Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

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.


(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 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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

Calling trumps voters assholes and getting 10 "thanks" says alot about the clientele in this thread.