|
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 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 23:12 Leporello wrote:On January 06 2018 23:05 oBlade wrote:On January 06 2018 22:27 micronesia wrote:Let's discuss this official Whitehouse statement: He has previously described himself as very humble and, currently, like, very smart. He described himself as a VERY successful businessman, a top TV Star, and POTUS on his first try. While I don't personally consider him a top TV Star, that is at least a reasonable claim. The rest is not. I do recall Trump running for president five years ago, although apparently he does not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/donald-trump-us-presidential-raceI think it's slowly getting harder and harder for his supporters to not see him for what he really is at this point, but denial is very powerful. A self proclaimed genius, him. Very stable. Most of us already pretty well know the president has an ego much larger than you'd expect for someone as compared to his hands. Usually when he has bragged about his humility it's been transparently tongue-in-cheek and showmanship. He did "run" in 2012, as well as in 2000 for the Reform Party Ross Perot started that collapsed. So he has technically filed and withdrew candidacies before, including for a third party, but never even appeared in a debate before. We know that, we're aware of it, but it seems to be pedantic and miss the point of him highlighting his own achievement of taking over a whole party and the presidency from nothing including since he was still a Democrat in 2009. (But okay, I can for the sake of argument grant you this important "gotcha" and then ask for example is illegal immigration down without laying a brick of the wall? and the answer's yep.) Business, he's not a Silicon Valley or telecom or retail titan, but people who build things in the world seem to be important because I like having buildings and such, even if they're assholes, I don't know how lucrative the field is so I don't know how well he actually did relatively, that would be nice to have nonpartisan insight into. Though the luxury brand aspect of his business seems weak just when I think about other luxury brands. We don't have in recent memory but there used to be people who won a party's nomination multiple times, and even subsequently lost the election multiple times. Also, this wasn't a random statement so it might help to know the context if you want to discuss it. You by accident omitted the first of the series of tweets: which introduces why he is talking about this now, which is the resistance's surge in trying to use the extraordinarily reliable field of psychiatry as a political shank and going "25th amendment" and "he picked up a glass of water with two hands" just because impeachment and Russia treason are increasingly clearly no longer outs. Is this one of those scenarios where he's not allowed to disagree because that very act proves the other side right? Sure, maybe that, or he's just a manchild. You really think the tweets' problem is they were lacking the full appropriate context? OH LORD No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all. I think the first amendment also applies to the president and even if he's wrong you're allowed to be wrong. And as I tried to suggest, fine, suppose he's a manchild, so what? That stops jobs being up? So I should wish someone else had been elected? Or I should want him to stop being president? Maybe it's just me but it's Twitter. I get that people don't like the president and so don't like his tweets, but you have to find a reason to work backwards to convince someone from a tweet, to think whatever you're trying to convince them of. At any rate he tweets just like he talks, but people who hate him don't listen to him talk I imagine, but put the exact same thing on a social network that's full of bubbles trolling each other and making shallow jokes and we can do news about it, because it's already in print. Like we know it's Trump, we know Trump is Trump, but this is different, he was Trump on the internet and I had to read about it. There's no motivation in this to make a disinterested person care, there's no issue, it's like gossip. Or if we really, with no medical training, sincerely thought any president were so mentally unfit as to need to be removed, that we would know better than the people close to him?
1st amendment does apply to him, I don't see the secret service arresting him for tweeting. Not sure if you're aware but 1st amendment only means government won't outlaw someone's speech, please stop incorrectly referring to it. 2nd: trump has fuck all to do with jobs being up. Most of that is still from the Obama time, and the president in general doesn't have much to do with it. Thirdly, it's not "just twitter when the clowns in the white house say twitter is an official arm of our manchild "president". Please stop saying things in bad faith and pretending reality doesn't exist, it's getting old.
|
On January 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 23:12 Leporello wrote:On January 06 2018 23:05 oBlade wrote:Most of us already pretty well know the president has an ego much larger than you'd expect for someone as compared to his hands. Usually when he has bragged about his humility it's been transparently tongue-in-cheek and showmanship. He did "run" in 2012, as well as in 2000 for the Reform Party Ross Perot started that collapsed. So he has technically filed and withdrew candidacies before, including for a third party, but never even appeared in a debate before. We know that, we're aware of it, but it seems to be pedantic and miss the point of him highlighting his own achievement of taking over a whole party and the presidency from nothing including since he was still a Democrat in 2009. (But okay, I can for the sake of argument grant you this important "gotcha" and then ask for example is illegal immigration down without laying a brick of the wall? and the answer's yep.) Business, he's not a Silicon Valley or telecom or retail titan, but people who build things in the world seem to be important because I like having buildings and such, even if they're assholes, I don't know how lucrative the field is so I don't know how well he actually did relatively, that would be nice to have nonpartisan insight into. Though the luxury brand aspect of his business seems weak just when I think about other luxury brands. We don't have in recent memory but there used to be people who won a party's nomination multiple times, and even subsequently lost the election multiple times. Also, this wasn't a random statement so it might help to know the context if you want to discuss it. You by accident omitted the first of the series of tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949616329463615489which introduces why he is talking about this now, which is the resistance's surge in trying to use the extraordinarily reliable field of psychiatry as a political shank and going "25th amendment" and "he picked up a glass of water with two hands" just because impeachment and Russia treason are increasingly clearly no longer outs. Is this one of those scenarios where he's not allowed to disagree because that very act proves the other side right? Sure, maybe that, or he's just a manchild. You really think the tweets' problem is they were lacking the full appropriate context? OH LORD No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all. I think the first amendment also applies to the president and even if he's wrong you're allowed to be wrong. And as I tried to suggest, fine, suppose he's a manchild, so what? That stops jobs being up? So I should wish someone else had been elected? Or I should want him to stop being president? Maybe it's just me but it's Twitter. I get that people don't like the president and so don't like his tweets, but you have to find a reason to work backwards to convince someone from a tweet, to think whatever you're trying to convince them of. At any rate he tweets just like he talks, but people who hate him don't listen to him talk I imagine, but put the exact same thing on a social network that's full of bubbles trolling each other and making shallow jokes and we can do news about it, because it's already in print. Like we know it's Trump, we know Trump is Trump, but this is different, he was Trump on the internet and I had to read about it. There's no motivation in this to make a disinterested person care, there's no issue, it's like gossip. Or if we really, with no medical training, sincerely thought any president were so mentally unfit as to need to be removed, that we would know better than the people close to him?
Or if we really, with no medical training, sincerely thought any president were so mentally unfit as to need to be removed, that we would know better than the people close to him?
You are aware that he is (badly) trying to defend himself because 'people close to him' have called him mentally unstable in Wolff's book?
As for the rest of your post. You seriously don't see the issue with the POTUS having to go on Twitter to say "na-uh I'm not stupid, i'm, like, really smart".
You don't even see the laughing stock you have voted to be your leader...
|
On January 06 2018 23:56 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:On January 06 2018 23:12 Leporello wrote:On January 06 2018 23:05 oBlade wrote:Most of us already pretty well know the president has an ego much larger than you'd expect for someone as compared to his hands. Usually when he has bragged about his humility it's been transparently tongue-in-cheek and showmanship. He did "run" in 2012, as well as in 2000 for the Reform Party Ross Perot started that collapsed. So he has technically filed and withdrew candidacies before, including for a third party, but never even appeared in a debate before. We know that, we're aware of it, but it seems to be pedantic and miss the point of him highlighting his own achievement of taking over a whole party and the presidency from nothing including since he was still a Democrat in 2009. (But okay, I can for the sake of argument grant you this important "gotcha" and then ask for example is illegal immigration down without laying a brick of the wall? and the answer's yep.) Business, he's not a Silicon Valley or telecom or retail titan, but people who build things in the world seem to be important because I like having buildings and such, even if they're assholes, I don't know how lucrative the field is so I don't know how well he actually did relatively, that would be nice to have nonpartisan insight into. Though the luxury brand aspect of his business seems weak just when I think about other luxury brands. We don't have in recent memory but there used to be people who won a party's nomination multiple times, and even subsequently lost the election multiple times. Also, this wasn't a random statement so it might help to know the context if you want to discuss it. You by accident omitted the first of the series of tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949616329463615489which introduces why he is talking about this now, which is the resistance's surge in trying to use the extraordinarily reliable field of psychiatry as a political shank and going "25th amendment" and "he picked up a glass of water with two hands" just because impeachment and Russia treason are increasingly clearly no longer outs. Is this one of those scenarios where he's not allowed to disagree because that very act proves the other side right? Sure, maybe that, or he's just a manchild. You really think the tweets' problem is they were lacking the full appropriate context? OH LORD No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all. I think the first amendment also applies to the president and even if he's wrong you're allowed to be wrong. And as I tried to suggest, fine, suppose he's a manchild, so what? That stops jobs being up? So I should wish someone else had been elected? Or I should want him to stop being president? Maybe it's just me but it's Twitter. I get that people don't like the president and so don't like his tweets, but you have to find a reason to work backwards to convince someone from a tweet, to think whatever you're trying to convince them of. At any rate he tweets just like he talks, but people who hate him don't listen to him talk I imagine, but put the exact same thing on a social network that's full of bubbles trolling each other and making shallow jokes and we can do news about it, because it's already in print. Like we know it's Trump, we know Trump is Trump, but this is different, he was Trump on the internet and I had to read about it. There's no motivation in this to make a disinterested person care, there's no issue, it's like gossip. Or if we really, with no medical training, sincerely thought any president were so mentally unfit as to need to be removed, that we would know better than the people close to him? 1st amendment does apply to him, I don't see the secret service arresting him for tweeting. Not sure if you're aware but 1st amendment only means government won't outlaw someone's speech, please stop incorrectly referring to it.
My mistake, I shouldn't have daftly cited that amendment, but the subject came from him being so insane as to merit removal from office, no?
On January 06 2018 23:56 hunts wrote:
2nd: trump has fuck all to do with jobs being up. Most of that is still from the Obama time, and the president in general doesn't have much to do with it.
You are splitting hairs here, as when you cast a vote for a president you do get a whole administration, some are bad at creating jobs and some are good at it, some are good at it but it's covered up by historically disastrous external factors, some are bad at it despite coinciding with fluke growth, but the executive branch has departments of labor and commerce and treasury for a reason.
On January 06 2018 23:56 hunts wrote:
Thirdly, it's not "just twitter when the clowns in the white house say twitter is an official arm of our manchild "president". Please stop saying things in bad faith and pretending reality doesn't exist, it's getting old.
Yes, it's a tradition since Obama was the first president to employ Twitter. This will sound like it's in bad faith to you, but , you've just called these people manchildren and clowns, so why be perturbed at their capacity to self-designate officialness? Because why would you care about that to begin with?
|
United States24810 Posts
You guys need to realize that you are having an adversarial discussion with someone with the following position:
On January 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:
No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all.
Like, I don't know how you would convince someone with that position that there in fact are problems with the tweets posted above. This part of the discussion is over before it started.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
The Trump reality show had a downswing at the end of 2017, but 2018 is really starting strong! Season 2 is shaping up to be amazing.
|
On January 07 2018 01:05 zatic wrote:
The Trump reality show had a downswing at the end of 2017, but 2018 is really starting strong! Season 2 is shaping up to be amazing.
It should be. The budget for this show is super high.
|
Maybe he actually is a genius but in a different way. Nobody realised ethics 'rules' could be ignored so easily, but he did it. Promote your children (in law) into top positions like a king? Sure. Nobody realised that instead of being nervous for tough questions at press conferences you could just never give a press conference ever again. Getting in legal trouble? Nope it's conspiracy by the 'deep state'. Scientists saying you are wrong? Just make being 'an expert' a negative trait in the peoples eyes. It is kind of amazing how someone so rude and inflammatory, and openly and verifiably untrustworthy still is holding office.
He made a complete genre of political drama series that always focus on finding 'dirt' on the opponent to take them out by losing the public opinion useless because he swims in dirt and people like him for it.
|
On January 07 2018 01:05 zatic wrote:
The Trump reality show had a downswing at the end of 2017, but 2018 is really starting strong! Season 2 is shaping up to be amazing.
Meanwhile, many, many people who live where it shoots pray for its cancellation every night 
|
On January 07 2018 01:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2018 01:05 zatic wrote:
The Trump reality show had a downswing at the end of 2017, but 2018 is really starting strong! Season 2 is shaping up to be amazing. Meanwhile, many, many people who live where it shoots pray for its cancellation every night
I'll pass on trying to replace it with the 700 Club though
|
United States44439 Posts
The man is an 80 year old member of the east coast elite, valley girl cannot be his default linguistic tweet setting. That means that for whatever reason he is choosing to tweet like a star of My Super Sweet Sixteen. God help us.
|
On January 07 2018 00:43 micronesia wrote:You guys need to realize that you are having an adversarial discussion with someone with the following position: Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:
No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all. Like, I don't know how you would convince someone with that position that there in fact are problems with the tweets posted above. This part of the discussion is over before it started.
To him, dignity and policy results are competing concepts. Trump can start pooping in his hands and throwing it at reporters and the ensuing justification will be "Jobs up! Illegal immigration down!"
As if Trump is the only person holding the government together to achieve such things. Surely the accompanying shitshow is worth it.
|
|
|
In some other, albeit, sad news.
|
On the point of "like," it is indeed how he talks, it's not peculiar to tweeting, he says "like" with "smart" especially when talking about himself, here's a video where he does it 3x, I don't mind unpacking the real issues like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 07 2018 02:35 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2018 00:43 micronesia wrote:You guys need to realize that you are having an adversarial discussion with someone with the following position: On January 06 2018 23:47 oBlade wrote:
No, I don't think there's any problem with the tweets at all. Like, I don't know how you would convince someone with that position that there in fact are problems with the tweets posted above. This part of the discussion is over before it started. To him, dignity and policy results are competing concepts. Trump can start pooping in his hands and throwing it at reporters and the ensuing justification will be "Jobs up! Illegal immigration down!" As if Trump is the only person holding the government together to achieve such things. Surely the accompanying shitshow is worth it.
Why don't we wait until he actually poops in his hands, assuming it would even fit, and throws it at reporters, first? Because where we are now, in reality, is far from that, which you know is never going to happen. And if it did I'd mainly be worried about how people could react credibly to something of that level when they've already used up so much steam.
Trump wrote:
like
On January 07 2018 02:32 KwarK wrote:
God help us.
For example as Gorsameth says earlier the president is a laughingstock. Think about it for a second, other people I don't know are laughing at the president, so what does that mean? That's like middle school psychology. I'd be happy for them if I didn't think the subject was secretly causing them more stress than relief, but anyway it doesn't affect me.
I appreciate that we might want every public official to superficially be a JFK, that a nice sympathetic charismatic elegant sounding person is most comforting, but that's a mental trap, substance is more important than style, ideology more important than identity, results more important than rhetoric. That should be true in life with the presidency being no different.
There are things he says and tweets that I find to be different levels of retarded but I tend to forget them because so much happens and most of it is uncontroversial or good news, and they're often different than what the MSM et al. have issues with. But most of all I have a sense of proportion. The aviation tweet from before was one. Something about the UCLA basketball players China held for shoplifting was another.
|
the substance and results are also terrible, so i'm not sure what your point is on that.
|
On January 07 2018 04:07 oBlade wrote:
I appreciate that we might want every public official to superficially be a JFK, that a nice sympathetic charismatic elegant sounding person is most comforting, but that's a mental trap, substance is more important than style, ideology more important than identity, results more important than rhetoric. That should be true in life with the presidency being no different.
Trump has literally no substance, is completely incoherent and lacks any ideological framework, and is entirely focused on matters of identity, namely his white perpetually offended rural voter-base
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not
|
On January 07 2018 04:17 zlefin wrote:
the substance and results are also terrible, so i'm not sure what your point is on that.
Assuming what you claimed without demonstrating were true, that would only make them even more important. Yet this is what grabs people's attention when there are protests against the ayatollahs in Iran and North and South Korea are talking before the Olympics. It's probably true Trump's candidacy has lowered the level of discourse in the country, but it isn't solely his responsibility, it's him and people who drag everything through the mud just to try to beat and him, together, which is why people's opinion of the president and the media have both sunk.
|
On January 07 2018 04:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2018 04:17 zlefin wrote:
the substance and results are also terrible, so i'm not sure what your point is on that. Assuming what you claimed without demonstrating were true, that would only make them even more important. Yet this is what grabs people's attention when there are protests against the ayatollahs in Iran and North and South Korea are talking before the Olympics. It's probably true Trump's candidacy has lowered the level of discourse in the country, but it isn't solely his responsibility, it's him and people who drag everything through the mud just to try to beat and him, together, which is why people's opinion of the president and the media have both sunk.
To be fair though, very little of the criticism that Trump receives- both as a candidate and as the president- is unjustified. When you have a history and reputation as bad as Trump's, and say and do the awful things that he does, you don't exactly need to fabricate additional ammunition to smear him. The awful things that we have screenshots and videos of him saying or doing or writing are often times even worse than what the media has falsely concocted about other people. Trump supporters are angry that the news is simply reporting Trump as Trump, in all his ignorant and hateful glory.
Also, Trump and his supporters are the ones pushing alternative facts instead of real facts, which lowers the level of discourse. His opponents didn't do that.
|
On January 07 2018 04:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2018 04:17 zlefin wrote:
the substance and results are also terrible, so i'm not sure what your point is on that. Assuming what you claimed without demonstrating were true, that would only make them even more important. Yet this is what grabs people's attention when there are protests against the ayatollahs in Iran and North and South Korea are talking before the Olympics. It's probably true Trump's candidacy has lowered the level of discourse in the country, but it isn't solely his responsibility, it's him and people who drag everything through the mud just to try to beat and him, together, which is why people's opinion of the president and the media have both sunk.
Really, what do you expect the media to do in order to raise the level of discourse in this country? Every time there's a Trump scandal the exact same sequence of events happens:
1. Media reports on facts which make Trump look bad
2. Trump/WH denies facts, which are evidently true
3. Media points out that Trump must be lying
4. Trump supporters call media biased/unfair to Trump for correctly pointing out that he lied.
5. Shitstorm
There is literally no way to have a reasonable level of discourse when one party takes any criticism as fake news.\
Another thing I'd like to point out is that often the ticky-tack type reporting on Trump isn't aimed at Trump himself. When people find out about latest shady business dealing/dumb comment/slimy behavior it's not because people need any more convincing that Trump is gross. It's mostly amplified because of the hypocrisy of a lot of his supporters. For example, when we hear an allegation that Trump made a game out of trying sleeping with his friend's wives, it's not Trump that's being criticized but "family value" voters who for some reason think that he's an upstanding citizen. Those stories would have nowhere near as much traction if the evangelical community simply started to say "yeah we agree, he's gross, and we acknowledge that our insistence upon "family values" was never really all that serious. But they don't do that, so every time he does something slimy there's an impulsive need to throw it back in their face.
|
I have no love for Trump and if the media wants to shit on him, they can go ahead. The problem for me is that they act like a tabloid 100% of the time these days.
“EXCLUSIVE leak from unnamed sources: Trump spends an hour every day looking at himself in the mirror!”
Holy fuck, I don’t care. He’s an egomaniac who associates with shitty people, we get that by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
