|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 22 2019 01:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 01:29 farvacola wrote:
That’s why getting into the promises game with Trump supporters is a worthless endeavor. These folks will tell you that the words he uses aren’t important, and then claim that they like him because he does what he said he would. This a la carte reasoning (or lack thereof) is designed to resist substantive criticism, so why bother? pretty much everyone thinks that politicians are liars who can’t/won’t do all that they say they will. so that should temper the second half of your argument. i find it kind of baffling that almost everyone in this thread is unable to see how trump supporters might reasonably interpret his first two years as a (limited) success. i’m sorry but saying to someone who thinks trump did something good, by pulling out of the TPP or by pulling out of talks with Iran, that “those aren’t good things!” is just totally missing the point. trump voters disagree with you about what “good” is! it also doesn’t seem to me that obama’s first two years were obviously more successful, for example. the most “successful” aspect of the trump presidency has been the disintegration of the elite media’s legitimacy and received wisdom. i am sure everyone in this thread will say “but that’s bad!” but again, you are missing the point. it would also be missing the point to say “that has nothing to do with policy or his executive role.” the president is a leader, not simply a bureaucrat
It is far from certain that Trump has disintegrated the elite media's legitimacy. For one thing their business performance is very strong, in fact better than before, as a result of Trump. This implies that more people are consuming their product. In any case, Republicans already thoroughly hated the liberal/elite portion of the media. Trump is just someone who will bicker with them. In reality, though, Trump and the media have a symbiotic relationship. One could even argue that Trump has made the liberal media more effective, because Democrats are even more willing to wield it as a partisan weapon.
|
On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency.  with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’
well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right?
|
On March 22 2019 03:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency. with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’ well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right?
But they’d also consider any military increase in Syria as a win because he’d be destroying ISIS like he said.
|
On March 22 2019 03:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency. with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’ well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right?
i can’t see why that would be a great assumption but i mean it too misses the point does it not?
which is well articulated by Ren.
|
On March 22 2019 03:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 01:56 IgnE wrote:On March 22 2019 01:29 farvacola wrote:
That’s why getting into the promises game with Trump supporters is a worthless endeavor. These folks will tell you that the words he uses aren’t important, and then claim that they like him because he does what he said he would. This a la carte reasoning (or lack thereof) is designed to resist substantive criticism, so why bother? pretty much everyone thinks that politicians are liars who can’t/won’t do all that they say they will. so that should temper the second half of your argument. i find it kind of baffling that almost everyone in this thread is unable to see how trump supporters might reasonably interpret his first two years as a (limited) success. i’m sorry but saying to someone who thinks trump did something good, by pulling out of the TPP or by pulling out of talks with Iran, that “those aren’t good things!” is just totally missing the point. trump voters disagree with you about what “good” is! it also doesn’t seem to me that obama’s first two years were obviously more successful, for example. the most “successful” aspect of the trump presidency has been the disintegration of the elite media’s legitimacy and received wisdom. i am sure everyone in this thread will say “but that’s bad!” but again, you are missing the point. it would also be missing the point to say “that has nothing to do with policy or his executive role.” the president is a leader, not simply a bureaucrat It is far from certain that Trump has disintegrated the elite media's legitimacy. For one thing their business performance is very strong, in fact better than before, as a result of Trump. This implies that more people are consuming their product. In any case, Republicans already thoroughly hated the liberal/elite portion of the media. Trump is just someone who will bicker with them. In reality, though, Trump and the media have a symbiotic relationship. One could even argue that Trump has made the liberal media more effective, because Democrats are even more willing to wield it as a partisan weapon.
is that renewed legitimacy or the fox-ification of formerly mainstream news? or perhaps parallel regimes of legitimacy? an untraversable rupture in the body politic itself?
|
On March 22 2019 03:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency. with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’ well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right?
This question misses the mark since what Trump supporters count as a win is informed by what Trump thinks at the time, and what he thinks is always changing. They loved Mattis until Trump didn't. They loved McCain until Trump didnt. They hated Putin until Trump didnt.
The problem is his followers belief that Trump is some 37d chess genius and everything is planned. Since they reflectively believe he is always in the right (check out Breitbart or r/the_donald to see the mental gymnastics happen daily), then what they count as a win is as fluid as Trumps addled mind.
|
On March 22 2019 03:51 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:39 IgnE wrote:On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency. with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’ well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right? i can’t see why that would be a great assumption but i mean it too misses the point does it not?
well what’s the point? that people are brainwashed? i don’t think that holds up. people on the left often overstate the “facts” or ignorantly repeat falsehoods too, without being wrong about the direction or gist. i’d argue that thinking “pulling out of syria” is a win for trump falls more in the great grey fuzzy area that characterizes most people’s thinking than being any evidence of “brainwashing” that peculiarly affects trumpists.
this is not to say that you couldnt find individual trump supporters who are batshit insane and might aptly be described as “brainwashed,” or even to argue that “brainwashing” is equal “on both sides”
all im saying is that trump supporters might reasonably argue, from their perspective, that trump has been successful, and that picking apart the phrasing or details of the syria argument is not evidence either that trump has been unsuccessful or that all trump supporters are brainwashed, because ultimately the syria argument, even when viewed very critically, might still be said to be a win for trump, as you very well acknowledge. i just am not very interested in whether someone has moved the goal posts when the kick still goes in by a wide margin
ultimately it seems to me that what you are saying is that people are stupid and uncritical and get their facts wrong. that is all true, as this forum proves. but if we are going to say that people who make mistakes, or repeat secondhand information without verifying it, or have imperfect impressions about what “really happened,” are just brainwashed, then we have to end up admitting that everyone here is brainwashed
|
well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right?
i can’t see why that would be a great assumption but i mean it too misses the point does it not?
which is well articulated by Ren.
I still consider decreasing military involvement in Syria a good thing even if I was misinformed as to the extent of it. And I wasn’t trying to move a goalpost, I am not a super big fan of trump but I was trying to point out how actions like that do garner support from his base and I support withdrawal from Syria as well. One thing I would like to be more educated on though is the Iran deal because I am not sure of the implications of staying or pulling out of that, I just know, Trump fans wanted out, others said we should stay, really I don’t know the nuances of it.
|
On March 22 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:51 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 03:39 IgnE wrote:On March 22 2019 03:25 brian wrote:On March 22 2019 02:59 IgnE wrote:
i must have missed where people said a total lie was a win for trump yea np. it’s in this chain On March 22 2019 00:55 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 23:39 brian wrote:On March 21 2019 23:31 Gorgonoth wrote:On March 21 2019 22:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 21 2019 21:44 Gorgonoth wrote:
I think you guys severely underestimate that such a big factor with why trump won is because people had a deep seated hatred for Hillary. It’s far more common among conservatives for people to say “I wasn’t crazy about him, but I sure as hell wasnt going to let Hillary in and that’s what will happen if I don’t vote for him.” Also the idea that he has accomplished nothing is ridiculous. Sure he’s failed on some big issues, but he got conservative judges in, pulled out of TPP, Syria. Cut taxes. Those aren’t small things to a lot of people I talk to about this on a regular basis. 1) Pulling out of TPP isn't necessarily a win. 2) He didn't pull out of Syria. 3) Pulling out of the Iran deal wasn't a good thing. 4) His tax cuts were terrible. The vast majority of people didn't even notice them in their pay check and had to pay significantly more this tax season. 5) He hasn't done anything for the economy that didn't start with Obama, and he's hurt several sectors of the economy with his ridiculous trade war (e.g. agriculture). Trump really hasn't accomplished much of anything positive for the American people overall. On essentially all of those issues I know that you think they are losses, but his supporters don’t. They view the fact that he pulled out of those deals and did cut taxes(regardless of how effective they were) as promised made and kept. I was misinformed on Syria I admit, he just reduced troop totals instead of the withdrawal I expected. And with point 5, it doesn’t really matter to people why the economy is doing well, the fact that it is somehow makes it very hard to best trump IMO. I am just tired of the conception that people that will back trump in 2020 are brainwashed racists. To them Trump has accomplished allot, and the fact that he has no manners or sense of decency on twitter isn’t viewed the same way as you view it. No one thought he was going to be an eloquent orator and a noble guy. He’s a slime ball sure. But he has accomplished things that many conservatives and republicans are happy about. I think he has a very high chance of getting re-elected unless the economy ranks hard. Sorry for rambling posts I can’t keep up with your guys posting frequency. with respect, hopefully you can appreciate an argument against being brainwashed that is essentially ‘we just believe different things on these set of facts(TPP excepted, that’s not a fact)’ is a uniquely poor argument against being brainwashed. i am specifically not addressing whether or not people assume racism in this, i don’t think racism really enters the discussion at this point. and for the sake of clarity, brainwashed certainly isn’t a word of my choosing. but you are essentially building the case against yourself. This is what I mean, merely the fact that he pulled out of those agreements, cut taxes, appointed conservative justices reduced military involvement in Syria , good or bad, is faithful to the rhetoric he promised in his campaign. You can argue about whether those actions were actually beneficial though. it begins with an acknowledgement that a withdrawal from syria is a trump win. he then finds out we didn’t withdraw from syria. he then still counts this as a win. that this all happened in a conversation about whether or not trump supporters have been ‘brainwashed’ is the icing on the context cake. it’s not clear the poster even know how quickly and without thought that goal post moved, and i still question how flexible that goal post is. i didn’t think it worth probing further because i’m hesitant to try to drag people onto the carpet. but it’s just another one of those times anderson cooper ought to come back out and tell us ‘he’d take a shit on your desk and you’d defend it.’ well presumably a trump supporter would count any reduction of US military presence in syria a win, right? i can’t see why that would be a great assumption but i mean it too misses the point does it not? well what’s the point? that people are brainwashed? i don’t think that holds up. people on the left often overstate the “facts” or ignorantly repeat falsehoods too, without being wrong about the direction or gist. i’d argue that thinking “pulling out of syria” is a win for trump falls more in the great grey fuzzy area that characterizes most people’s thinking than being any evidence of “brainwashing” that peculiarly affects trumpists. this is not to say that you couldnt find individual trump supporters who are batshit insane and might aptly be described as “brainwashed,” or even to argue that “brainwashing” is equal “on both sides” all im saying is that trump supporters might reasonably argue, from their perspective, that trump has been successful, and that picking apart the phrasing or details of the syria argument is not evidence either that trump has been unsuccessful or that all trump supporters are brainwashed, because ultimately the syria argument, even when viewed very critically, might still be said to be a win for trump, as you very well acknowledge. i just am not very interested in whether someone has moved the goal posts when the kick still goes in by a wide margin ultimately it seems to me that what you are saying is that people are stupid and uncritical and get their facts wrong. that is all true, as this forum proves. but if we are going to say that people who make mistakes, or repeat secondhand information without verifying it, or have imperfect impressions about what “really happened,” are just brainwashed, then we have to end up admitting that everyone here is brainwashed
Do you think we arent witnessing tribalism from the MAGA crowd? Are we going to start acting like facts are more important than what team you are on for millions of people? I think the fact that Trump lies 70% of the time and yet still receives any support, or still has the tag of "saying it as it is" from his supporters, is strong proof that we are experiencing full fledged tribalism.
Insofar as that is the case, then MAGAers "reasonable arguments" hold little water for me since they are always subject to change at the leaders whim, even if they are actually reasonable. Their reasonableness is not WHY they are being touted for millions of his supporters.
|
no of course i dont think that we arent witnessing tribalism. and now that youve admitted you dont care about anything a MAGAer might say, we can close the tribalism circle for both sides
|
I didnt say their reasons hold no water, just little. I find it hard to engage with a MAGAer seriously because they fall back on the words of a man who very well may be the least honest person in American political history.
As an aside, I have come to dislike the term "MAGAts" that you see used nowadays (I've used before). I think its dehumanizing and runs similar risks to language like calling immigrants invaders.
Edit: oh and I must ask, is that last part a dig at me igne? Are you saying I am being tribalistic because I dont buy the intent behind MAGAers views? Hard to tell with the way your write.
Edit2: actually nvm, its pretty clear igne is calling me out, tho the fact be cant even take the effort to quote me right makes any response from either of us pointless
|
On March 22 2019 04:50 On_Slaught wrote:
I didnt say their reasons hold no water, just little. I find it hard to engage with a MAGAer seriously because they fall back on the words of a man who very well may be the least honest person in American political history.
As an aside, I have come to dislike the term "MAGAts" that you see used nowadays (I've used before). I think its dehumanizing and runs similar risks to language like calling immigrants invaders.
Edit: oh and I must ask, is that last part a dig at me igne? Are you saying I am being tribalistic because I dont buy the intent behind MAGAers views? Hard to tell with the way your write.
While yes, that has a point, but people(at least in t_d) call themselves "pedes", which is short for centipede - a reference to a youtube video made during his campaign.
|
On March 22 2019 03:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:33 Doodsmack wrote:On March 22 2019 01:56 IgnE wrote:On March 22 2019 01:29 farvacola wrote:
That’s why getting into the promises game with Trump supporters is a worthless endeavor. These folks will tell you that the words he uses aren’t important, and then claim that they like him because he does what he said he would. This a la carte reasoning (or lack thereof) is designed to resist substantive criticism, so why bother? pretty much everyone thinks that politicians are liars who can’t/won’t do all that they say they will. so that should temper the second half of your argument. i find it kind of baffling that almost everyone in this thread is unable to see how trump supporters might reasonably interpret his first two years as a (limited) success. i’m sorry but saying to someone who thinks trump did something good, by pulling out of the TPP or by pulling out of talks with Iran, that “those aren’t good things!” is just totally missing the point. trump voters disagree with you about what “good” is! it also doesn’t seem to me that obama’s first two years were obviously more successful, for example. the most “successful” aspect of the trump presidency has been the disintegration of the elite media’s legitimacy and received wisdom. i am sure everyone in this thread will say “but that’s bad!” but again, you are missing the point. it would also be missing the point to say “that has nothing to do with policy or his executive role.” the president is a leader, not simply a bureaucrat It is far from certain that Trump has disintegrated the elite media's legitimacy. For one thing their business performance is very strong, in fact better than before, as a result of Trump. This implies that more people are consuming their product. In any case, Republicans already thoroughly hated the liberal/elite portion of the media. Trump is just someone who will bicker with them. In reality, though, Trump and the media have a symbiotic relationship. One could even argue that Trump has made the liberal media more effective, because Democrats are even more willing to wield it as a partisan weapon. is that renewed legitimacy or the fox-ification of formerly mainstream news? or perhaps parallel regimes of legitimacy? an untraversable rupture in the body politic itself?
Interesting points and probably all three. I could see an argument that the liberal media has been delegitimize in the sense that its partisan nature has been brought into sharper relief. But at the same time, it has been Frankensteined by trump, and it probably possesses more power than its foe, Fox News.
|
On March 22 2019 04:43 IgnE wrote:
no of course i dont think that we arent witnessing tribalism. Really? Not even a tiny bit? No tribalism to be found by those who are literally wearing a hat that declares their tribalism?
|
On March 22 2019 05:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 04:43 IgnE wrote:
no of course i dont think that we arent witnessing tribalism. Really? Not even a tiny bit? No tribalism to be found by those who are literally wearing a hat that declares their tribalism?
He is agreeing there is tribalism, hence the arent. Probably worded that way due to the weird way I worded the question originally.
|
|
|
Woops, it seems Ivanka and Jared are conducting official business on private email addresses, including WhatsApp to discuss sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia.
Well, I wonder if they will get a double standard from our dear republicans who were so outraged by HRC's email server ? (There is no talk of classified info, though discussing the sharing nuclear secrets is kinda sensitive diplomatic information I guess ? But Ivanka looks like she was NOT keeping records of official mails she received and did not answer, as she deleted them... Woops, reminds me of something ?)
https://www.apnews.com/f73b8b3ff73c4e2ea1ea5e6537af041f
Trump’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, informed the committee late last year that Trump doesn’t preserve official emails she receives in her personal account if she doesn’t respond to them. Cummings says that appears to violate the Presidential Records Act.
Lowell said he was referring to Trump’s email use before September 2017 and that he told committee staff that now “she always forwards official business to her White House account.”
It also details the use of the messaging application WhatsApp by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and of personal email accounts by other former senior White House aides that Cummings says “raises additional security and federal records concerns.” Some of those communications involved a proposal to transfer U.S. nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia.
Lowell confirmed that Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband and a senior White House aide, uses WhatsApp to conduct official U.S. government business. That includes communicating with “people outside the United States,” though Lowell did not provide the identities of those involved.
Lowell also would not tell the committee whether Kushner had ever used WhatsApp to discuss classified information. When asked, Lowell said, “That’s above my pay grade,” and referred questions to the White House and the National Security Council
As always also, I am pleasantly surprised by the non-opinion section of Fox (well, it depends on which topics really), they sometimes manage to get some articles clearly not in favour of Trump. This one is a good example of putting him in a pretty bad light.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/21/michael-dukakis-tank-photo-dem-blasts-trump-mocking-him
I'm usually avoiding ALL opinion pieces of all news websites though, apart from Napolitano as it gives me good insight on what a true conservative (sometimes even worse than that since he's more libertarian) thinks, while being relatively impervious to bias regarding the idiot-in-chief's conduct.
|
On March 22 2019 05:29 Nouar wrote:Woops, it seems Ivanka and Jared are conducting official business on private email addresses, including WhatsApp to discuss sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia. Well, I wonder if they will get a double standard from our dear republicans who were so outraged by HRC's email server ? (There is no talk of classified info, though discussing the sharing nuclear secrets is kinda sensitive diplomatic information I guess ? But Ivanka looks like she was NOT keeping records of official mails she received and did not answer, as she deleted them... Woops, reminds me of something ?) https://www.apnews.com/f73b8b3ff73c4e2ea1ea5e6537af041fShow nested quote +Trump’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, informed the committee late last year that Trump doesn’t preserve official emails she receives in her personal account if she doesn’t respond to them. Cummings says that appears to violate the Presidential Records Act. Show nested quote +Lowell said he was referring to Trump’s email use before September 2017 and that he told committee staff that now “she always forwards official business to her White House account.” Show nested quote +It also details the use of the messaging application WhatsApp by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and of personal email accounts by other former senior White House aides that Cummings says “raises additional security and federal records concerns.” Some of those communications involved a proposal to transfer U.S. nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia. Show nested quote +Lowell confirmed that Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband and a senior White House aide, uses WhatsApp to conduct official U.S. government business. That includes communicating with “people outside the United States,” though Lowell did not provide the identities of those involved. Show nested quote +Lowell also would not tell the committee whether Kushner had ever used WhatsApp to discuss classified information. When asked, Lowell said, “That’s above my pay grade,” and referred questions to the White House and the National Security Council As always also, I am pleasantly surprised by the non-opinion section of Fox (well, it depends on which topics really), they sometimes manage to get some articles clearly not in favour of Trump. This one is a good example of putting him in a pretty bad light. https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/21/michael-dukakis-tank-photo-dem-blasts-trump-mocking-himI'm usually avoiding ALL opinion pieces of all news websites though, apart from Napolitano as it gives me good insight on what a true conservative (sometimes even worse than that since he's more libertarian) thinks, while being relatively impervious to bias regarding the idiot-in-chief's conduct.
But just hours later, Lowell issued a letter of his own disputing Cummings’ characterization of some of his comments. Lowell said he was referring to Trump’s email use before September 2017 and that he told committee staff that now “she always forwards official business to her White House account.”
Since she already has it set up to preserve records for all sent mail, doing the same for all received mail should be quite easy. She should be prosecuted if this is not complied with. Same with not forwarding and preserving all WhatsApp messages sent and received, documented with decrypted backups.
You can expect a comparable amount of outrage if they don't turn over FOIA requests and instead delete the messages. You can expect comparable outrage if they're using personal email accounts on personal servers to send and receive and print classified info, as Hillary did.
|
On March 22 2019 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 05:29 Nouar wrote:Woops, it seems Ivanka and Jared are conducting official business on private email addresses, including WhatsApp to discuss sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia. Well, I wonder if they will get a double standard from our dear republicans who were so outraged by HRC's email server ? (There is no talk of classified info, though discussing the sharing nuclear secrets is kinda sensitive diplomatic information I guess ? But Ivanka looks like she was NOT keeping records of official mails she received and did not answer, as she deleted them... Woops, reminds me of something ?) https://www.apnews.com/f73b8b3ff73c4e2ea1ea5e6537af041fTrump’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, informed the committee late last year that Trump doesn’t preserve official emails she receives in her personal account if she doesn’t respond to them. Cummings says that appears to violate the Presidential Records Act. Lowell said he was referring to Trump’s email use before September 2017 and that he told committee staff that now “she always forwards official business to her White House account.” It also details the use of the messaging application WhatsApp by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and of personal email accounts by other former senior White House aides that Cummings says “raises additional security and federal records concerns.” Some of those communications involved a proposal to transfer U.S. nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia. Lowell confirmed that Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband and a senior White House aide, uses WhatsApp to conduct official U.S. government business. That includes communicating with “people outside the United States,” though Lowell did not provide the identities of those involved. Lowell also would not tell the committee whether Kushner had ever used WhatsApp to discuss classified information. When asked, Lowell said, “That’s above my pay grade,” and referred questions to the White House and the National Security Council As always also, I am pleasantly surprised by the non-opinion section of Fox (well, it depends on which topics really), they sometimes manage to get some articles clearly not in favour of Trump. This one is a good example of putting him in a pretty bad light. https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/21/michael-dukakis-tank-photo-dem-blasts-trump-mocking-himI'm usually avoiding ALL opinion pieces of all news websites though, apart from Napolitano as it gives me good insight on what a true conservative (sometimes even worse than that since he's more libertarian) thinks, while being relatively impervious to bias regarding the idiot-in-chief's conduct. Show nested quote +But just hours later, Lowell issued a letter of his own disputing Cummings’ characterization of some of his comments. Lowell said he was referring to Trump’s email use before September 2017 and that he told committee staff that now “she always forwards official business to her White House account.” Since she already has it set up to preserve records for all sent mail, doing the same for all received mail should be quite easy. She should be prosecuted if this is not complied with. Same with not forwarding and preserving all WhatsApp messages sent and received, documented with decrypted backups. You can expect a comparable amount of outrage if they don't turn over FOIA requests and instead delete the messages. You can expect comparable outrage if they're using personal email accounts on personal servers to send and receive and print classified info, as Hillary did.
Not exactly "she now already has it set up". Since 2017, she has changed her way of doing things, and now forwards incoming official mails to her official mailbox (well that is how I read it). Prior to that date, she pleaded ignorance, which is really funny seeing how they treated HRC. Ignorance, really ? :-D
Well I'm not really expecting anything, as they already said "but it's not the same", people will argue there was no classified information, so it's not criminal (which I actually agree with, administrative sanctions are more than enough for this).
I'll just wait and see is there is outrage or excuses over the deletion.
Some other topics : Trump is using 2020 campaign money to spend in his own hotels, catering, legal services etc... ultimately going into his businesses. It was already the same in 2016, at least during the inauguration, and that would be utterly unacceptable for anyone else, but I guess it's lost in the background noise in this case.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-2020-election-donations-campaign-tower-new-york-a8833851.html?utm_source=reddit.com
And since I'm "new" to US politics, I just stumbled about this one, which had me chuckle a little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.
On December 14, 2009, CNN reported[14] that all 22 million missing emails had been found on backup tapes, and that the Obama Administration reached a settlement with two watchdog groups who had sued to obtain the emails.
edit : sorry I missed some info in your post :
You can expect a comparable amount of outrage if they don't turn over FOIA requests and instead delete the messages. You can expect comparable outrage if they're using personal email accounts on personal servers to send and receive and print classified info, as Hillary did.
Should I remind you that the deleted messages were from the server admin who previously didn't bother implementing a retention policy prior to the FOIA requests, and suddenly deleted the messages when the requests came in and he realised that the mails still existed ? (A really stupid behaviour, unrelated to HRC herself).
And that the classified messages didn't have proper classification markings ? Missing them entirely or only having a "(c)" somewhere in the mail ? Which was one of the reasons they did not prosecute, since it would not stand in front of a court.
A personal server is a little bit better security-wise, than using for example WhatsApp.
|
Didn't we discuss the private email use of Iavanka last year? I feel like the story was in the news for a while and then died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
