservative "thinkers" out there who postulate of issues of economy or whatnot. Don't include Carlson among them them.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Christopher Hitchens was quite fond of Tucker. He probably should have taken his advice and continued to write instead of becoming a TV host. Personally Tucker is the only thing I might occasionally watch on Fox, or at least watch some of the clips posted to youtube if they were interesting. Some of his videos are enjoyable, like when he called Avenatti's bluff or the videos on Syria like the one below.

Rjd2

Carlson is good on the rights misplaced love of free markets and overseas imperialism, but at times does resort to trolling and baiting and lowest common denominator identity politics.

He's still a much more nuanced presence than plenty on the right e.g. neocon berks who loath him which sadly doesn't say much for the state of the right.

I would not take a media matters clip or any of there people seriously, they are awful propaganda hacks who skewer everything to keep there base which largely live in an echo chamber happy. The left wing version of Ryan Saavedra who does the same on other side.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

No. I'm not going to because I'm not going out my way to validate a commonly held view that Tucker Carlson is a professional contrarian, one who takes intentionally aggressive conservative views throughout his tenure. He's a troll whose show intentionally presents as outrage. Tucker Carlson is Eamon Dunphy, John Waters, Piers Morgan and all those "journalists" who make hay from intentional abrasiveness. This is not a new phenomenon and like everything else, America mutates it into something grotesque.

There are plenty of legitimate conservative "thinkers" out there who postulate of issues of economy or whatnot. Don't include Carlson among them them.

Ok let's move away from Carlson, this seems a point of contention (obviously the fox news link), i understand the guilt by association 'vibe'.
I think not providing evidence is telling though.

Could we more specifically talk about Roger Scruton? Is he a professional contrarian? Is he a troll who intentionally presents argument as outrage? is he Eamonn Dunphy/Piers Morgan?

Can you point me to a conservative thinker who is not any of the things that you describe?

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

Grand.

Would you agree the idea that a President pulled back from a potentially war-inducing act as a result of a tv pundit is absolutely ridiculous?

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. I agree. Shouldn't happen. But you must agree, there were no other tv journalists making the case that Carlson was. That also shouldn't happen.

Many things however are ridiculous in this day and age. People who can't agree upon 'what is racist?', or whether context matters- exampled in the Carlson quote.

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

Saying "It's not true" is not proof of anything. It just proves your failure to accept facts.
You and others can continue the ignore the elephant in the room if you wish.
I wouldn't have to address the point over and over, if people keep saying the point is mute.

13% of people switch from Obama to Trump. Why? Because they were disillusioned. Obama promised change that never happened. What came was more of the same identity politics crap.

Here is a clip of Obama saying the 77c gap is an embarrassment in 2014. He advocates for change. While at the same time there was a wage gap within his administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB70CPJIsgE

(Reuters: "its not 77c, why does the president call it 77c?, his own labour department says its not 77c, even you're saying [of the white house administration]that its not 77c"")
(Carney calls Reuters fake news)
(Reuters: "Why is that evidence of discrimination at large, but it's not evidence of discrimination within the white house"?)
(Carney then starts to sound like KellyAnne Conway)
(longer clip in full context from c-span https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4495044/jay-carney-answers-questions-gender-pay-gap)

Hypocrisy/double standards/identity politics
Can you see it?

The vote for Obama was for change, for hope. What we got was more of the same and disillusionment.

The vote for trump was a big middle finger to the system.

But you have said multiple times, it was a big middle finger to the far left, online stuff, shame/guilt culture, whtever.

Now it's about the economy? Or is it just about hipocracy?

Are you saying tyhis is the same thing that you've been talkiing about all along. Somehow that people switched from Obama to Trump because of SJW's?

BTW, it's 'moot', not 'mute'.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Ok let's move away from Carlson, this seems a point of contention (obviously the fox news link), i understand the guilt by association 'vibe'.
I think not providing evidence is telling though.

Could we more specifically talk about Roger Scruton? Is he a professional contrarian? Is he a troll who intentionally presents argument as outrage? is he Eamonn Dunphy/Piers Morgan?

Can you point me to a conservative thinker who is not any of the things that you describe?

Can I ask why you’re so intent of discussing Roger Scruton? is there some lesson you want to impart?

Igotadose

Kimsang wrote: »

Could we more specifically talk about Roger Scruton? Is he a professional contrarian? Is he a troll who intentionally presents argument as outrage? is he Eamonn Dunphy/Piers Morgan?

Can you point me to a conservative thinker who is not any of the things that you describe?

What's Roger Scruton, who appears to work for the Conservative party in the UK, have to do with Trump? I mean, feel free to bring him up in the Brexit thread (I suppose.) Interesting he was an adviser to the UK government in the housing department. Is that an appropriate place for a 'philosopher?'

Why did he mention George Soros at all?

And quotes like this: "“Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts,” Scruton told the magazine." sure seems like a presentation of an argument as outrage. Empire?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/apr/10/roger-scruton-calls-for-dismissal-islamophobiad-soros-remarks

And, as to whether he's a victim of a witch hunt, you might find this interesting reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/roger-scruton-not-victim-leftwing-witch-hunt

But my question remains: what's this got to do with Trump saying sh1te about whoever and whatever? Blaming the Democratic party for everything including those poor people drowning at the border? If asylum processing went faster at the border (now, there's a use for a few billion in national emergency money that'd work well), this might've not happened.

peddlelies

Igotadose wrote: »

Blaming the Democratic party for everything including those poor people drowning at the border? If asylum processing went faster at the border (now, there's a use for a few billion in national emergency money that'd work well), this might've not happened.

It was a sad image and RIP to the victims. Unfortunately incidents like that have happened frequently with or without Trump in office, just not as widely reported.

Eric Cartman

hotmail.com wrote: »

There is no Left in American politics.

Bernie Sanders and AOC are by US standards extreme left, but even by european standards they'd be center-left / moderate left.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

But you must agree, there were no other tv journalists making the case that Carlson was. That also shouldn't happen

He. Shouldn't. Be. Taking. Advice. From. Any. T.V. Pundit!!? Ffs - that's the weakest equivocation I've heard since growing vegetables being introduced in defence of Putin.

He should be getting briefings from military personnel and diplomats, instead of rolling his eyes during briefings when he is getting told what he doesn't want to hear.