|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 09 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
"Priebus says Trump says" is kind of different from "Trump says." Priebus is going to stretch and change wording in order to calm the establishment folk he hails from. For example, Trump twitted the following just a few hours ago:
I mostly expect Trump is going to mostly interpret the hack/leak in terms of how much it influences his ego.
Trump would be disavowing what Priebus said if he disagreed. Priebus even said they may take action in response. Priebus is doing the Sunday shows to help clarify policy. He's a central part of the team. I think this is pretty clear.
|
Republican voters are highly concerned about the honesty level of presidential candidates.
|
On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system.
The reformers are far from wanting to destabilize the Western order. Destabilizing the order is what foreign adversaries want.
|
Norway28825 Posts
He really needs to learn to just.. drop it. Pretty much all of superstardom thinks he's terrible, none of them care about Trump insulting them.. By now, he's just incentivizing celebrities to insult him, and if he's gonna spend his presidency being involved in perpetual twitter wars with every beloved american, that's really not gonna help him.
|
On January 10 2017 00:54 Dromar wrote:
What would he do if Beyonce dissed him? People really love Beyonce.
beyonce would never do that. that's why pretty much everyone likes her.
donald glover trending over donald trump though. taking back the donald name.
|
On January 10 2017 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
He really needs to learn to just.. drop it. Pretty much all of superstardom thinks he's terrible, none of them care about Trump insulting them.. By now, he's just incentivizing celebrities to insult him, and if he's gonna spend his presidency being involved in perpetual twitter wars with every beloved american, that's really not gonna help him.
He's a narcissist. He cant help himself.
|
On January 10 2017 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
I've heard before that one of the big "problems" with US FP is that they can't properly decide whether they want to make Russia their big enemy, or China. Obama's presidency would definitely corroborate such an oscillation of uncertainty in FP matters if you look into how his "Asia pivot" turned into a focus on the Ukraine and the European matter (Hillary Clinton's "luckily Europe is pretty stable" quip in her GS speeches seems to have been proven wrong right now).
Maybe Trump would bring clarity to that issue, or maybe he will just contribute to the confusion. We should see how he reacts the next time Russia decides to pursue a course of action that runs strongly contrary to Trump's interests. Yes how dare Obama turn his attention away from a stable Europe and then back again right after Russia, against expectations, launches an invasion on Europe's border...
Even if that were a fair description of events, at best that would simply say that Obama's FP team strongly misjudged the threats it faced and found itself incapable of responding effectively.
Not to say Trump is better - he is very quickly going to find that starting a (trade) war with China may be painful for China, but that it will hurt the US as well.
|
|
|
On January 09 2017 20:59 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 12:41 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return. That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against. If something like sane immigration policy constitutes "authoritarianism," then I better go get some jackboots. Arguing that any deviation from the current order amounts to "authoritarianism" is asinine. No such argument was made. I linked an article by Vox which described a common and established methodology for finding authoritarian tendencies in a population. Namely willingness to discard civil liberties for perceived security, and distrust or hate of foreign influence and change of a perceived status quo(ironical, considering your statement). Trump voters scored very high in that study. It's impossible to argue with someone who dismisses it as just a reaction to a "sane immigration policy" since it covers a lot more. The only way you can prove this argumentation wrong is by linking to a study using accepted methodology and definition that shows low authoritarianism values among Trump supporters.
How do you have the gall to say that no such argument was made? It's right in your earlier post where you pose any challenge to the current order as an "authoritarian reform." It's also right in your damned Vox article. Take a look at how it defines "authoritarianism":
Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions. This intransigent behavioral tendency of authoritarians may help explain why Trump’s support can seem, as a strategist for Marco Rubio complained in the New York Times, like "granite."
What's particularly telling here is that "fear of the other" is mentioned before "readiness to follow and obey strong leaders." "Authoritarianism," indeed. But guess what? What you fail to realize is that I really don't give two shits about the label, hence my flippant comment about getting the jackboots.
And speaking of the label, its use in the Vox article reinforces my earlier point that the defenders of the status quo are relentlessly demonizing people who dare question the status quo, including many Trump supporters. The "Trump supporters are authoritarians" narrative is just one more shitty narrative that is being foisted upon the American people. Too bad it isn't working. I think that a lot of Americans are rightfully tired of the stupid semantics game and are more interested in real policy.
|
On January 10 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:
And speaking of the label, its use in the Vox article reinforces my earlier point that the defenders of the status quo are relentlessly demonizing people who dare question the status quo, including many Trump supporters. The "Trump supporters are authoritarians" narrative is just one more shitty narrative that is being foisted upon the American people. Too bad it isn't working. I think that a lot of Americans are rightfully tired of the stupid semantics game and are more interested in real policy.
They may not be authoritarians, but they are people who are saying it is acceptable for their messenger to be an authoritarian, so long as their concerns are finally addressed.
|
I think I recall that Vox article being linked however long ago and being widely panned for making an absurd comparison.
|
On January 10 2017 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:
And speaking of the label, its use in the Vox article reinforces my earlier point that the defenders of the status quo are relentlessly demonizing people who dare question the status quo, including many Trump supporters. The "Trump supporters are authoritarians" narrative is just one more shitty narrative that is being foisted upon the American people. Too bad it isn't working. I think that a lot of Americans are rightfully tired of the stupid semantics game and are more interested in real policy. They may not be authoritarians, but they are people who are saying it is acceptable for their messenger to be an authoritarian, so long as their concerns are finally addressed.
I also reject this idea that Trump is an authoritarian, and I consider that charge to be just as defamatory as the charge that his supporters are authoritarian.
|
On January 10 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On January 10 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:
And speaking of the label, its use in the Vox article reinforces my earlier point that the defenders of the status quo are relentlessly demonizing people who dare question the status quo, including many Trump supporters. The "Trump supporters are authoritarians" narrative is just one more shitty narrative that is being foisted upon the American people. Too bad it isn't working. I think that a lot of Americans are rightfully tired of the stupid semantics game and are more interested in real policy. They may not be authoritarians, but they are people who are saying it is acceptable for their messenger to be an authoritarian, so long as their concerns are finally addressed. I also reject this idea that Trump is an authoritarian, and I consider that charge to be just as defamatory as the charge that his supporters are authoritarian.
Probably just too early to say one way or another. But things like getting rid of birth citizenship certainly make me worried.
|
It's only too early because Donald Trump's word is worthless and not a useful starting point in terms of judging his presidency; once he actually starts doing things, this "don't call us authoritarians" safe space dance will become a lot harder to carry on.
|
On January 10 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 20:59 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 12:41 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return. That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against. If something like sane immigration policy constitutes "authoritarianism," then I better go get some jackboots. Arguing that any deviation from the current order amounts to "authoritarianism" is asinine. No such argument was made. I linked an article by Vox which described a common and established methodology for finding authoritarian tendencies in a population. Namely willingness to discard civil liberties for perceived security, and distrust or hate of foreign influence and change of a perceived status quo(ironical, considering your statement). Trump voters scored very high in that study. It's impossible to argue with someone who dismisses it as just a reaction to a "sane immigration policy" since it covers a lot more. The only way you can prove this argumentation wrong is by linking to a study using accepted methodology and definition that shows low authoritarianism values among Trump supporters. How do you have the gall to say that no such argument was made? It's right in your earlier post where you pose any challenge to the current order as an "authoritarian reform." It's also right in your damned Vox article. Take a look at how it defines "authoritarianism": Show nested quote +Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions. This intransigent behavioral tendency of authoritarians may help explain why Trump’s support can seem, as a strategist for Marco Rubio complained in the New York Times, like "granite." What's particularly telling here is that "fear of the other" is mentioned before "readiness to follow and obey strong leaders." "Authoritarianism," indeed. But guess what? What you fail to realize is that I really don't give two shits about the label, hence my flippant comment about getting the jackboots. And speaking of the label, its use in the Vox article reinforces my earlier point that the defenders of the status quo are relentlessly demonizing people who dare question the status quo, including many Trump supporters. The "Trump supporters are authoritarians" narrative is just one more shitty narrative that is being foisted upon the American people. Too bad it isn't working. I think that a lot of Americans are rightfully tired of the stupid semantics game and are more interested in real policy.
Because I don't dismiss any (emphasis mine) deviation from the current order of things as authoritarian, just authoritarian deviation. Authoritarianism is defined by political scientists, and I suggest you read up about it before you make up your own definitions. It is a meaningful description of a subset of attitudes in a population that has a history of being used for some extremely dark chapters in human history. It is based on peer-reviewed methodology, the "label" exists since the 1940-s and has undergone research since then. Researching authoritarianism has hardly been a recent phenomenon, and is definitely not exclusive to Trump.
I also question your claim that you are not emotionally affected by the terminology. Maybe you can ask a neutral person for their opinion, and use their feedback to re-evaluate. Or just take a step back and calm down. I don't know about others, but I for one am not persuaded at all by your emotional reactions or evaluations, just about the fact that you are not actually addressing the issues while acting snide about it.
|
Between suggesting stop-and-frisk, that entry in the country should be denied based on religion, that burning the flag should be punished with revoking citizenship, that we should 'call Bill Gates to close that internet up' and 'I'm gonna bring back waterboarding and a whole lot worse', I don't know how you can say with a straight face that calling him authoritarian is defamatory when it was the core of his campaign.
|
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor.
|
On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor.
If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump.
|
On January 10 2017 02:45 Dan HH wrote:
Between suggesting stop-and-frisk, that entry in the country should be denied based on religion, that burning the flag should be punished with revoking citizenship, that we should 'call Bill Gates to close that internet up' and 'I'm gonna bring back waterboarding and a whole lot worse', I don't know how you can say with a straight face that calling him authoritarian is defamatory when it was the core of his campaign.
White supported isolationist who is anti-science and anti-globalization? Can't tell if you're talking about Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Joking aside--a person who speaks in instigative broad strokes is not someone you take at his word for anything. The problem is not trump, the problem is the people who supported trump. The rhetoric a politician uses being accepted or rejected is more important at understanding our country than the actual politician himself.
|
On January 10 2017 00:37 Dan HH wrote:
How tediously predictable, his phone must be suggesting 'overrated' as soon as he types 'o' at this point
The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate.
She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
