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 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
I would say it generally takes a non-politician (Bloomberg might be able to do something similar, possibly), but if there's anything politicians utterly fail at it's having the self-awareness to know when they can't do something.
So they'll do it and keep doing it, and the media will keep it a reality tv show, and Paul Ryan will go to sleep with a smile on his face knowing he can keep the levers moving accomplishing the Republican (or, to be more accurate, GOP) agenda while the media covers Trump/Dem outrage tweets and counter-tweets.
Bloomberg is a stiff. He can't do it. And it's not really so much about grabbing a nonpolitician as it is about getting someone with the right force of personality and absolute fearlessness.
On January 15 2017 21:15 Doodsmack wrote: Trump's John Lewis attack is emblematic of Trump's moral depravity - his response to a slight is to try to attack them in the most personal way possible. So he calls John Lewis, who was beaten by police in the civil rights fight, "all talk and no action". In the case of women, he attacks their appearance and hormones.
This is the thing I'll never understand with Trump voters who are actually politically active and intelligent - their endorsement of his moral depravity. The notion that it won't affect policy is pretty mind boggling. John Lewis said Trump isn't a legitimate president. Can we think of anyone else who has called a president's legitimacy into question? LOL
Is voting for Trump supporting his moral depravity? For practical purposes...yes, but I have close relatives who voted for him despite acknowledging that he's a horrible person, because he is the vessel through which they'll see legislation passed that is important to them. They didn't vote for him in the primaries, but when it came to the general they were shit out of luck. It's helped salvage some of my sanity by realizing that 63 million people don't actually think the way that man conducts himself is in any way acceptable. For millions of people It was either him, or vote against their interests.
I'm not vehemently opposed to Republicans or Conservative ideas. I will certainly disagree with some of them, but I can at least say ok, I see where you're coming from. Trump supporters on the other hand, I don't know if I'll ever be able to wrap my head around that. Seems like some watch the world burn type shit to me.
On January 16 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote: Bloomberg is a stiff. He can't do it. And it's not really so much about grabbing a nonpolitician as it is about getting someone with the right force of personality and absolute fearlessness.
Both of those are in short supply in politicians these days, I think. Shrewd calculation is far more effective at securing a seat in Washington.
Regardless, I don't think Congress (GOP or Dems) is going to sit down and act like the "cucks" Trump's adherents spent months painting them as.
On January 16 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote: Bloomberg is a stiff. He can't do it. And it's not really so much about grabbing a nonpolitician as it is about getting someone with the right force of personality and absolute fearlessness.
Both of those are in short supply in politicians these days, I think. Shrewd calculation is far more effective at securing a seat in Washington.
Regardless, I don't think Congress (GOP or Dems) is going to sit down and act like the "cucks" Trump's adherents spent months painting them as.
Sure. And the other point that bears mentioning is this: outrage for the sake outrage doesn't work. The reason why Trump's deployment and cultivation of outrage worked is that he sensed and tapped into legitimate grievances that a lot of Americans felt. The same conditions that Trumped tapped into aren't available among his opponents' bases and potential bases of support.
The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday.
On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote: I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something?
Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition?
If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him.
And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
You can't imagine scenarios where congress would impeach him? Especially if it becomes politically convenient after a major gaffe? People hate him to an unprecedented degree, and some of his election supporters will definitely join the hate train.
Impeachment isn't done lightly. I do not expect Trump to be removed from office before the end of his term.
Bill Clinton was impeached over lying about sexual affairs; I'd expect that to be one of about a hundred different impeachable things Trump is likely to do if Congress really wants him out, based on what he's already said and done.
On January 16 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote: Bloomberg is a stiff. He can't do it. And it's not really so much about grabbing a nonpolitician as it is about getting someone with the right force of personality and absolute fearlessness.
Both of those are in short supply in politicians these days, I think. Shrewd calculation is far more effective at securing a seat in Washington.
Regardless, I don't think Congress (GOP or Dems) is going to sit down and act like the "cucks" Trump's adherents spent months painting them as.
Sure. And the other point that bears mentioning is this: outrage for the sake outrage doesn't work. The reason why Trump's deployment and cultivation of outrage worked is that he sensed and tapped into legitimate grievances that a lot of Americans felt. The same conditions that Trumped tapped into aren't available among his opponents' bases and potential bases of support.
outrage for the sake of outrage, or based on lies and misrepresentations totally works. his opponents would need to tap into different sources of outrage, but there's generally enough discontent in the world that if people are feeling bad you can manufacture the outrage. it's not that hard to turn a dumb grievance into a sufficiently "legitimate" grievance to get people to support something. nor is there any inherent line as to what makes a grievance "legitimate" to prevent you from so doing. so, others would totall ybe doing the same thing as trump, they'd just be using different legitimate grievances.
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
The people who are currently involved in the administrative organization of either the ruling party or the opposition party is the establishment in this case.
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Not sure if they went too far or not, but he should probably just stop watching SNL for the next few years.
It's shit but kind of understandable, hard to parody Trump without being heavy handed given that even his normal self seems comically exaggerated. As for not watching it, that would require more self control than he has shown to have.
The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday.
On January 16 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote: This is brilliant:
The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday.
Legacy/mainstream media is at risk of being rendered largely impotent over the next four years. Trump is systematically neutering them.
This is only happening in the minds of Trump supporters.
Really? The grand backfiring of "fake news" and Trump's election despite the overt opposition of mainstream/legacy media aren't evidence enough for you?
On January 16 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote: This is brilliant:
The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday.
Legacy/mainstream media is at risk of being rendered largely impotent over the next four years. Trump is systematically neutering them.
This is only happening in the minds of Trump supporters.
Really? The grand backfiring of "fake news" and Trump's election despite the overt opposition of mainstream/legacy media aren't evidence enough for you?
the only thing this is evidence for is that in Trump's words he "could shoot someone on fifth avenue and the people would still vote for him".
Nothing has any effect on Trump because people treat his disasters as an asset. They're trying to turn the US into a joke
On January 16 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote: This is brilliant:
The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday.
Legacy/mainstream media is at risk of being rendered largely impotent over the next four years. Trump is systematically neutering them.
This is only happening in the minds of Trump supporters.
Really? The grand backfiring of "fake news" and Trump's election despite the overt opposition of mainstream/legacy media aren't evidence enough for you?
the only thing this is evidence for is that in Trump's words he "could shoot someone on fifth avenue and the people would still vote for him".
Nothing has any effect on Trump because people treat his disasters as an asset. They're trying to turn the US into a joke
If Trump's lucky, all of his opponents will take him as unseriously as you do. He'll have nothing to worry about.
EPT
.
