Trump!!!

Seattle Husker said:
I can agree with a common standard. I fully expect politicians to make promises they know they can't keep. The issue I have with Trump's rhetoric is that they aren't campaign promises. They are lies specifically designed to control the dialogue. He's not even playing fast and loose with the facts. Again, I expect politicians to use only the facts that support their agenda. Trump is truly making up the "facts" though. That's another level of dishonesty in my book and dangerous. That's moving from debating the merits of candidates to outright propaganda.
Click to expand...

How funny. You agree yet immediately go for the double-standard. LOL. That's so perfect. I love it. If we applied the standard you impose on Trump here to Obama, Gore, Clinton I or Clinton II, they would spontaneously combust.
 
Joe Fan said:
How funny. You agree yet immediately go for the double-standard. LOL. That's so perfect. I love it. If we applied the standard you impose on Trump here to Obama, Gore, Clinton I or Clinton II, they would spontaneously combust.
Click to expand...

Please explain the double standard. I don't feel any particular loyalty to either party.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Please explain the double standard. I don't feel any particular loyalty to either party.
Click to expand...

Heh. you really cant see it?

You just agreed there should be a "single standard" (which I and everyone else commend you for), but then you immediately applied a standard to Trump that was never applied to Obama (or any of the other names I listed).

Here are some of Obama's promises --
--reduce the debt in half by 2012,
--close Gitmo,
--end Afghan War ("the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will end this war. You can take that to the bank"),
--"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
--health care costs will come down,
--the most open govt in history,
--an end to the lobbyist/govt revolving door,
--all those "shovel-ready" projects in his first giant (~$1Trillion) spending bill (was any of it actually spent on infrastructure? Or, did it all go to his political cronies?)
--a new era of race relations,
--limit or eliminate spying on US citizens (Patriot Act),
--end the blacksite prison program (replaced with death by drone, so while partially true, an even worse outcome),
--his rejection of "of claims of ‘inherent’ presidential power” (see his plethora of Exec Orders),
--his claim that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" (uh, Syria?)

Run these through the same analysis. If we view Trump and Obama as extremes, why is it the media (and you) complain so much about Trump's extremes but NEVER about Obama's?

I dont really like being put in a position of defending Trump. It's not really my deal. But I will always argue against the double-standard that exists in this country. And Trump is currently the single worst victim to that.
 
Last edited:
LOL -- media on suicide watch

CVvO5EsUsAA6qwA.jpg:large
 
Maybe everyone is fed up finally. Who cares if the baby gets thrown out with the dirty bath water. Or in this case a moratorium on letting any of the bath(party) water from sneaking in with the clean water.
 
Joe Fan said:
Heh. you really cant see it?

You just agreed there should be a "single standard" (which I and everyone else commend you for), but then you immediately applied a standard to Trump that was never applied to Obama (or any of the other names I listed).

Here are some of Obama's promises --
--reduce the debt in half by 2012,
--close Gitmo,
--end Afghan War ("the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will end this war. You can take that to the bank"),
--"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
--health care costs will come down,
--the most open govt in history,
--an end to the lobbyist/govt revolving door,
--all those "shovel-ready" projects in his first giant (~$1Trillion) spending bill (was any of it actually spent on infrastructure? Or, did it all go to his political cronies?)
--a new era of race relations,
--limit or eliminate spying on US citizens (Patriot Act),
--end the blacksite prison program (replaced with death by drone, so while partially true, an even worse outcome),
--his rejection of "of claims of ‘inherent’ presidential power” (see his plethora of Exec Orders),
--his claim that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" (uh, Syria?)

Run these through the same analysis. If we view Trump and Obama as extremes, why is it the media (and you) complain so much about Trump's extremes but NEVER about Obama's?

I dont really like being put in a position of defending Trump. It's not really my deal. But I will always argue against the double-standard that exists in this country. And Trump is currently the single worst victim to that.
Click to expand...

What just happened? You seem to be debating with "generic liberal" rather than me. I've never defended any of those Obama statements. I simply said a campaign promise in which the politician doesn't have full control of the outcome is a different "lie" than inventing facts (or stories) for that matter. I'd be equally as critical of HRC for the bullets flying in Kosovo incident. Debating ideas is hard enough based only on their merits but when politicians don't get checked from inventing stories/facts to sway an emotionally driven argument then we've moved beyond debate to propaganda.

Trump is anything but a victim of double standards. In fact, I'd argue his power with the media is preventing harsher criticism for his lies. Most politicians would have seen their careers evaporate for less yet he's gaining in strength if the polls are to be believed. Based on the responses here my only translation is that you feel it doesn't matter. Back to my original point. The ends justify the mean which by itself is a sad commentary on our political discourse.
 
He has tapped a very dark part of the prevailing american public's psyche, one that has in many ways been developed / exacerbated by the 7 years of the current administration. What is sad is the amount of support he has garnered spewing such nonsense, an ominious reflection of what we may become as a nation, if we follow this dark path. As always, America will get the president it deserves.
 
Last edited:
SH is right. Trump is actually getting a lot more leeway from the media than most politicians would get. He has said countless things that would destroy your average Republican politician's career.

Also, I'm very much aware of the negotiation tactic of making very high demands in order to shift the discussion. There are three problems with that tactic in this context. First, if you go too far with it, people will stop taking you seriously. If I demanded $20 million for a client with a neck sprain, the insurance carrier wouldn't compromise with me and pay me $10 million. They'd call me an ******* and walk away from the table.

Second, the liberal opposition to Trump's idiotic proposal of a religious test for admitting people into the country isn't going to negotiate in good faith. They aren't going to just reject his proposal and offer something sensible. They're going to exploit the idiocy of his proposal to damage his and his party's credibility. Of course, they're not having to do much of that. They're basically just standing on the sidelines watching the dumpster fire.

Finally, an election is not a negotiation, because the candidates don't hold any leverage. The electorate does. If Trump makes a nutty proposal, the public doesn't have negotiate with him. It can blow him off and vote for Hillary Clinton, and there won't be anything he can do about it.

Personally, I'm not completely convinced that Hillary Clinton isn't behind Trump's candidacy. He is by far her biggest political asset.
 
Speaking of dumpster fires ... every time I read this board I have to remind myself that the "Joe Fan", "Sangre", "Clean", "zork" and "theiioftx" (etc.) of the world are part of the angry group steadily becoming the insignificant minority of America. Couldn't happen too fast.
 
chango said:
Speaking of dumpster fires ... every time I read this board I have to remind myself that the "Joe Fan", "Sangre", "Clean", "zork" and "theiioftx" (etc.) of the world are part of the angry group steadily becoming the insignificant minority of America. Couldn't happen too fast.
Click to expand...

Nah, they just have different ideas. I found this NPR/On The Media piece to be enlightening on the extremely biased viewpoints: The Mechanism of Blind Belief http://www.onthemedia.org/story/mechanism-blind-belief/

One interesting comment by the interviewee was that the more educated voters are on issues, the more polarized they become.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to make of the Republican reaction to Trump's new immigration policy. To their credit, most (all?) of the party's leadership has come out against the policy. The only disagreement seems to be over whether to criticize Trump personally, or just his policy.

But the Republican base seems to be embracing the policy. I heard an NPR interview this morning with a Republican strategist discussing interest groups he has been holding across the country with likely Republican voters. The support for the no-more-Muslims policy was solid, in the 70% range iirc. The strategist then tried to talk them out of it, pointing out that the official Republican position and the mass of Republican officials disagreed; that the policy would turn mainstream Muslims against us; etc. Even after this, well more than half of the participants supported the policy.

At some point the Republican party is going to have to figure out how to address the fact that a significant fraction of its base wants more than Trump as a personality; they want his policies, too.
 
NJlonghorn said:
...The support for the no-more-Muslims policy was solid, in the 70% range iirc. ...
Click to expand...

I think this unintentionally highlights one of the issues we have in the country today. That's not exactly what he said. He called for a temporary ban, not a permanent one into perpetuity. On a statement like this, so short and simple, it's easy (and better) to be precise.

Also, IMO, although unsaid, we have no choice but to assume he meant it to apply to non-citizens abroad who want to enter.

Here is the quote -- (i didnt hear it live, did he really use the third person?)
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."


If I were him, I would even go further and ban all immigration for a set period. Dont wig out my liberal friends. We have done it before in the US with a ban that lasted for decades, through multiple administrations, many of which were Dems (FDR through JFK).

This way, Trump could not only side-step the bigotry claims and but would have the additional advantage of appealing to the middle American wage earner. If I were him, I would use a complete ban to go directly after the rank and file Union member. (Non-governmental) Union members have been voting for the wrong party for a long time, now is the time to scoop them up. Cast Union leaders as the 1% who ride in private planes and limos. Drive a wedge between them by promising to move wages off stagnant. Easy to tie this in with his border policies. I think this type of conflation could be a winner.

Or, if he feels safe with the nomination, sit on it until the right time to whip it out against Hillary.
 
Last edited:
chango said:
Speaking of dumpster fires ... every time I read this board I have to remind myself that the "Joe Fan", "Sangre", "Clean", "zork" and "theiioftx" (etc.) of the world are part of the angry group steadily becoming the insignificant minority of America. Couldn't happen too fast.
Click to expand...


Do we need a safe place?
 
When I got home last night, I flipped through all of the "news" channels. Sure enough, MSNBC was on the "angry white people" talking point. I knew immediately where Chango got his post material.

I think Trump's appeal is more anti-status quo than anger. Same way Sanders is drawing support. I do not support Trump, but want someone not tied to the establishment.

The past two POTUS have historically bad approval ratings. Congress is even worse. Obama has placed the country in a very dangerous situation both here and abroad. Race relations are headed toward the 1960's, the economy is teetering on another recession, debt continues to rise and we are under attack from foreign terrorists. Meanwhile, Obama is focused on climate change and gun control over "angry white people." I am not angry, I am afraid of where this country is headed.
 
Joe Fan said:
I think this unintentionally highlights one of the issues we have in the country today. That's not exactly what he said. He called for a temporary ban, not a permanent one into perpetuity. On a statement like this, so short and simple, it's easy (and better) to be precise.

Also, IMO, although unsaid, we have no choice but to assume he meant it to apply to non-citizens abroad who want to enter.

Here is the quote -- (i didnt hear it live, did he really use the third person?)
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."


If I were him, I would even go further and ban all immigration for a set period. Dont wig out my liberal friends. We have done it before in the US with a ban that lasted for decades, through multiple administrations, many of which were Dems (FDR through JFK).

This way, Trump could not only side-step the bigotry claims and but would have the additional advantage of appealing to the middle American wage earner. If I were him, I would use a complete ban to go directly after the rank and file Union member. (Non-governmental) Union members have been voting for the wrong party for a long time, now is the time to scoop them up. Cast Union leaders as the 1% who ride in private planes and limos. Drive a wedge between them by promising to move wages off stagnant. Easy to tie this in with his border policies. I think this type of conflation could be a winner.

Or, if he feels safe with the nomination, sit on it until the right time to whip it out against Hillary.
Click to expand...

I'm not under any false impressions. Any major GOP proposal that restricts immigration is going to be demonized as xenophobic, racist, etc. no matter how reasonable it might be. That serves the Democrats' narrative, and the media will largely go along with it.

In addition, I think a very strong case can be made to restrict Islamic immigration, and in light of recent attacks they could score a victory over the Democrats. However, pitching a religious test to do it is blatantly absurd and far too easy to criticize. Much smarter and less arbitrary options could have been advocated. Again, the media and Democrats would still call them xenophobic, but they'd be much easier to defend.

I also agree that there is a way to push some degree of economic nationalism to attract union members. Democrats have utterly sold them out by putting identity politics (through unlimited immigration) ahead of their interests and bullshitting them about it for 25 years. However, the GOP has been mostly complicit in the sellout, which hurts their credibility. Furthermore, they'd have to cut out the demonization of people. That motivates ****-kickers, but it turns off everybody else. (Besides, many of those union workers are black dudes.) And of course, they'd have to relax their kneejerk hostility to everything big labor supports.
 
I come at this thinking that any idea Trump has as a candidate will necessarily be vetted and fit, if possible, to one that is tried to be run at the then existing other branches of the government as well as the then existing Executive branch to be implemented as best as it can be given what is actually possible at that time.

One terrific example is the closing Gitmo thing that Obama presented as his go to thing. Is it closed? Do we want it closed?(recent story about a guy let go who is running a branch of Al Quieda) Etc, etc.

Trump may or may have not known about the part of the law that gives the President broad latitude on who can and can't enter the country during wartime.(he could implement some type of restriction on Muslims just like Jimmy Carter did and similar to what FDR did, etc etc)

The Press doesn't care. They just want Hillary to have as little challenge as possible given what an abortion she is as a candidate.
 
theiioftx said:
When I got home last night, I flipped through all of the "news" channels. Sure enough, MSNBC was on the "angry white people" talking point..
Click to expand...


Instead of MSNBC, he may have gotten it from this ACLU Board Member on Facebook (who thinks you should be shot)

Screen-Shot-2015-12-10-at-5.17.31-PM.png
 
It's Republicans or bust for Trump unless he's aware of some technicalities that can get him to run as and Independent.

That has to be good news for the Republicans. No chance that he can tear apart the party from the outside now. If you believe the most recent Washington Post poll there is some evidence he's bringing "new" voters to the Republican primary.
 
I had a very unintelligent discussion with a Trump supporter two days ago. They forced the conversation, not me.

Basically, this person reminded me of a young Obama supporter during his first run at POTUS. When I asked what specifically they liked about him, I got "he speaks his mind" and "he will get things done." I asked again for specifics, and got nothing.

I would not vote for Trump unless he did get the Republican nomination against HRC or Sanders. Luckily, whoever wins will be a one termer when Kanye runs. The US public has finally reached bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top