Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Samaris · 09-12-2017 11:50PM

I was just wondering how often he'd been shouted down in Ireland by hard-left Marxist Antifa members!

Hande hoche! · 10-12-2017 12:29AM

Back to arguing about fake news. Although it seems to be a bit more based in reality than some of his previous forays.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/939616077356642304

PopePalpatine · 10-12-2017 01:04AM

Samaris wrote: »

I was just wondering how often he'd been shouted down in Ireland by hard-left Marxist Antifa members!

Yeah, I'm surprised they would pop up so often in Call of Duty. :pac:

Noel82 · 10-12-2017 01:11AM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Although it seems to be a bit more based in reality than some of his previous forays.

Reporter in question just being dishonest, not hard to check.

https://youtu.be/_3afaZSB30E?t=16826

ArtSmart · 10-12-2017 01:54AM

markodaly wrote: »

Chomsky would have some interesting ideas but he is too idealogical and is as much as a hypocrite as Trump in many regards.

The whole thing about CNN and Fox and most media of that nature (I would lump in large online organisations like vox, buzzfeed, huffreport, breitbart) is that they generally do not say the explicit words "Trump is a Nazi" or "Obama is an Islamist" but subtly apply in other ways that they are.

For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.

Except Trump's dad was arrested at a Nazi rally, and did other documented racist things, for which he was brought to court.

Obama's father was born Christian, became Islamic and then Atheist.

To equate Fox's treatment of Obama's heritage with CNN's treatment of Donnie's is, at best, lazy.

All media has an element of bias, but the difference between propaganda and bias is significant. If you cannot differentiate between the Huffington Post/Vox NYT and Fox/ Infowars/ Briebart news, well, aint no cure for that.

Igotadose · 10-12-2017 09:17AM

Trump apparently watches 8 hours of TV a day. Must be nice to have that kind of free time. Apparently lives on Diet Coke, too. All that caffeine... Kind of explains the irrationality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-president.html?_r=1

Water John · 10-12-2017 12:44PM

You know it's getting near when, the last line of defence, an all out attack on Mueller is unleashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/robert-mueller-trump-special-counsel-russia

It's also a very poor line of defence. It means you have nothing credible to fall back on. Mueller has the Goods on Trump, I would say, certainly his family.

Billy86 · 10-12-2017 01:03PM

markodaly wrote: »

For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.

I wouldn't be inclined to judge someone based on what their parents did, even though we've seen Trump eager to emulate his father in so many other walks of life. However, as was already pointed out, Obama's father never took place in communist or Islamist demonstrations (or in Nazi efforts, because that's another one the right wing media loved to throw at him).

I would take Trump on his own actions, and those actions don't show him taking part in Nazism, but they definitely do show him emboldening them and openly embracing those 'fine people' in the White Supremacist movement as a key part of his ~30% base that he so desperately needs to hold on to, and even that was after point blank ignoring terrorist attacks by them as he farted on about nonsense on Twitter, while invoking terrorist attacks that never even happened by Muslims.

He has also hired people like Sebastian Gorka (who has very close ties with Hungarian neo Nazi groups), got the widespread support of the alt-right to the point he pretty muchb because the face of it (the alt right being Nazism rebranded, hence people like it's 'founder' Richard Spencer being banned from Schengen for involvement with Neo Nazi groups) not to mention endorsements from the KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, had Steve Bannon (a well known bigot) as a close adviser and the main guy running his campaign, had the support of Jeff Sessions, a man deemed too racist to be a federal judge (back in the 1980s when the threshold for what was deemed racism was much higher)... and that's just off the top my head. Oh yeah, and now he's openly endorsing someone who thinks America was great when it had slavery.

So no, the main reason people liken Trump to a Nazi is not because his father attended Nazi rallies and is not even because Trump has worked hard to emulate his dad in nearly every way. It is because he has consistently surrounded himself with Neo Nazis, white supremacists and general bigots, has their widespread and very vocal support which he is more than happy to play up to, goes out of his way to avoid criticising these white supremacists even after a terror attack from them, and because he considers these to be "very fine people". That's probably got a little more to do with it.

Professor Moriarty · 10-12-2017 01:06PM

Water John wrote: »

You know it's getting near when, the last line of defence, an all out attack on Mueller is unleashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/robert-mueller-trump-special-counsel-russia

It's also a very poor line of defence. It means you have nothing credible to fall back on. Mueller has the Goods on Trump, I would say, certainly his family.

I wonder would Trump throw his son under the bus? Probably.

Billy86 · 10-12-2017 01:09PM

Water John wrote: »

You know it's getting near when, the last line of defence, an all out attack on Mueller is unleashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/robert-mueller-trump-special-counsel-russia

It's also a very poor line of defence. It means you have nothing credible to fall back on. Mueller has the Goods on Trump, I would say, certainly his family.

“Secret surveillance, wiretapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night, banging through your door.” said Greg Jarrett "Not like the new FSB, man I f***ing love those guys!"

I... may have made up part of the quote above

- but the irony is ridiculous (and also very intentional in picking 'old KGB' re. framing the debate)

Odhinn · 10-12-2017 02:04PM

markodaly wrote: »

Chomsky would have some interesting ideas but he is too idealogical and is as much as a hypocrite as Trump in many regards.

The whole thing about CNN and Fox and most media of that nature (I would lump in large online organisations like vox, buzzfeed, huffreport, breitbart) is that they generally do not say the explicit words "Trump is a Nazi" or "Obama is an Islamist" but subtly apply in other ways that they are.

For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.

Going on memory, it was a Klan rally. This is of some significance when taking into consideration the father and son's record of discrimination in housing.

Water John · 10-12-2017 05:48PM

Fascinating article in WP. DT is now averaging 9 lies per day. This is a study by some one who has specialised in, liars. What makes DT most unusual is that 50% of his lies are calculated to be, cruel and disparaging of others.
This trait is hardly measurable or worth measuring in other liars.
He is a freak, even among liars.

Sorry can't do the link. Written by Belle DePaulo.

For Forks Sake · 10-12-2017 06:37PM

Water John wrote: »

Fascinating article in WP. DT is now averaging 9 lies per day. This is a study by some one who has specialised in, liars. What makes DT most unusual is that 50% of his lies are calculated to be, cruel and disparaging of others.
This trait is hardly measurable or worth measuring in other liars.
He is a freak, even among liars.

Sorry can't do the link. Written by Belle DePaulo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-study-liars-ive-never-seen-one-like-president-trump/2017/12/07/4e529efe-da3f-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.986b9f62f82a

seamus · 11-12-2017 10:12AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder would Trump throw his son under the bus? Probably.

This is actually one of the defining characteristics of a narcissist - willingness to screw over family, even children, for personal benefit. Where they see other people as actors to be manipulated, they see their children as puppets on a string - personal possessions that they can direct to carry out their will. Hence, the installation of his children in key positions at every opportunity.

I have zero doubt that he will throw everyone under the bus, including his wife and daughter, to try and evade what's coming.

Water John · 11-12-2017 10:18AM

Kushner yes, but I think he sees the children, as an extension of himself.

Trent Houseboat · 11-12-2017 10:35AM

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the women who accused Trump of sexual assault should be heard.

I think another twitter meltdown is imminent, just as soon as Fox and Friends report on it.

Igotadose · 11-12-2017 10:45AM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the women who accused Trump of sexual assault should be heard.

I think another twitter meltdown is imminent, just as soon as Fox and Friends report on it.

Hmm... perhaps an indication that the noose is tightening around Trump, when one of his operatives turns on him? Though what she said was, women should be heard. Definitely wasn't specific about Trump accusers, so she gave a political answer. My guess is if orange fingers aren't on twitter this a.m., we won't hear anything about it.

Trent Houseboat · 11-12-2017 10:52AM

Igotadose wrote:

Hmm... perhaps an indication that the noose is tightening around Trump, when one of his operatives turns on him? Though what she said was, women should be heard. Definitely wasn't specific about Trump accusers, so she gave a political answer. My guess is if orange fingers aren't on twitter this a.m., we won't hear anything about it.

CBS face the Nation wrote:

JOHN DICKERSON: Of course I'm wrong, you were the governor, first governor of South Carolina. Given that consciousness, how do you think people should assess the accusers of the president?

NIKKI HALEY: Well, I mean, you know, the same thing, is women who accuse anyone should be heard. They should be heard and they should be dealt with. And I think we heard from them prior to the election. And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up.

JOHN DICKERSON: And does the election mean that's a settled issue?

NIKKI HALEY: You know, that's for the people to decide. I know that he was elected. But, you know, women should always feel comfortable coming forward. And we should all be willing to listen to them.

Link

You have to give her credit in this time of weasel words.

Professor Moriarty · 11-12-2017 12:03PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Link

You have to give her credit in this time of weasel words.

Yes, credit where credit is due. Apart from that, however, she is a right wing mouthpiece. Her Indian and Sikh background seems to be very much forgotten considering her conversion to Christianity and her position on illegal immigration. Trump is delighted with her which says it all really.

Leroy42 · 11-12-2017 12:08PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Link

You have to give her credit in this time of weasel words.

Not sure I am missing something but what exactly has she done to deserve credit?

She has said that women should be listened to, and that the election was basically the deciding factor. She said nothing about the WH continuing to call these women liars. So come forward to be prepared to be vilified when you do is the message she is giving out.

And lets not pretend, as the WH is doing, that Trump has nothing to answer. He is already on tape confirming that this is his MO. Surely that would give additional weight to these women.

StringerBell · 11-12-2017 12:36PM

Its all kind of irrelevant in that regard, a siege mentality, an us versus them narrative has been created.

His supporters, the core group, they will not be swayed.

Trent Houseboat · 11-12-2017 12:55PM

Leroy42 wrote:

Not sure I am missing something but what exactly has she done to deserve credit?

Saying the right thing when it might not be politically expedient.
You don't have to like her as an ambassador to recognise that.

Leroy42 · 11-12-2017 12:59PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Saying the right thing when it might not be politically expedient.
You don't have to like her as an ambassador to recognise that.

Why have you brought up whether I like her or not, I never mentioned it.

How is she saying the right thing? They must be heard is all she has said, whilst at the same time saying they were heard and the voters decided against them.

She now works for a man that calls them all liars.

Think back to what she actually said. It is no different to anything SHS has said up to this point.

C14N · 11-12-2017 01:09PM

Odhinn wrote: »

Going on memory, it was a Klan rally. This is of some significance when taking into consideration the father and son's record of discrimination in housing.

I'm not denying that Donald and his dad are/were racist, but I'm quite sure that he wasn't actually attending the Klan rally, he just happened to be in the area at the time. He wasn't a member of the group. Snopes.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Link

You have to give her credit in this time of weasel words.

That sounded quite weasley to me. She didn't mention any names, and whenever a politician says something like "it's up to the people to decide" that's always a classic deflection from having to take some kind of a stand. While I'm sure what she said wasn't what Trump would have had her say, it did come with plenty of plausible deniability if she gets in some trouble for it later on. For example, she said they should be "heard", not "believed", which is a lot more politically correct from a right-wing perspective. If someone challenges you on it, you can just argue that you were supporting free speech.

Trent Houseboat · 11-12-2017 01:20PM

Leroy42 wrote:

Why have you brought up whether I like her or not, I never mentioned it.

How is she saying the right thing? They must be heard is all she has said, whilst at the same time saying they were heard and the voters decided against them.

She now works for a man that calls them all liars.

Think back to what she actually said. It is no different to anything SHS has said up to this point.

I don't remember Huckabee Sanders praising the strength and courage of Trump's accusers.

BTW I don't think Trump's election means that people don't believe that he's a serial sexual assaulter. I think people willing to vote for an assaulter if it means lower taxes/triggering it to the libs/Red Starbusks cups/doing what you're told by the rightwing media.
Voters didn't decide against these women, voters didn't care enough about them to vote against their abuser.

Leroy42 · 11-12-2017 01:26PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't remember Huckabee Sanders praising the strength and courage of Trump's accusers.

BTW I don't think Trump's election means that people don't believe that he's a serial sexual assaulter. I think people willing to vote for an assaulter if it means lower taxes/triggering it to the libs/Red Starbusks cups/doing what you're told by the rightwing media.
Voters didn't decide against these women, voters didn't care enough about them to vote against their abuser.

That is not the line either the WH, or Haley are taking. They have both said that people elected Trump and thus the situation has been judged. I totally agree that this was not the reason people voted for him, but they are using it as such.

It not a big deal really, I just don't think this woman has said anything that represents anything to be applauded. I also don't condemn what she said. I just think she avoided it in any meaningful way, the diplomatic way.

I think that due to the crazy stuff that normally is peddled by those around Trump, when someone comes out saying nothing at all it seems to be relatively strong and to be applauded.

C14N · 11-12-2017 01:54PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't remember Huckabee Sanders praising the strength and courage of Trump's accusers.

BTW I don't think Trump's election means that people don't believe that he's a serial sexual assaulter. I think people willing to vote for an assaulter if it means lower taxes/triggering it to the libs/Red Starbusks cups/doing what you're told by the rightwing media.
Voters didn't decide against these women, voters didn't care enough about them to vote against their abuser.

It's not just one thing or the other. There are some people who will actively think "he probably did sexually assault those women, but that's not as important as the Supreme Court" or whatever, but plenty of other people will completely and sincerely deny that he did anything.

Many people think the women were just plants by the Clinton campaign, or lying to try and get money or attention, or think that the fact that they can't literally prove it in a court of law (that is, beyond any doubt at all) means that we should treat the allegations as baseless. Of course in most cases, the reason they think this is because they like Trump. If the same accusations were levelled against Chuck Schumer they would mostly believe them instantly, but that doesn't mean they do believe the Trump/Moore/whoever accusers. It's a lot easier to both vote for someone, and maintain enthusiastic support, if you can say to both yourself and others that they aren't a sex offender.

Billy86 · 11-12-2017 02:15PM

Right wing women who backed Trump while actively working to marginalise others, who then turn around and give out about misconduct against and poor attitudes towards women do give me a good old laugh to be honest.

Gbear · 11-12-2017 02:22PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't remember Huckabee Sanders praising the strength and courage of Trump's accusers.

BTW I don't think Trump's election means that people don't believe that he's a serial sexual assaulter. I think people willing to vote for an assaulter if it means lower taxes/triggering it to the libs/Red Starbusks cups/doing what you're told by the rightwing media.
Voters didn't decide against these women, voters didn't care enough about them to vote against their abuser.

I think there's a bit of a disingenuousness about this line of argument.

How much of a monster would a Democrat have to be for you to vote for a Republican instead of them?

Closer to home, I struggle to imagine a scenario where I wouldn't vote for a candidate for MP if they were willing and able to significantly reduce the chance of Brexit happening.
They could have eaten babies' faces for all I care, so long as they stop an inter-generational catastrophe from happening.

Voting for an elected representative should only take their character into account insofar as it impacts on their capacity to deliver on their mandate.

The solution to this isn't to cut your nose off to spite your face and vote for someone whose world view and policies you are totally at odds with.
Rather, this sort of thing is a function of two party politics and we see it in the UK and the US.

In Ireland, if I'd always voted FG but then their new TD candidate didn't believe in the Holocaust or thought the gays should be stoned, I'd have a spectrum of other options to choose from that would represent at least some semblance of what I'd be looking for and it's unlikely there'd be too many deal-breakers in their manifesto if I was happy with FG.

Trump is himself a product of this issue.
I'm pretty sure that if you split the republican party into 3 or 4 - the far right Theocrats, the semi-secular neo-nazi element, the big business shills and some sort of broadly conservative center-right party that the Republicans pay lip service to being reprentative of, all of them wouldn't endorse Trump.

C14N · 11-12-2017 04:05PM

Gbear wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a disingenuousness about this line of argument.

How much of a monster would a Democrat have to be for you to vote for a Republican instead of them?

Closer to home, I struggle to imagine a scenario where I wouldn't vote for a candidate for MP if they were willing and able to significantly reduce the chance of Brexit happening.
They could have eaten babies' faces for all I care, so long as they stop an inter-generational catastrophe from happening.

Voting for an elected representative should only take their character into account insofar as it impacts on their capacity to deliver on their mandate.

The solution to this isn't to cut your nose off to spite your face and vote for someone whose world view and policies you are totally at odds with.
Rather, this sort of thing is a function of two party politics and we see it in the UK and the US.

In Ireland, if I'd always voted FG but then their new TD candidate didn't believe in the Holocaust or thought the gays should be stoned, I'd have a spectrum of other options to choose from that would represent at least some semblance of what I'd be looking for and it's unlikely there'd be too many deal-breakers in their manifesto if I was happy with FG.

Trump is himself a product of this issue.
I'm pretty sure that if you split the republican party into 3 or 4 - the far right Theocrats, the semi-secular neo-nazi element, the big business shills and some sort of broadly conservative center-right party that the Republicans pay lip service to being reprentative of, all of them wouldn't endorse Trump.

That hard reality is that you're right. Being completely logical, a candidate's personal faults, even if severe, are not something you should vote on unless they significantly impact their policy positions. And looking at the Alabama senate election especially, I can see why Doug Jones is having such a hard time getting above 45% in the polls. Even if you do openly believe Roy Moore did what he did, if you are a typical conservative Alabama Republican, Doug Jones really does not offer much of an alternative. Not that he's "weak on crime" or any of that crap like Trump says, but he is a pretty standard Democrat as far as policies go. He's not the kind of conservative blue dog one you'd expect from Alabama who might vote with Democrats on healthcare or social security but be conservative on gun control or abortion.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Comments