US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber

[anitram]

I have always thought that the legal case for obstruction is generally weak, at least based on the evidence available to the public but now things seem to be moving a bit more in a positive direction. I wonder if it will be Jeff Sessions who is the big name sacrificed.

 

[Nick66]

Trump is disgusting!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Unfortunately there are clearly millions of people who literally don't care what anyone says about Trump. He has somehow created a cult.

This is the part that mystifies me the most. Other politicians have said and done shitty things, too, and yeah, they've had their supporters despite it all, but even those supporters still didn't seem nearly as devoted to them as Trump's supporters are. At least, not to my recollection, anyway. What is it about Trump specifically that's allowed him to have such a strong hold over people, to where they'll blindly follow him? I don't get it.

 

[Irvine511]

I'd like you to focus on books written by authors who were allowed to shadow the President, WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERMISSION. Thanks

and you know how he got that permission? Wolff and Trump go back in NY media circles, and i remember reading (and loving) Wolff in NY Magazine when i was younger.

during the 2016 campaign, Wolff did an interview with Trump in which Trump came off sounding like, to quote others, a fucking idiot.

for example:

I ask if he sees himself as having similarities with leaders of the growing anti-immigrant (some would say outright racist) European nativist movements, like Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy, whom The Wall Street Journal reported Trump had met with and endorsed in Philadelphia. (“Matteo, I wish you become the next Italian premier soon,” Trump was quoted as saying.) In fact, he insists he didn’t meet Salvini. “I didn’t want to meet him.” And, in sum, he doesn’t particularly see similarities — or at least isn’t interested in them — between those movements and the anti-immigrant nationalism he is promoting in this country.

“And Brexit? Your position?” I ask. “Huh?” “Brexit.” “Hmm.”

“The Brits leaving the EU,” I prompt, realizing that his lack of familiarity with one of the most pressing issues in Europe is for him no concern nor liability at all.

“Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

however, the interview was in a magazine with this as the cover:

guess what?

Trump never read the article, because he's only semi-literate, but he saw the cover and he LOVED the cover, and thus gave Wolff the access he needed to write this book.

 

[Nick66]

Trump never read the article, because he's only semi-literate, but he saw the cover and he LOVED the cover, and thus gave Wolff the access he needed to write this book.

"Semi-Literate"? What makes you think he can read at all!

 

[Nick66]

Could you provide us with a list of salacious books written about Obama? I'm putting together a book club.

I'd like you to focus on books written by authors who were allowed to shadow the President, WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERMISSION. Thanks

I shouldn't have used "salacious", that was the wrong word (I don't think there's ever been a credible accusation of sexual impropriety by President Obama). I meant generally sharply critical and even gossipy accounts of what was going on inside his government and its (alleged) incompetence, written by both respected journalists and members of his government. If you're looking for the latter, I can suggest many books for your club.

There's also no shortage of scandalous books about President Obama (or Hillary Clinton), but those are mostly written by right wingers and less respected journalists.

Again, my point isn't that there's some kind of equivalent between Trump and Obama...simply that when critical books about the latter were released, there was a similar pattern or questioning their veracity....or blindly accepting it, depending on the POV of the reader.

It's possible to despise Donald Trump and not accept at face value every gossipy thing written about him just because you're inclined to agree with it...that's what critical thinking is all about. I'm not saying that all of this book isn't true, it may be. But respected journalists are already starting to question parts of it, and if parts of it are wrong, then it calls into question the credibility of the whole thing.

While I have no use for Donald Trump...I don't think he's qualified ethically, morally, intellectually or professionally for that office...I'm also not a partisan, or tribal about any party or ideology, and I don't look at this stuff through a partisan or ideological lens. I take things one as a time as they come and judge each thing on its own merits. I made my judgement on Trump a while ago, but that doesn't mean I have to accept unquestioningly every bad thing written about him.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm not eager to drool all over the book for the reasons Nick said. The access does make me think a lot of this is true, but it's so easy to not even question any of it.

There's nothing wrong with taking this shit with a grain of salt.

 

[Irvine511]

I meant generally sharply critical and even gossipy accounts of what was going on inside his government and its (alleged) incompetence, written by both respected journalists and members of his government. If you're looking for the latter, I can suggest many books for your club.

by all means.

But I'd recommend just general history and Presidential biographies to start, so that you have the right foundation. And even then, I'd counsel using your critical reasoning skills and not believe something simply because you're inclined to believe it, or disbelieve it for the same reasons.

I'm also not a partisan, or tribal about any party or ideology, and I don't look at this stuff through a partisan or ideological lens. I take things one as a time as they come and judge each thing on its own merits.

you're a smart guy, Nick, and you often contribute good things. however, you're not any smarter or more informed than any of the other regulars in here. why do you have to be so patronizing and pompous?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Matteo Salvini in Italy, whom The Wall Street Journal reported Trump had met with and endorsed in Philadelphia. (“Matteo, I wish you become the next Italian premier soon,” Trump was quoted as saying.) In fact, he insists he didn’t meet Salvini. “I didn’t want to meet him.”

On the note of this bit...why does he do this? Why does he constantly claim he didn't meet/talk to/work with people despite obvious photographic and written evidence to the contrary, or claim he didn't say certain things when we have actual video footage or tweets showing that, yes, he actually did say that stuff?

It's a constant pattern with him, and I really don't get why he keeps doing this. Is his memory really just that bad, or does he honestly believe nobody will double check that stuff, or that the evidence somehow magically disappears after it's recorded, or what?

 

[anitram]

Liars like Trump tend to start to actually believe their own lies. That's how delusional they are.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

On the note of this bit...why does he do this? Why does he constantly claim he didn't meet/talk to/work with people despite obvious photographic and written evidence to the contrary, or claim he didn't say certain things when we have actual video footage or tweets showing that, yes, he actually did say that stuff?

It's a constant pattern with him, and I really don't get why he keeps doing this. Is his memory really just that bad, or does he honestly believe nobody will double check that stuff, or that the evidence somehow magically disappears after it's recorded, or what?

Because we live in a post truth world where it doesn't matter.

 

[Bluer White]

"Semi-Literate"? What makes you think he can read at all!

Tribal Nick

 

[PhilsFan]

If people who don’t normally vote couldn’t be bothered to vote against Trump, what makes you think there is anything (i.e., a list of leftists policies, that will still have to make their way through Congress) that would inspire non-voters to vote?

The case cannot be "I'm not as bad as him." Clinton's campaign was about tone. People aren't going to vote based on tone. They vote based on offering tangible economic benefits to people. Sweeping changes to the healthcare system. Overhaul of the tax code with the intention of investing new money coming in into programs that badly need to see their funding rise again. Reduced costs for college education. These are things that inspire people to go out to the polls.

Clinton didn't offer any of those things. She offered "I'll do what Obama did." Obama's policies didn't help nearly enough people for that to work.

Jeremy Corbyn made up an incredible amount of ground in just six weeks in England by writing a manifesto of these sorts of policies, and sticking to them. He wasn't afraid of how he would have to respond to adversity, because the most important thing was allowing people to get out and show support for policies rarely ever supported by someone in the mainstream.

You can't create your campaign or your policies solely based on what you think might happen down the road. Democrats cower in fear at being called socialists, radical progressives, leftists, etc. They tremble at the notion that something they support will have no chance of getting through once they get into office. So they support the "rational" policies, the "bipartisan" policies.

Only it doesn't work. Something has to change. It should be obvious. For some reason, many feel it is not.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

you're a smart guy, Nick, and you often contribute good things. however, you're not any smarter or more informed than any of the other regulars in here. why do you have to be so patronizing and pompous?

Have to agree with that, that's how you come across Nick. Whether that's your intention or not.

And if your "Trump is disgusting" comment was directed at me, I do have an intellect. What I don't have, however, is endless time or any time at all to debate the nuances(if any actually exist I believe in Bigfoot too) of Donald Trump and twist myself into a pretzel to do so. He is disgusting to me as a woman, and a US citizen. That's not tribalism, just humanism. And no not a single credible instance exists of misogyny or misconduct on the part of Barack Obama. Not that I know of.

I can assure you that I'm not intellectually lazy. I'm a full time caregiver for my mother who is dying of cancer. Her full time house manager and general wonder woman. I just finished two days of shoveling and roof raking in brutally cold temps and wind chills. Plus finding someone to fix our heat. So maybe a little kindness and a little less sarcasm could go a long way.

 

[Irvine511]

The case cannot be "I'm not as bad as him." Clinton's campaign was about tone. People aren't going to vote based on tone. They vote based on offering tangible economic benefits to people. Sweeping changes to the healthcare system. Overhaul of the tax code with the intention of investing new money coming in into programs that badly need to see their funding rise again. Reduced costs for college education. These are things that inspire people to go out to the polls.

are they? what evidence do we have that proves this assertion?

i'm not debating it's merits or worthiness, i am questioning that these are the kinds of things that will inspire millions of millions of non-voters to vote. furthermore, such sweeping changes might also inspire millions of non-voters to vote against these things as well.

why are we assuming that non-voters would be inspired by "tangible economic benefits" presented as free college or socialized medicine and not tax cuts and deregulation? what makes you certain that a non-voter wouldn't vote for conservative policies?

i don't want to rehash 2016, but one take away is that what i *do* think makes a difference is the quality of the candidate. i think we could argue that what Trump did do was inspire just enough non- or low-frequency rural white voters to make a difference in a slim number of swing states, just like Obama was able to outperform in rust belt cities amongst the young and minority voters.

 

[BVS]

The case cannot be "I'm not as bad as him." Clinton's campaign was about tone. People aren't going to vote based on tone. They vote based on offering tangible economic benefits to people. Sweeping changes to the healthcare system. Overhaul of the tax code with the intention of investing new money coming in into programs that badly need to see their funding rise again. Reduced costs for college education. These are things that inspire people to go out to the polls.

This is your shopping list, it’s not why ‘people’ vote.

People vote for all kinds of reasons:

The letter behind their name
Benghazi
Free stuff
Fear of the other one
Religion
Their wallet
Etc.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Guys it's all gonna be ok; he's a very stable genius.

 

[BoMac]

President Fredo

 

[TheFox]

If Trump was a horse he'd be put down. He's stumbling along like a wounded demented lunatic.

 

[digitize]

The degree to which this imbecile is utterly lost in his own ego, propped up by smarter people who have no integrity and will do anything for tax cuts, is fascinating and terrifying in equal measure.

 

[iron yuppie]

and will do anything for tax cuts, is fascinating and terrifying in equal measure.

It's fascinating that the only thing that seems to bind the entirety of the Right is their abject hatred of taxes.

 

[Nick66]

It's fascinating that the only thing that seems to bind the entirety of the Right is their abject hatred of taxes.

Mostly what binds the right together is absolute hatred for the left. And contempt for the other side is pretty much what binds the left together these days as well.

It's all about what you're against.

 

[BVS]

Mostly what binds the right together is absolute hatred for the left. And contempt for the other side is pretty much what binds the left together these days as well.

It's all about what you're against.

I think this holds a lot of truth, that’s why to Irvine’s point, how was Trump not enough?! Whereas I find Phil’s optimism that it’s really about policy refreshing, unfortunately it simply isn’t true.

 

[digitize]

It's fascinating that the only thing that seems to bind the entirety of the Right is their abject hatred of taxes.

I’ll add one thing to this: abortion. For that reason, some blind loyalty also comes from appointment of the right SCOTUS Justices.

 

[DaveC]

that tweet sounds like it was written by a bot trying to farm karma on /r/iamverysmart.

 

[BVS]

I am like really really smart guys. And totally mentally stable, this is my VERY first Interference post. Your welcome.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm smart and I want respect!

 

[Bluer White]

"Trump says he would 'absolutely' talk to North Korea's Kim on phone"

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...y-talk-to-north-koreas-kim-on-phone/23325957/

 

[Bluer White]

you're a smart guy, Nick, and you often contribute good things. however, you're not any smarter or more informed than any of the other regulars in here. why do you have to be so patronizing and pompous?

Clearly, tongue in cheek here ^

 

[Nick66]

Clearly, tongue in cheek here ^

Clearly!