Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

TomOnBoard

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

I am wondering because mostly, the thread traffic seems to be anti-Trump.
The topic of the thread is not specifically positive or negative.

As bad as the dems and far left paint him, he must have some people championing him?

So, you got your answer. Are you clear now that one poster on here has been suggested as possibly championing Trump?

So, I am wondering where exactly do you stand? Champion or no?

Podge_irl

Gbear wrote: »

It is completely in the gift of the party of Lincoln to change that.
And I don't say that to be snide, but it's simply demonstrative of how quickly the politics of parties can change. The Civil Rights Act was passed by a Republican president.

The Civil Rights Act was passed by LBJ (dem). It also was a pretty strong contributory factor to the realignment of the old confederate states from Democrat to Republican. So they obviously can change.

TomOnBoard

Foxtrol wrote: »

There are hundreds of photos and videos available showing the lines.

It is a fact that they closed more than 80 polling locations in the mainly democrat Atlanta.

If there wasn't an issue why would their Secretary of State be saying they'll 'investigate'. Problem is investigating after the fact is too late in November.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1270440344337952777?s=20

In my opinion, based on what I have seen reported, Georgia is a voting-fairness basket case. Time and again it has shown itself to be a hotbed of voter suppression, trying to impinge on voting rights of poorer minorities who, it is feared by the white Republican ascendancy, would rip power out of their hands if fair and free elections were permitted. If Georgia was a country, United Nations election inspectors would have huge problems validating most of their election results. The fact that other States don't do more to influence legislation to guarantee such fair and free elections in Ga is a disgrace in the so-called Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave!

TomOnBoard

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Civil Rights Act was passed by LBJ (dem). It also was a pretty strong contributory factor to the realignment of the old confederate states from Democrat to Republican. So they obviously can change.

You're quite correct that the most important Civil Rights legislation was passed during LBJ's Presidency, with the Civil Rights Act 1964, Voting Rights Act 1965, and Indian Civil Rights and Fair Housing measures included in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. However, the re-alignment' from Democratic to Republican had started much earlier, with Truman's de-segregation policies in the post-war period greatly shifting voting in national elections from Dem to Rep, while (strangely) maintaining Dem allegiances in State and Local politics until the 1960s. That history certainly shows that political allegiances can change, but that history also shows that the white dominated Southern States vote against any policies that favour more rights and privileged for minorities.

Roger the cabin boy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, you got your answer. Are you clear now that one poster on here has been suggested as possibly championing Trump?

So, I am wondering where exactly do you stand? Champion or no?

Forgive me if i find your tone less than forgiving...


As for champion or no?

I like Trump (a lot) in that he is so unpolitical its amazing to behold.
He has all of the traditionalist politic in an absolute tiz.

The slickety-slick politicos like Obama, erc are just left dumfounded by him and can't get why he got voted in.

I get why he got voted in and policies to one side, i'd vote for him as well. Same as i would prefer Boris over any of the other highly polished turds floating around the HOC toilet bowl.

As for actual policies of Trump?
Dunno, its a look and learn thing tbh. I liked his treatment of the WHO. Most apt. I thought the handling of Kim-Jung was fantastic and showed "Real" politicians how to deal with tin-pot tyrants.

The facade of chaos and incompetency he portrays is imho, on purpose. It leaves his opponents clueless as to what he is going to do or say next.
He is very unpredictable and to his advantage imho,

I couldn't give a hoot if he chats ****. Talk is just talk to a certain degree.

salmocab

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Forgive me if i find your tone less than forgiving...


As for champion or no?

I like Trump (a lot) in that he is so unpolitical its amazing to behold.
He has all of the traditionalist politic in an absolute tiz.

The slickety-slick politicos like Obama, erc are just left dumfounded by him and can't get why he got voted in.

I get why he got voted in and policies to one side, i'd vote for him as well. Same as i would prefer Boris over any of the other highly polished turds floating around the HOC toilet bowl.

As for actual policies of Trump?
Dunno, its a look and learn thing tbh. I liked his treatment of the WHO. Most apt. I thought the handling of Kim-Jung was fantastic and showed "Real" politicians how to deal with tin-pot tyrants.

The facade of chaos and incompetency he portrays is imho, on purpose. It leaves his opponents clueless as to what he is going to do or say next.
He is very unpredictable and to his advantage imho,

I couldn't give a hoot if he chats ****. Talk is just talk to a certain degree.

I’d suggest it’s no coincidence that the two politicians you admire are running two of the worst campaigns against covid In the world whilst thousands of their citizens die.

Harry Palmr

salmocab wrote: »

I’d suggest it’s no coincidence that the two politicians you admire are running two of the worst campaigns against covid In the world whilst thousands of their citizens die.

Not quite - both are lucky that Brazilian bozo is outdoing them! But yes they are all of a type. Fantastically self seeking, with no innate empathy - sociopathic.

Quin_Dub

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Not quite - both are lucky that Brazilian bozo is outdoing them! But yes they are all of a type. Fantastically self seeking, with no innate empathy - sociopathic.

And with reputations for having a only a passing relationship with the truth.

check_six

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And with reputations for having a only a passing relationship with the truth.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the classes of mistruths that pair spout constantly. What is the ratio of verbal diarrhoea, to spoofology, to outright knowing lies. Their lack of preparedness, or understanding, or interest in most if not all of the important topics that they are questioned about is a constant wonder to behold.

Someone mentioned that talk is just talk, but when you are bombarded with a stream of nonsense it must impact on your opinion and belief in a leader. You cannot, in good faith, believe that they are anyway more competent when they are away from the microphone. If fact, it would not be outrageous to say that they are trying to show their best side off when they are in front of the cameras. Now *that* is a scary thought.

TomOnBoard

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Forgive me if i find your tone less than forgiving...


As for champion or no?

I like Trump (a lot) in that he is so unpolitical its amazing to behold.
He has all of the traditionalist politic in an absolute tiz.

The slickety-slick politicos like Obama, erc are just left dumfounded by him and can't get why he got voted in.

I get why he got voted in and policies to one side, i'd vote for him as well. Same as i would prefer Boris over any of the other highly polished turds floating around the HOC toilet bowl.

As for actual policies of Trump?
Dunno, its a look and learn thing tbh. I liked his treatment of the WHO. Most apt. I thought the handling of Kim-Jung was fantastic and showed "Real" politicians how to deal with tin-pot tyrants.

The facade of chaos and incompetency he portrays is imho, on purpose. It leaves his opponents clueless as to what he is going to do or say next.
He is very unpredictable and to his advantage imho,

I couldn't give a hoot if he chats ****. Talk is just talk to a certain degree.

OK. That's an interesting perspective. And thanks for posting it. Now that you've shown me yours, I'll show you mine.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Would it be fair to say that you're basically fed up with the traditional political classes and the whole industry that surrounds them?

I do see why Trump did as well as he did in 2016. The reasons are myriad, but I was not particularly negative about him before the debates with Hillary. During the Republican primaries and debates and into the Convention, I had a lot of regard for the same type of 'break the mould' tactics that he employed which you seem to admire. I found the lack of slickness and almost chaotic nature of his campaign refreshing, and all this was bolstered by how I felt that Hillary was a totally unlikable candidate, and a part of a self-serving dynasty that had started with 'Slick Willy's' post-President career. Indeed, I recall binging on all his Apprentice series to see if I could get to know a bit more about him.

When the debates with Hillary began, and the women started surfacing their sexual assault claims, I began to look closer at him and did not like what I saw. The manner in which he dealt with 'Pussygate' was crass and I disliked it a lot! His lack of knowledge, rational arguments and policies as well as his hulking, bullying behaviour during the debates were big turn-offs for me. However, when he did win the Presidency, while I was shocked as were many, I was sanguine enough about it, and hoped it would all work out and that he would 'grow into' the role. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched the transition phase with interest. After the inaugeration, it was immediately clear that it was shaping up to be a disaster, and in the early months of 2017, he completely lost me. The lies, the chaos, the surreal events around Mike Flynn and Jim Comey's firing began a time when my meh! attitude to him turned to dislike. For me, he simply became a very dislikable human being. I was disgusted by many of the surrogates who came out to bat for him, like Corey Lewandowsky, Jason Miller, Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon and others. I hadn't yet grown to despise the execrable lying out of the Press Secretary's office that was to come later, because I actually liked Sean Spicer as a person, while becoming more and more leery of what he said.

For me, Trump never did grow into the Presidency. And that's sad for him and for the country. It needn't have been that way. He could have taken the trust that was placed in him by the electorate, surrounded himself with good, patriotic, public service oriented people and had a truly great Presidency. He inherited a great economy, a winding-down of US wars and a strong US presence abroad.

Instead, he created an incestuous, kleptocratic, uncaring, nasty and self-centred Presidency, where truth and fact became variable and twistable in ways I had never seen before. He showed himself to be a narcissistic grifter and his padding of the White House with sycophants and family led to a closed Presidency that appeared to brook no dissent and became dictator or regal in nature, without any of the best characteristics of those being shown. The Mueller Report and his Impeachment by the House and subsequent Senate trial outed significant areas in which he acted appallingly, and he has only been saved from criminal proceedings because he is President.

His performance in recent months has been truly dreadful. The complete loss of preparedness for the incoming Covid-19 pandemic marked a gross failure of leadership and borderline negligent homicide on a grand scale. His apparent inaction throughout February while being briefed on the gravity of Covid by his own Intelligence and Public Health communities, while still actively golfing and electioneering were extreme failures. And, as for the post- George Floyd leadership, utterly dreadful!

Anyway, it looks like although we both may have started out from similar positions, we have clearly gone on different journeys through Trump's Presidency. For me, it can't end too soon!

Quin_Dub

TomOnBoard wrote: »

OK. That's an interesting perspective. And thanks for posting it. Now that you've shown me yours, I'll show you mine.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Would it be fair to say that you're basically fed up with the traditional political classes and the whole industry that surrounds them?

I do see why Trump did as well as he did in 2016. The reasons are myriad, but I was not particularly negative about him before the debates with Hillary. During the Republican primaries and debates and into the Convention, I had a lot of regard for the same type of 'break the mould' tactics that he employed which you seem to admire. I found the lack of slickness and almost chaotic nature of his campaign refreshing, and all this was bolstered by how I felt that Hillary was a totally unlikable candidate, and a part of a self-serving dynasty that had started with 'Slick Willy's' post-President career. Indeed, I recall binging on all his Apprentice series to see if I could get to know a bit more about him.

When the debates with Hillary began, and the women started surfacing their sexual assault claims, I began to look closer at him and did not like what I saw. The manner in which he dealt with 'Pussygate' was crass and I disliked it a lot! His lack of knowledge, rational arguments and policies as well as his hulking, bullying behaviour during the debates were big turn-offs for me. However, when he did win the Presidency, while I was shocked as were many, I was sanguine enough about it, and hoped it would all work out and that he would 'grow into' the role. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched the transition phase with interest. After the inaugeration, it was immediately clear that it was shaping up to be a disaster, and in the early months of 2017, he completely lost me. The lies, the chaos, the surreal events around Mike Flynn and Jim Comey's firing began a time when my meh! attitude to him turned to dislike. For me, he simply became a very dislikable human being. I was disgusted by many of the surrogates who came out to bat for him, like Corey Lewandowsky, Jason Miller, Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon and others. I hadn't yet grown to despise the execrable lying out of the Press Secretary's office that was to come later, because I actually liked Sean Spicer as a person, while becoming more and more leery of what he said.

For me, Trump never did grow into the Presidency. And that's sad for him and for the country. It needn't have been that way. He could have taken the trust that was placed in him by the electorate, surrounded himself with good, patriotic, public service oriented people and had a truly great Presidency. He inherited a great economy, a winding-down of US wars and a strong US presence abroad.

Instead, he created an incestuous, kleptocratic, uncaring, nasty and self-centred Presidency, where truth and fact became variable and twistable in ways I had never seen before. He showed himself to be a narcissistic grifter and his padding of the White House with sycophants and family led to a closed Presidency that appeared to brook no dissent and became dictator or regal in nature, without any of the best characteristics of those being shown. The Mueller Report and his Impeachment by the House and subsequent Senate trial outed significant areas in which he acted appallingly, and he has only been saved from criminal proceedings because he is President.

His performance in recent months has been truly dreadful. The complete loss of preparedness for the incoming Covid-19 pandemic marked a gross failure of leadership and borderline negligent homicide on a grand scale. His apparent inaction throughout February while being briefed on the gravity of Covid by his own Intelligence and Public Health communities, while still actively golfing and electioneering were extreme failures. And, as for the post- George Floyd leadership, utterly dreadful!

Anyway, it looks like we both may have started out from similar positions, we have clearly gone on different journeys through Trump's Presidency. For me, it can't end too soon!

And therein lies the structural problem that Trump has for his reelection - where are his votes coming from?

There were quite a lot of voters that started out with that viewpoint of him - "He's a bit rough and ready , but maybe that's what's needed to break the hegemony and light a fire under the Government"

Anyone that didn't vote for him last time is incredibly unlikely to vote for him this time around and I firmly believe that there are more than enough voters that have been on a version of the journey described above to make his path to re-election extremely difficult.

Not impossible, given the bizarre nature of how Presidential Elections are managed in the US. A mix of wildly partisan County and State level secretaries that can shape the nature of the electoral process and the Electoral college itself mean that the result will never be a foregone conclusion until the counting is done.

Guy:Incognito

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

kowloon

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

I thought the handling of Kim-Jung was fantastic and showed "Real" politicians how to deal with tin-pot tyrants.

Is this the DPRK that went straight back to missile testing meaning Trump was 100% ineffective and that the threat continues to build? The DPRK that has now cut off diplomatic channels with the South?

Ben Done

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

He engaged a lackey pollster (? McLaughlin) to write a letter that read in parts as if it was dictated by himself, like that first medical report that said he "could live to 200 years old".


Clearly, he's raging like the spoiled toddler he is.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the White House right now.


I think the Lincoln Project ads are hitting the spot - they're clearly made for a viewership of one - kudos to Rick Wilson et al..

kowloon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

I believe he's also suing a radio station for playing an ad that consists entirely of direct quotes of himself.

Leroy42

He really is the biggest snowflake out there.

For a man that processes to tell it like it is, he really is so easily triggered.

pixelburp

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

And once again throwing around the narrative of voter suppression; the ground is being set brick by brick. Looks likely this election will see a huge percentage of postals votes, already declared corrupt and illegitimate by the President (goes without saying this has no basis in evidence). The counts will take days judging by the Primaries, so will be prone to legal challenges thanks to Trump's campaign, and at this rate wouldn't be surprised if it's 2000 all over again. Even if Trump can't steal it, the Biden presidency will be declared illegitimate and corrupt by all Trump's surrogates.

Water John

Yes, but that will have to be brushed past and the new admin, peopled by people who know what their doing, needs to hit the ground running.
Let Fox and Trump bay at the moon.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

Yes, but that will have to be brushed past and the new admin, peopled by people who know what their doing, needs to hit the ground running.
Let Fox and Trump bay at the moon.

I don't think it's as simple as that. A persistent lie is as powerful as any truth and if "postal votes are illegitimate" is said enough times, and with a pliant senate / supreme court, the elections legitimacy could be easily questioned. As I said, 2000 was a sham but masterfully played, politically. It comes down really to whether Mitch McConnell has a good or bad day really; they may want rid of Trump at this stage, start planning for 2024.

Midlife

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

As for actual policies of Trump?
Dunno, its a look and learn thing tbh. I liked his treatment of the WHO. Most apt. I thought the handling of Kim-Jung was fantastic and showed "Real" politicians how to deal with tin-pot tyrants.

I think this it really telling because to what end did Trump 'deal' with him?

I mean, nothings changed with North Korea. Both guys got a photo op but now it seems off the agenda and I'm not sure you can argue what positive or negative effects Trump's actions had.

Saying he dealt with it well or poorly are both dishonest.

But you should note that bossing sh1t and owning people are not necessarily signs of an effective political leadership.

They sound authorative and are maybe pissing off the right people for you but that doesn't mean they're getting anything done.

Itssoeasy

The persecution complex he has is embarrassing. Everyone is against him. Has he complained about the Fox News polls that show Biden ahead or is it just CNN ? I saw a transcript of the press briefing regarding the tweet he sent yesterday, and apparently the president was just asking questions. That would hold up except he stated what sounded like opinions about many things involving that protester being badly injured after being knocked down.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

And the reply is now in

https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1270802155201576962?s=19

PropJoe10

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this is totally normal behaviour

https://twitter.com/donie/status/1270769310915612673

We have now officially entered the Twilight Zone.

PropJoe10

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The persecution complex he has is embarrassing. Everyone is against him. Has he complained about the Fox News polls that show Biden ahead or is it just CNN ? I saw a transcript of the press briefing regarding the tweet he sent yesterday, and apparently the president was just asking questions. That would hold up except he stated what sounded like opinions about many things involving that protester being badly injured after being knocked down.

He's only going after the CNN poll as it fits with his "CNN is Fake News" narrative. He is a baby in a man's body.

Itssoeasy

PropJoe10 wrote: »

We have now officially entered the Twilight Zone.

That reply was a polite way of saying "go on away and don't be annoying us," which I do appreciate.

TomOnBoard

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And the reply is now in

https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1270802155201576962?s=19

I.Love.It!

A reply letter signed by Mr Vigilante that highlights the craziness and 'banana republic' nature of the original Cease & Desist demand from Trump's Campaign. You couldn't make this **** up!!!!I

EDit: I meant to add this comment to Guy: "Mr Incognito, meet Mr Vigilante.. ". Definitely overheard at a Super Heroes convention...

Roger the cabin boy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

OK. That's an interesting perspective. And thanks for posting it. Now that you've shown me yours, I'll show you mine.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Would it be fair to say that you're basically fed up with the traditional political classes and the whole industry that surrounds them?

I do see why Trump did as well as he did in 2016. The reasons are myriad, but I was not particularly negative about him before the debates with Hillary. During the Republican primaries and debates and into the Convention, I had a lot of regard for the same type of 'break the mould' tactics that he employed which you seem to admire. I found the lack of slickness and almost chaotic nature of his campaign refreshing, and all this was bolstered by how I felt that Hillary was a totally unlikable candidate, and a part of a self-serving dynasty that had started with 'Slick Willy's' post-President career. Indeed, I recall binging on all his Apprentice series to see if I could get to know a bit more about him.

When the debates with Hillary began, and the women started surfacing their sexual assault claims, I began to look closer at him and did not like what I saw. The manner in which he dealt with 'Pussygate' was crass and I disliked it a lot! His lack of knowledge, rational arguments and policies as well as his hulking, bullying behaviour during the debates were big turn-offs for me. However, when he did win the Presidency, while I was shocked as were many, I was sanguine enough about it, and hoped it would all work out and that he would 'grow into' the role. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched the transition phase with interest. After the inaugeration, it was immediately clear that it was shaping up to be a disaster, and in the early months of 2017, he completely lost me. The lies, the chaos, the surreal events around Mike Flynn and Jim Comey's firing began a time when my meh! attitude to him turned to dislike. For me, he simply became a very dislikable human being. I was disgusted by many of the surrogates who came out to bat for him, like Corey Lewandowsky, Jason Miller, Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon and others. I hadn't yet grown to despise the execrable lying out of the Press Secretary's office that was to come later, because I actually liked Sean Spicer as a person, while becoming more and more leery of what he said.

For me, Trump never did grow into the Presidency. And that's sad for him and for the country. It needn't have been that way. He could have taken the trust that was placed in him by the electorate, surrounded himself with good, patriotic, public service oriented people and had a truly great Presidency. He inherited a great economy, a winding-down of US wars and a strong US presence abroad.

Instead, he created an incestuous, kleptocratic, uncaring, nasty and self-centred Presidency, where truth and fact became variable and twistable in ways I had never seen before. He showed himself to be a narcissistic grifter and his padding of the White House with sycophants and family led to a closed Presidency that appeared to brook no dissent and became dictator or regal in nature, without any of the best characteristics of those being shown. The Mueller Report and his Impeachment by the House and subsequent Senate trial outed significant areas in which he acted appallingly, and he has only been saved from criminal proceedings because he is President.

His performance in recent months has been truly dreadful. The complete loss of preparedness for the incoming Covid-19 pandemic marked a gross failure of leadership and borderline negligent homicide on a grand scale. His apparent inaction throughout February while being briefed on the gravity of Covid by his own Intelligence and Public Health communities, while still actively golfing and electioneering were extreme failures. And, as for the post- George Floyd leadership, utterly dreadful!

Anyway, it looks like although we both may have started out from similar positions, we have clearly gone on different journeys through Trump's Presidency. For me, it can't end too soon!

A great reply. Appreciated.

At least you have reason and thought behind your analysis.
I can see why he is dislikable, really, but being dislikable as a politician, to me, is interesting. Perhaps it says to me that the politician isn't quite as beholden to public opinion as others and thus has certain freedoms and powers that those who court public affection (Obama imho), don't have.
I always thought Thatcher was a fantastic politician for these same reasons (no comment on her policies btw).

This thread is odd in that its mostly an anti-Trump echo chamber, hence my question, but you answered well. Thanks.

salmocab

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

A great reply. Appreciated.

At least you have reason and thought behind your analysis.
I can see why he is dislikable, really, but being dislikable as a politician, to me, is interesting. Perhaps it says to me that the politician isn't quite as beholden to public opinion as others and thus has certain freedoms and powers that those who court public affection (Obama imho), don't have.
I always thought Thatcher was a fantastic politician for these same reasons (no comment on her policies btw).

This thread is odd in that its mostly an anti-Trump echo chamber, hence my question, but you answered well. Thanks.

Echo chamber is something people say when they disagree with the majority. It’s meaningless in this regard, you’ve said you like Trump But said nothing about his policies beyond wait and see and you now say Thatcher was a great politician with no comment on her policies, this shows your just supporting the person who you like and not their politics or policies, it’s not sport. You’re exactly who Trump wants to support him someone who will listen to his rhetoric but not bother with what he’s actually doing as a president.

looksee

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

A great reply. Appreciated.

At least you have reason and thought behind your analysis.
I can see why he is dislikable, really, but being dislikable as a politician, to me, is interesting. Perhaps it says to me that the politician isn't quite as beholden to public opinion as others and thus has certain freedoms and powers that those who court public affection (Obama imho), don't have.
I always thought Thatcher was a fantastic politician for these same reasons (no comment on her policies btw).

This thread is odd in that its mostly an anti-Trump echo chamber, hence my question, but you answered well. Thanks.

Its good that you appreciate someone else's thought and reason behind their views. Perhaps you could now offer your reasons why you support, or at least argue for, Trump.

Its all very well having freedoms and powers, but if they are not used for the public good then what is the point? Using them to benefit himself doesn't seem like good value for the American public who are paying for his accommodation and security and golf.

How does his indulging himself make him a good policitician? What has he actually done that demonstrates his value as a politician?

As for courting public affection - what is he doing when he holds his rallies? Why does he find it necessary to continually brag about how great he is, in case no-one has noticed? Why does he re-tweet so much stuff that offers empty flattery? He is desperate for people to admire and respect and kowtow to him - he doesn't know anything about affection, but these other things are his substitute.

Of course it is an echo chamber here, its because so many people can see through him; why would any of us pretend to admire someone with no admirable qualities?

TomOnBoard

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

A great reply. Appreciated.


This thread is odd in that its mostly an anti-Trump echo chamber, hence my question, but you answered well. Thanks.

I find the term 'echo chamber' to be much overused in this thread. It is generally hurled as an insult by folks who are losing an argument and whose posts fail to convince the majority opinion on a point.

Some lads come on here to goad, to bait other posters, and some just lay eggs and run away. And that's all fine and dandy, if it's a sport for them. But they need to be wary of posting stupid stuff, outright propaganda and/or inflammatory rhetoric. They WILL get called out. And in some cases, the response from other posters is not pretty! However, the bulk of regular posters here add their 2¢ worth in a respectful manner, and provide facts and reason for their points, or else just state a clear opinion. This is the essence of good debating.

The 'echo chamber' at its worst is a place where misinformation is discussed around endless loops thereby increasing the fervour with which contributors believe that lies are truth. However, at its best, the 'echo chamber ' is a place where truth and facts are explained and discussed which can, over time, greatly improve the accuracy and reliability of our beliefs. Most people in here get their 'news' from a range of sources, all the way from furthest left-leaning to furthest right. But I don't see people generally relying solely on a single source to the exclusion of all others. And as for the recurring accusation that the so-called MSM is the 'enemy of the people' and/or 'Fake News' that's total B.S. When Trump or McEnany slate CNN for reporting something Trump said yesterday as 'Fake News', they're ignoring the fact that WE SAW HIM SAY IT! If I form an opinion based on something I heard/saw Trump say or do, and CNN reports more or less the same opinion, does that negate my opinion? Of course not!

SO, this may well be an Echo Chamber. Over time, collective belief that has been born of multiple independent thought processes based on multiple different sources have concluded that Trump's Presidency is a disaster. Simple as! Anyone who disagrees is welcome to state their case and their reasons why they believe what they do. And anyone else is welcome to agree or disagree. I think that's healthy!