Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:48 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Where's Tyndmyr with that "Trump's all talk, and he lies, so he'll probably be okay."

That thought occurred to me today too (not in ref to Tyndmyr specifically; Just in general)

One of the most brilliant one-liners to come out last year was: "The press took Republican Donald Trump literally but not seriously - whereas Trump’s supporters took him seriously but not literally."

Well, it turns out he was meant to be taken both seriously and literally.

In the UK there is a thing called 'Bregret' - where Brexit voters wish they could take it all back. I wonder what the equivalent term might be for Trump voters who are now starting to get slightly cold feet..?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:49 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Liri wrote:Where's Tyndmyr with that "Drumpf's all talk, and he lies, so he'll probably be okay."

That thought occurred to me today too (not in ref to Tyndmyr specifically; Just in general)

One of the most brilliant one-liners to come out last year was: "The press took Republican Donald Drumpf literally but not seriously - whereas Drumpf’s supporters took him seriously but not literally."

Well, it turns out he was meant to be taken both seriously and literally.

In the UK there is a thing called 'Bregret' - where Brexit voters wish they could take it all back. I wonder what the equivalent term might be for Drumpf voters who are now starting to get slightly cold feet..?

Donald Ducks
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:04 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
elasto wrote:
Liri wrote:Where's Tyndmyr with that "Drumpf's all talk, and he lies, so he'll probably be okay."

That thought occurred to me today too (not in ref to Tyndmyr specifically; Just in general)

One of the most brilliant one-liners to come out last year was: "The press took Republican Donald Drumpf literally but not seriously - whereas Drumpf’s supporters took him seriously but not literally."

Well, it turns out he was meant to be taken both seriously and literally.

In the UK there is a thing called 'Bregret' - where Brexit voters wish they could take it all back. I wonder what the equivalent term might be for Drumpf voters who are now starting to get slightly cold feet..?

Donald Ducks

Brexit regret is in general a myth, the people who wanted Brexit to happen still want it to happen. The biggest reason is they haven't felt anything bad happen yet. The same applies here. None of the whites who voted for Trump have seen anything terrible for them. The establishment republicans do have growing concerns, but here's the thing. Full control over $1 trillion dollars. They could spend that on whatever they want, and all they have to do is put on a fake smile when talking about Trump.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:51 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Brexit regret is in general a myth, the people who wanted Brexit to happen still want it to happen.

It's not only not a myth, it'd be large enough to reverse the result of the vote:

The Economist wrote:...those who opted to Leave have stronger feelings of remorse about their vote. Whereas only 1% of Remainers regret their choice, 6% of Leavers do (a further 4% are undecided, compared with 1% of Remain voters). That would have been enough to have changed the outcome of the referendum to a win for Remain.

The theory that many Leavers voted as a protest against the political elite, as well as experts, gets more credibility from the study. Leaver remorse is strongest among those who didn’t expect their side to win: one in ten of them regret their vote.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:02 pm UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:He has been a little obsessive about stairs.
He doesn't go to his restaurant on the second floor of Trump Tower because of the stairs. He criticized Obama for using sub-par stairs to disembark Air Force One and has said more than once that Obama took the stairs too quickly and was going to have a fall one of these days. He told Billy Bush he was afraid of falling down the bus' stairs, referring to when it happened to Gerald Ford.
I will have to start tweeting pictures of stairs at him.
But that's all nonsense anyway.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wp3rzAdwT8
Image

Steve Bannon just replaced the fucking Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the NSC principals committee.

That is the true madness.


I'm Dutch so I don't understand what that means. Could you explain what that comittee is? Steve Bannon is the Breitbart guy, isn't he?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:06 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
Steve Bannon just replaced the fucking Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the NSC principals committee.

That is the true madness.


I'm Dutch so I don't understand what that means. Could you explain what that comittee is? Steve Bannon is the Breitbart guy, isn't he?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the head of the military directly secondly beneath the Commander-in-Chief (the President himself).

Edit: I should clarify, cause it is a little confusing: CotJCoS is the highest-ranking officer in the military. He reports to the Secretary of Defense and the President.

Edit 2: Another clarification, the Secretary of Defense is, by law, not a member of the military, but in charge of it. The guy who just got put in had to get the "7 years as a civilian" requirement waived by the Senate to be confirmed.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5831
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:
Thesh wrote:
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Anyone getting the impression a lot of this is a shoot first, ask questions later sort of approach?


It seems like they decided to cast the widest net they could get away with, just for the sake of them being Muslim immigrants.


What about all of the Gulf States? Those are primarily Muslim as well... I think he didn't want to offend them too.


Like I said, it's what he can get away with. Giuliani flat out stated that this was the result of Trump looking for a Muslim ban:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI#t=3m10s
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:39 am UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:I'm Dutch so I don't understand what that means. Could you explain what that comittee is? Steve Bannon is the Breitbart guy, isn't he?
The easiest way to tell you is to quote the Wikipedia entry.
Since its inception under Harry S. Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
It means that Director of National Intelligence and The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs don't get an automatic invite to the meeting and Bannon does. This is Trump sticking it to the intelligence infrastructure. They can still come if Trump wants them. So say you're the CIA. Trump has just told you that Bannon needs to be in the meeting and your boss(Director Of National Intelligence) doesn't. Something similar for the Military. He's upended the pecking order. He's going to get surprised by events if he isn't careful.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:21 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:He's upended the pecking order. He's going to get surprised by events if he isn't careful.

The thing is, he can basically do no wrong.

Let's say that as a result of this, there's a major terrorist event on US soil. He can blame it on intelligence failings and all his supporters will believe him. In fact, it'll 'prove him right' and embolden him to double down on installing more of his supporters in key positions and further fascist measures like closing the borders to Muslims.

I see no way out of the rabbit hole unless Republicans revolt in sufficient numbers and I am not sure they have the integrity to do that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:54 am UTC

elasto wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He's upended the pecking order. He's going to get surprised by events if he isn't careful.

The thing is, he can basically do no wrong.

Let's say that as a result of this, there's a major terrorist event on US soil. He can blame it on intelligence failings and all his supporters will believe him. In fact, it'll 'prove him right' and embolden him to double down on installing more of his supporters in key positions and further fascist measures like closing the borders to Muslims.

I see no way out of the rabbit hole unless Republicans revolt in sufficient numbers and I am not sure they have the integrity to do that.

The questions is how much is tax cuts and SCOTUS worth, and the answer is a heck of a damn lot. Trump just needs to avoid tanking the whole economy in a way that's obviously attributed to him. If he sorta tanks the economy, but nobody realizes it's Trump's fault, the GOP will have cover to not abandon him. The other route of failure would be for voters to abandon him but you need to find something that is distasteful to a lot of voters. I'm still looking for an argument that isn't "Trump is a terrible person and is unfit to lead".

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:36 am UTC

sardia wrote:The questions is how much is tax cuts and SCOTUS worth, and the answer is a heck of a damn lot.

That's why I see no way out of the rabbit hole. Politics is just a game to too many politicians of all stripes; They don't care who gets hurt just so long as they win. That's true of much of the media also.

Trump just needs to avoid tanking the whole economy in a way that's obviously attributed to him. If he sorta tanks the economy, but nobody realizes it's Trump's fault, the GOP will have cover to not abandon him.

Every leader takes the credit for successes and passes the buck for failures. Trump will be no different. The economy moves too slow to be of any help anyhow. At best it might deny him a second term but by then it may be too late.

The other route of failure would be for voters to abandon him but you need to find something that is distasteful to a lot of voters. I'm still looking for an argument that isn't "Trump is a terrible person and is unfit to lead".

He promised to do a lot of horrific things once in power and the voters loved it. People can hardly complain when he starts doing what he promised to do like closing the borders.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:49 am UTC

Right, that's why I'm looking for something else. Maybe some nazis get arrested with an alter to Trump after a mass attack? Or we find out something juicy in the Apprentice tapes that are kept in lock and key. Something concrete would be Trump approving the dumping of poison into the drinking waters of orphans and rich white people, you know to cut the red tape for business to grow.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:56 am UTC

elasto wrote:Let's say that as a result of this, there's a major terrorist event on US soil. He can blame it on intelligence failings and all his supporters will believe him. In fact, it'll 'prove him right' and embolden him to double down on installing more of his supporters in key positions and further fascist measures like closing the borders to Muslims.
He doesn't need a reason to put his supporters in key positions. That is already his right and he is doing it right now.

And people are overusing the fascist label. He may be one, but right at this moment that's an emotional label, not reflecting anything he's actually done. To this point he's done exactly what he has always done. Not think things through. What happened at the border reflects exactly that. He has the power, with limits, to pick and choose who gets in. The order he tried to enforce was more complex than he anticipated. While the statues set the theoretical boundary on what he can do, until it is litigated, no one knows for sure. And contrary to what is floating around there is no current Constitutional crisis. The courts have issued injunctions until the question can be litigated.
elasto wrote:The thing is, he can basically do no wrong.
Sure he can. He could not do what he promised to do.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1684
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:17 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
Steve Bannon just replaced the fucking Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the NSC principals committee.

That is the true madness.


I'm Dutch so I don't understand what that means. Could you explain what that comittee is? Steve Bannon is the Breitbart guy, isn't he?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the head of the military directly secondly beneath the Commander-in-Chief (the President himself).

Edit: I should clarify, cause it is a little confusing: CotJCoS is the highest-ranking officer in the military. He reports to the Secretary of Defense and the President.

Edit 2: Another clarification, the Secretary of Defense is, by law, not a member of the military, but in charge of it. The guy who just got put in had to get the "7 years as a civilian" requirement waived by the Senate to be confirmed.


I've heard it said that the replacement of civilian leaders by military brass is a warning flag for authoritarianism; what the hell does it mean when the military brass is being replaced by civilians?!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:11 am UTC

Quercus wrote:I've heard it said that the replacement of civilian leaders by military brass is a warning flag for authoritarianism; what the hell does it mean when the military brass is being replaced by civilians?!


Cronyism and/or nepotism. Tax dollars going to friends and family without the qualifications to do the job.

.. Actually normal cronyism isn't quite as bad as what is going on here, in a "normal" cronyism situation the career bureaucrats are still there and offer advice and council so that things run more or less as they're supposed to even if the appointee is being less than efficient and hiring friends and family as contractors with inflated bids.

In this case it's a complete rejection of the people who "know how to run the machine" as it were, and the appointee is going to have to build up their knowledge base from first principles, or eat crow and bring the career bureaucrats back in to advise and council, but if there's one thing Trump in specific and his administration in general appear to be unable to do it's show the humility necessary to backpedal on something like this.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:39 am UTC

NPR reports that Trump's list of Muslim banned countries leaves out the ones that Trump has business interests in.
All of it is " what a funny coincidence, or is it?"
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/511996783 ... -interests

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:10 am UTC

sardia wrote:NPR reports that Trump's list of Muslim banned countries leaves out the ones that Trump has business interests in.
All of it is " what a funny coincidence, or is it?"
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/511996783 ... -interests

The list of countries is the list of "states of concern" that were identified during the Obama administration. Trump's executive order doesn't actually name any countries, it just refers out to that list.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9784
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:30 am UTC

Quercus wrote:I've heard it said that the replacement of civilian leaders by military brass is a warning flag for authoritarianism; what the hell does it mean when the military brass is being replaced by civilians?!


I think something like that happened under Stalin in the '30s; many of the military leaders had started their careers under the Tzar, and weren't too keen on the whole Communism thing, so they were retired to a nice farm in the country. But since Class Struggle was the Theory of Everything and could be applied outside of the study of History, aristocrats who had spent decades learning about warfare were obviously even worse at those jobs than even the Bourgeoisie, and by replacing them with Fellow Men, the military worked in greater harmony for the Common Good.

/snark

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:14 am UTC

sardia wrote:The other route of failure would be for voters to abandon him but you need to find something that is distasteful to a lot of voters. I'm still looking for an argument that isn't "Trump is a terrible person and is unfit to lead".
That argument works very well if it comes from people trusted and respected by non-Democrats who turn against Trump. The liberal* media and the majority of his opposition turned up the rhetoric up to 11 way too early so now that he is taking actions that absolutely deserve criticism they find they've already created an almost soundproof echo chamber and lost any hope of connecting to the majority of the country (because, yes, people who didn't vote for either candidate have tuned them out at this point too). IMO the issue is exacerbated because even now the possibly effective level-headed responses to his wrongdoing are largely being drowned out by constant comparison to Hitler and speculation about what horrible thing he'll do next.

A good example are the Women's march and Science march. The former got a huge amount of publicity and support but almost entirely by people who were and always had been against Trump, any of his supporters that bothered to learn about it would have learned its about people fearing what he might do not what he has done as President. The latter is still being organized but I expect it will be dwarfed both in terms of coverage and attendance by the Women's march despite protesting specific actions Trump took that can be shown to affect everyone. Then again maybe the importance of climate change and impartiality of government organizations are a harder sell in the US than I realize.

Either way the anti-Trump message is way too unfocused and easy to ignore. It covers everything from the many important problems to excessive melodrama to the patently absurd and with how broken down the communication channels are it is easy for people to pick up on the "small hands" and "fear of stairs" type of criticism as an easy excuse to ignore everything else.

* I really dislike this adjective but the vehement emotional response from most sources has put the lie to the pretense of impartiality. Maybe its unavoidable when almost everyone who works for these organizations is passionately anti-Trump but that is not the balance you want in a trustworthy news source.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Trump presidency

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:57 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
sardia wrote:The other route of failure would be for voters to abandon him but you need to find something that is distasteful to a lot of voters. I'm still looking for an argument that isn't "Trump is a terrible person and is unfit to lead".
That argument works very well if it comes from people trusted and respected by non-Democrats who turn against Trump. The liberal* media and the majority of his opposition turned up the rhetoric up to 11 way too early so now that he is taking actions that absolutely deserve criticism they find they've already created an almost soundproof echo chamber and lost any hope of connecting to the majority of the country (because, yes, people who didn't vote for either candidate have tuned them out at this point too). IMO the issue is exacerbated because even now the possibly effective level-headed responses to his wrongdoing are largely being drowned out by constant comparison to Hitler and speculation about what horrible thing he'll do next.

A good example are the Women's march and Science march. The former got a huge amount of publicity and support but almost entirely by people who were and always had been against Trump, any of his supporters that bothered to learn about it would have learned its about people fearing what he might do not what he has done as President. The latter is still being organized but I expect it will be dwarfed both in terms of coverage and attendance by the Women's march despite protesting specific actions Trump took that can be shown to affect everyone. Then again maybe the importance of climate change and impartiality of government organizations are a harder sell in the US than I realize.

Either way the anti-Trump message is way too unfocused and easy to ignore. It covers everything from the many important problems to excessive melodrama to the patently absurd and with how broken down the communication channels are it is easy for people to pick up on the "small hands" and "fear of stairs" type of criticism as an easy excuse to ignore everything else.

* I really dislike this adjective but the vehement emotional response from most sources has put the lie to the pretense of impartiality. Maybe its unavoidable when almost everyone who works for these organizations is passionately anti-Trump but that is not the balance you want in a trustworthy news source.


I like how the fault lies with the people against Trump, not the people who voted for him even after seeing everything he stood for.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:08 am UTC

That argument works very well if it comes from people trusted and respected by non-Democrats who turn against Trump

That ignores the fact that many many right-wingers condemned Trump both during and after the primary process and were largely ignored.

maybeagnostic wrote:The liberal* media and the majority of his opposition turned up the rhetoric up to 11 way too early so now that he is taking actions that absolutely deserve criticism they find they've already created an almost soundproof echo chamber and lost any hope of connecting to the majority of the country

<snip>

Either way the anti-Trump message is way too unfocused and easy to ignore. It covers everything from the many important problems to excessive melodrama to the patently absurd and with how broken down the communication channels are it is easy for people to pick up on the "small hands" and "fear of stairs" type of criticism as an easy excuse to ignore everything else.

That's a ridiculous criticism. The left isn't a 'hive mind' any more than the right is. Indeed, many issues like climate change, feminism, religious tolerance etc. have advocates from all parts of the political spectrum. How on earth could tens of millions of people with unique sets of concerns 'focus' as you demand even if they wanted to?

All sides troll; The fact that some people mock Trump's small hands is not an excuse for anyone to switch off their brain.

(Also, the media absolutely is not 'liberal'. How could they be? They are owned by right-wing sociopathic billionaires for the most part.

With a couple of notable exceptions, the US media is purely about pandering to their demographic in order to make money. And so long as we live in a capitalist society, that's exactly how it will remain. It's the job of the people to seek out reliable news sources rather than lazily gorge on facebook clickbait, and the job of schools to teach people the value of doing so.)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1684
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:34 am UTC

elasto wrote:How on earth could tens of millions of people with unique sets of concerns 'focus' as you demand even if they wanted to?


While I agree that maybeagnostic's criticism is a tad ridiculous, due to the impossibility of satisfying it, it does raise an interesting question: How does the opposition to Trump and associates become more organised, more effective? I mean this as a purely practically - handwaving exhortations to focus better are not actually helpful. The questions I'm interested in are, if the opposition does need to focus more, a) focus on what? and b) how do we achieve that (not individually, which is relatively easy, but collectively)? Rinse and repeat for other things people opposing Trump should be doing more of and better at.

I don't have good answers to these questions. I wish I did.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:41 am UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I like how the fault lies with the people against Trump, not the people who voted for him even after seeing everything he stood for.
I can see how my post can come across this way but it wasn't my intention. Everyone I know who cares about US politics and probably everyone who posts in this topic is against Trump so criticizing his supporters is sort of pointless when they won't read it or only read it as part of a generally hostile diatribe. I started that admittedly wandering post with an answer to what kind of argument will work and IMO the key is not in the contents of the argument but in opening a conversation where both sides listen to each other. We might agree that Trump voters are subjectively in the wrong but they "won" so they have no need to open communication same way liberals didn't feel the need to do that during Obama's time in office.

elasto wrote:That's a ridiculous criticism. The left isn't a 'hive mind' any more than the right is. Indeed, many issues like climate change, feminism, religious tolerance etc. have advocates from all parts of the political spectrum. How on earth could tens of millions of people with unique sets of concerns 'focus' as you demand even if they wanted to?
I am not saying it is easy or even realistic but there is much power in a focused message. Nuance is great when talking to an individual but doesn't carry over well when trying to communicate something to 100 million people that are already at least somewhat hostile to your position.

elasto wrote:That ignores the fact that many many right-wingers condemned Trump both during and after the primary process and were largely ignored.
But they were the "enemy" at that point. Same way many democratic voters were against Hillary during primaries but supported her in the election. It would be different if they came out against Trump now.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:41 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
elasto wrote:That ignores the fact that many many right-wingers condemned Trump both during and after the primary process and were largely ignored.
But they were the "enemy" at that point.

But that's not simply ridiculous that's nonsensical.

So right-wing criticism of Trump was ignored because it came from the enemy, and they were the enemy because they criticised Trump? By that logic, no valid criticism of Trump is even possible, no matter who the source. Jesus himself could ride into town raised aloft by the founding fathers and be ignored.

So when John McCain and Lindsey Graham yesterday issued a joint statement saying:
“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.

“Our most important allies in the fight against [the Islamic State] are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."

That can be ignored by Trump supporters because they are the enemy, and they are the enemy because they criticise?

What about when Trump's own appointees criticize his policy? James Mattis is defence secretary and previously rejected any ban targeting Muslims on the grounds it would do “great damage” to US security and destabilise international order. Will Trump supporters pick up on that or will they just erase his words from history 1984 style?

Your blame is squarely in the wrong direction. Critics of Trump - including the international community - are condemning this policy - but if anyone who criticises is automatically the enemy and can safely be ignored we're thoroughly screwed.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:37 am UTC

elasto wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
elasto wrote:That ignores the fact that many many right-wingers condemned Trump both during and after the primary process and were largely ignored.
But they were the "enemy" at that point.

But that's not simply ridiculous that's nonsensical.

So right-wing criticism of Trump was ignored because it came from the enemy, and they were the enemy because they criticised Trump? By that logic, no valid criticism of Trump is even possible, no matter who the source. Jesus himself could ride into town raised aloft by the founding fathers and be ignored.


Yes. This exactly. In the Netherlands we have a man called Geert Wilders. You may have heard of him. Shout man with bad hair, and likes to use the same "alternative facts" that Trump uses. As with Trump, he gets big on the problems that genuinely do exist but he turns them in to something right from the apocalypse.

As with everything in Dutch politics, he doesn't get the powebase Trump got. In the Netherlands you're doing very well if you get 20% of the vote. And he's about to get that 20% in the next national election (March). I've seen other politicians go up against him for the past 10 years and there's been barely any success. The moment someone calls him out on his hypocrisy, his hate or his lies, he jumps in the victim role with his standard one liner:

"The entire country thinks this, you ignore me and naturally the entire elite and all the media are against me!"

He's had two court cases against him. In one case he was acquitted, in the other condemned (but no fine or other punishment).

In all cases, his loyal group of supporters have become as shouty as himself and whatever you tell them, they essentially think he is a god. He can't do anything wrong and everything that goes wrong is everyone else's fault.

In the Netherlands though, a 20% powebase won't do, you need to work with other parties and that will simply not happen here. If the next government can deal with the problems in such a way that shouty man with bad hair can't thrive on them, then he will disappear eventually

For the US, this is too late. Trump is in power because he thrived on exaggerating problems and the opposition wasn't lead by the right person. The way to deal with him now is by opposing him as much as possibly in as many things as possible. The bad news is that there is a large part of people who thinks he can't do anything wrong. The good part is that this group is not 50% and with the right person in (a bit less than) 4 years time, this can become less than 50% in more than 50% of the electoral college.

Until that time, you have to find a way to deal with his more destructive decisions by any means necessary (the republicans did that to Obama's plans so why not do the same thing in reverse). You can genuinely hope that the economy will fail in the next 4 years but that hope alone won't be enough.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:51 am UTC

Dauric wrote:In this case it's a complete rejection of the people who "know how to run the machine" as it were, and the appointee is going to have to build up their knowledge base from first principles, or eat crow and bring the career bureaucrats back in to advise and council, but if there's one thing Trump in specific and his administration in general appear to be unable to do it's show the humility necessary to backpedal on something like this.

I've been there, where a national organisation's regional branch (rather than a nation's top tier, admitedly) was flushed through with 'new blood' one year because of a one-issue pressure on the agenda (was a discrete and popular subset of the activities run locally still safe to do? With plenty of capacity across the rest of the calendar and map, just not as 'elite').

The putschers retained the unsafe option (not without casualties, through its continued use), but within a few short years the brigade of voters-in that had rallied to their muster-cries had no interest in further worrying about the exec, still-green exec members had stepped down from their onerous positions they had fought to get with a background level of newer-blood being as low as ever and the old-bloods not inclined to return with their original expertise, leading to general chaos about what needed doing, year on year... And, worst of all, decades (50+ years) of historical records had been binned by one or other of the intermediate position-fillers, who saw no value in them.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:16 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:For the US, this is too late. Trump is in power because he thrived on exaggerating problems and the opposition wasn't lead by the right person. The way to deal with him now is by opposing him as much as possibly in as many things as possible. The bad news is that there is a large part of people who thinks he can't do anything wrong. The good part is that this group is not 50% and with the right person in (a bit less than) 4 years time, this can become less than 50% in more than 50% of the electoral college.

Until that time, you have to find a way to deal with his more destructive decisions by any means necessary.

I agree with all that.

What I disagreed with was the shifting of the blame to Trump critics for 'not criticising in the right way' as if there is some newsletter that goes out to all left-wing voters - and when even the most reasonable of right-wing critics is ignored because 'if they criticise then they are by definition the enemy'.

I mean, even Dick Cheney criticised Trump for goodness sake! If even he thinks you've gone too far... Man alive!

idonno
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:03 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If you're lucky, you'll unseat a Republican stooge at the county office.

As someone who has worked with several local officials from both parties, please don't just go voting in/out county level offices based on party affiliation. There are many functions that should not be partisan where you want a competent official who isn't playing political games for either side. For example, there are often offices that are primarily accounting functions and you absolutely want someone who is qualified that isn't going to play political games with an accounting function. Even with councilors and mayors there are often not any substantial differences in goals pertaining to their office (admittedly sometimes there are substantial and troubling differences) and a competent one from the other party will likely serve you better than an incompetent one from your own party.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:20 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:For the US, this is too late. Trump is in power because he thrived on exaggerating problems and the opposition wasn't lead by the right person. The way to deal with him now is by opposing him as much as possibly in as many things as possible. The bad news is that there is a large part of people who thinks he can't do anything wrong. The good part is that this group is not 50% and with the right person in (a bit less than) 4 years time, this can become less than 50% in more than 50% of the electoral college.

Until that time, you have to find a way to deal with his more destructive decisions by any means necessary.

I agree with all that.

What I disagreed with was the shifting of the blame to Trump critics for 'not criticising in the right way' as if there is some newsletter that goes out to all left-wing voters - and when even the most reasonable of right-wing critics is ignored because 'if they criticise then they are by definition the enemy'.

I mean, even Dick Cheney criticised Trump for goodness sake! If even he thinks you've gone too far... Man alive!


Yes, that is a bad thing. It's also quite simply what's actually going to happen. The Trump administration won't care, they'll declare anyone who disagrees stupid, ignorant and elitist. And the core of his support will follow him like sheep.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:22 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:...But they were the "enemy" at that point.

But that's not simply ridiculous that's nonsensical.
They were "enemies" because they supported other candidates. Once no other candidates remained, they all fell in line as far as I know. By and large conservatives stood behind Trump during the election and continue to do so now.
elasto wrote:So right-wing criticism of Trump was ignored because it came from the enemy, and they were the enemy because they criticised Trump? By that logic, no valid criticism of Trump is even possible, no matter who the source. Jesus himself could ride into town raised aloft by the founding fathers and be ignored.
I never said they were the "enemy" because they criticized Trump or that the criticism itself isn't valid, I am more concerned with who and how can criticize in a way that will get his followers to listen.
elasto wrote:So when John McCain and Lindsey Graham yesterday issued a joint statement...
Hadn't even heard that happened but what you quoted seems to be related to this particular executive order and not a denouncement of the POTUS in general.
elasto wrote:What about when Trump's own appointees criticize his policy? James Mattis is defence secretary and previously rejected any ban targeting Muslims on the grounds it would do “great damage” to US security and destabilise international order. Will Trump supporters pick up on that or will they just erase his words from history 1984 style?
Much bigger gaffes are quickly forgotten on regular basis in politics. Did he say that after the executive order was passed or is this just the millionth case of Trump failing to communicate his intentions?
elasto wrote:Your blame is squarely in the wrong direction. Critics of Trump - including the international community - are condemning this policy - but if anyone who criticises is automatically the enemy and can safely be ignored we're thoroughly screwed.
I am not saying the criticism is not valid (virtually everything related to appointments or executive orders I agree with), I am not blaming people for voicing it and I am not even saying it won't have some big effect. However, I think the vehement criticism is totally ineffective at converting Trump supporters because changing anyone's position on a topic involves either first opening a dialogue or blasting them with propaganda until they agree. The nature of modern echo chambers is such that the second one isn't possible unless republican politicians and personalities turn on Trump en masse and it will take a lot more than some horrible executive orders to do that.
Last edited by maybeagnostic on Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:23 pm UTC

I think this deserves a separate post. I just read about Bannon on the main Dutch news website. I never believe in any conspiracy theory but this guy would make any theory from the left about him being a lizard overlord a relief to what he actually is.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:27 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
sardia wrote:If you're lucky, you'll unseat a Republican stooge at the county office.

As someone who has worked with several local officials from both parties, please don't just go voting in/out county level offices based on party affiliation. There are many functions that should not be partisan where you want a competent official who isn't playing political games for either side. For example, there are often offices that are primarily accounting functions and you absolutely want someone who is qualified that isn't going to play political games with an accounting function. Even with councilors and mayors there are often not any substantial differences in goals pertaining to their office (admittedly sometimes there are substantial and troubling differences) and a competent one from the other party will likely serve you better than an incompetent one from your own party.

Do you have any particular office in mind that is especially non partisan?

Yea Bannon is one of the scarier dudes there, him and the Flynns are pretty extreme. Not that any of the whites who voted Trump in know that.

My concern is that trumps administration will learn from his mistakes and then team through his bad ideas but with good execution. After all, that's the biggest complaint the Republicans have of Trump right now. They're OK with his ideas, he just needs to execute on a way to not look retarded.

cphite
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:53 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:Impeachment for what? Like it or not, impeachment is only an option for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; you can't just impeach a president because you don't like him, or because you think his policies are really stupid, or even because he does a terrible job. It doesn't work that way.

Nothing you're saying about Trump is false, and it's probably understated. The man is a fucking train wreck. But until he actually breaks a law, impeachment is off the table.


Violating the Article II, Section 1, clause 7 of the US Constitution isn't just "because you don't like him" or "because you think his policies are really stupid". It may not be a successful push, but it's not based on nothing.


He hasn't been formally charged with a crime. He's being sued. At absolute best, assuming the court decides that this group actually has legal standing, and that the law applies to Trump in this context, the absolute most that will happen is that the courts will demand that he relinquish control of the companies in question. It won't lead to impeachment, much less removal.

If it were up to me, it would... but it ain't...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:59 pm UTC

Don't worry, everybody, Trump's come up trumps on one of his promises...

Image
(Image is link)
((Possible warning: whitehouse.gov now seems to be popovering a "do you want to subscribe to the latest news?" message, unless you have a suitably countering plugin, or back away and re-enter maybe a couple of times to disrupt the behaviour... Corporate websites..!))

Spoiler:
i.e he's gone back to the pre-election "My plan is to get others to think up a plan" subtitle to his "I know how to destroy ISIS" thing...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

Has anyone thought about including pro life groups into the Democratic party? They seem single minded, and you could do a lotta good with only a few million women suffering. They do it in Catholic dominated countries, and it mostly impacts poor people. A good social safety net should compensate for that. I know pro life groups are picky though, and they often have an expansive view on abortion. (plan B would come under fire and maybe birth control). It would be a staggering blow to Republicans if you stole half their abortion votes and converted that power into social spending.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3683
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Has anyone thought about including pro life groups into the Democratic party?
In general, the Dems need to do a better job of reaching out to religiously minded voters. And there are good democratic arguments to be made to persuade pro-lifers. Better funding of planned parenthood and access to birth control could actually lower abortions. For that matter, the ban president Trump signed about defunding international agencies that perform abortions has actually been shown to increase abortions in the past due to lower access to birth control. The only thing that has to be done is Democrats have to put out that fig leaf and want pro-lifers under their tent. A lot of Democrats don't.

A problem I find with all too many left of center or progressive groups is that you end up having to agree with them on near everything or they consider you an outsider. Even things that should be broad, like an environmentalist politics or groups can be off-putting to people of conservative or religious bents. For example, the Sierra Club has statements on wealth redistribution and pro-Unionism: of course, even environmental conscious conservatives aren't going to be okay with that. One of the reasons why the NRA is so effective is the only thing it cares about is that you are anti-gun control, it doesn't tend to get involved in other issues.

In the past, I have generally viewed the Dems as the bigger tent part(i.e. with regards to different ideas) but having tried to get involved it seems like much the opposite. They seem to want you completely on board with the progressive agenda or your an outsider( or racist or corporatists etc) and as someone who has less monolithic views that monolithism is really off putting.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:41 pm UTC

You bring up valid points but that wasn't my point. I wasn't saying Democrats need better marketing, I said Democrats should sell abortion in exchange for tax increases, votes, environmental regulations, and social spending. If they agree, Democrats drop opposition to abortion, flat out.

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:50 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:In general, the Dems need to do a better job of reaching out to religiously minded voters. And there are good democratic arguments to be made to persuade pro-lifers. Better funding of planned parenthood and access to birth control could actually lower abortions. For that matter, the ban president Trump signed about defunding international agencies that perform abortions has actually been shown to increase abortions in the past due to lower access to birth control. The only thing that has to be done is Democrats have to put out that fig leaf and want pro-lifers under their tent. A lot of Democrats don't.


If you staunchly support abortion being legal, I'm not really sure how you'd get the pro-life people on board. It REALLY doesn't help that many of the very religious are against contraceptives as well. Yes they result in less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions, but that's not the relevant point to many of them. It's more the mindset of "if you get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, tough, have a baby". Not really sure what type of compromise there will be among people like that.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Has anyone thought about including pro life groups into the Democratic party? They seem single minded, and you could do a lotta good with only a few million women suffering. They do it in Catholic dominated countries, and it mostly impacts poor people. A good social safety net should compensate for that. I know pro life groups are picky though, and they often have an expansive view on abortion. (plan B would come under fire and maybe birth control). It would be a staggering blow to Republicans if you stole half their abortion votes and converted that power into social spending.


Not worth the effort. The pro-life groups are the hardcore Republican supporters--they don't want social spending OR abortions. Charity is the church's job, not the government's. There's nothing that Democrats can offer them that they'd be interested in. White evangelicals went over 80% for Trump; White Catholics went over 60% for Trump (Democrats do fine among non-white religious folk).

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:25 pm UTC

White Catholics were immigrants, typically Irish Immigrants, with exception of one or two specific states which were established explicitly as a Catholic colony in the 1600s. There was a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment thrown when the Irish arrived, as well as when Kennedy was elected in the 1960s. If Trump continues to push for the Muslim ban, it should be relatively easy to turn Catholics against Trump. Its hugely composed of immigrant communities (yes, white immigrants, but historical immigrants nonetheless)

Democrats will never agree on the abortion issue with the greater Catholic community. However, Catholics are staunchly against the Death Penalty and are more about reforming the prison system. If Democrats want to court Catholics, they need to focus on the parts that they do agree with. Belief in forgiveness and reform through the prison system. Republicans (and Protestants) tend to be pro-death penalty and pro-punishment... and less reform / forgiveness inclined.

Courting religious is not about agreeing with them 100%. Its about making them feel welcome. Catholics feel more welcomed by Republicans right now. There's a lot of anti-religious sentiment among Democrats I know personally.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EdgarJPublius, iamspen, trpmb6 and 16 guests