Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:22 am UTC

Also, political parties are literally unaccounted for in the US constitution, and legally are private entities with no legal recognition, and our first president explicitly warned everybody not to form political parties, which was immediately ignored as the very next election after his resignation featured one of the parties we still have today (against another that's since died). So, the idea of one "party" "controlling" one house of Congress and another the other is something the US constitution just isn't prepared to deal with, because as far as it knows there are no such things as parties, just individuals and states, and each of those gets its own house.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cyanyoshi » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:44 am UTC

teelo wrote:
Thesh wrote:
teelo wrote:Seems to just be there to delay passing laws even longer.

That was literally the reasoning behind it. Basically, the founding fathers were really cynical about democracy and most of the decisions they made were about trying to protect the system from irrational voters, and so at every turn they found a way to make the system less democratic.

I guess my actual question is: is there an advantage I'm missing?

NZ used to have a bicameral system about 130 or so years ago but voted it scrapped at some point.

The idea of having a bicameral legislature was a way to get both big and small states on board with the government that would replace the original US government which was far too weak. Basically, legislation would fail to pass if it doesn't get broad support from either the people's representatives (House of Representatives) or the states' representatives (Senate). The susceptibility of the system to gridlock could be either a feature or a bug, depending on your perspective. The new government could wield a lot more power, so they wanted to make it difficult for this power to be abused -- the default state would be for the government to grind to a halt, instead of any one group seizing power and imposing their will on the whole country.

That's the theory, at least.

Leovan
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:19 am UTC

Same theory behind the bicameral legislature in Switzerland. We have 26 very independent states, some with a population in the hundreds and some in the millions. The writers of the constitution wanted a democratic system (and unlike the US, we have provisions for direct democracy) but to get some of the less populous states to join in, each state was awarded 2 representatives in the 'senate'. Well, some states are considered 'half-states' and only get one, mostly states that have split up since their founding.
Another difference is that we have an executive of 7 people who take turns being 'president' for representational purposes, and each have a department. Those are not elected directly, but come from the parliament, to make sure that they represent the different parties (usually 2/2/2/1 and smaller parties get shafted), languages (4/2/1, even though we have 4 languages...), religion (4/3), sexes(currently 4m/3f, but it's been the other way around).

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am UTC

The tendency for government to grind to a halt had another feature: Stability.

When laws can be passed quickly and efficiently it means for the average citizen that the rules and regulations you have to live by could change just as quickly. It becomes difficult to budget when your taxation rate could change on a whim (at it had on more than one occasion for the colonists being taxed from England). A lengthy grinding legislative process let people get on with their day-to-day without having to worry about wild and arbitrary fluctuations in the price of goods or materials because someone on high changed the tax rate.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

ijuin
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:55 am UTC

The other underlying assumption is that when something extremely urgent comes along (e.g. Pearl Harbor attack), the parties put aside their differences for the moment in order to act in the combined interest of all. It is this part which has broken down over the last three or four Presidential Administrations—the parties are now so intractably opposed that they would rather let the whole nation burn than submit to the opposition. The present “let the shutdown continue until the other side capitulates even if it lasts till the next election” attitude is a prime example of this breakdown.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:14 am UTC

The problem is, while it looks bad for Trump & Co, it is harming the Democratic constituency the hardest. It's federal workers that are currently getting their paychecks delayed, and especially so with furloughed workers at the national parks and NASA and the like who aren't getting their paychecks ever. And as much as this pisses these people off, they weren't going to vote for Trump in the first place. But now, they have less money to donate to the Democrats, which while money shouldn't affect an election we all know it does.

Where it will have a massive impact is that a sudden shortage of money in the economy can trigger a recession, as the government workers hold off on eating at restaurants, buying new cars, hiring gardeners, etc. Even if landlords and megacorps agree to not give late fees and such and thus don't damage the economy in that regard, it's less money they have to work with until the federal workers pay the bills. Now, every economist/business is expecting this, which in turn has an impact on how fluctuations in the money supply affect prices and the economy. Whatever happens, this period of time in the US is going to be studied and heatedly debated in economics departments for decades. Goddamn "interesting times" curse.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:30 am UTC

Sources say Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress.

Coming next: Bears and the woods: A shocking correlation.
Movie at 10.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:09 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:The other underlying assumption is that when something extremely urgent comes along (e.g. Pearl Harbor attack), the parties put aside their differences for the moment in order to act in the combined interest of all. It is this part which has broken down over the last three or four Presidential Administrations—the parties are now so intractably opposed that they would rather let the whole nation burn than submit to the opposition. The present “let the shutdown continue until the other side capitulates even if it lasts till the next election” attitude is a prime example of this breakdown.
I've heard a lot of criticism that says that the Democrats are engaging in the same sort of "Our Way Or The Highway" shenanigans here, too -- but while I agree Pelosi's recent "spat" with Trump over the State of the Union is pure political chicanery (and Democrats deserve to be slammed for it), I don't otherwise see it.

What are the Democrats' options in this situation? Where is the 'moral highroad' they should be taking -- and where will take them? Compromising here means expending five billion dollars on a pet project that, at best, will have zero impact on border security -- and at worst? -- will make us less secure overall. It also means providing Trump with a shiny new executive wrecking ball to use against Democrats whenever he doesn't get his way ("Refuse to approve my bills? Fine, I'll shut down the government until you say yes."). It also means adding legitimacy and credibility to a xenophobic narrative that is demonstrably false (the 'crisis' of illegal immigration) by putting the full weight of the US government against it.

On top of this, the Democrats' have tried capitulation to this racist, xenophobic narrative. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

I'm not happy with Pelosi or the Democrats. I think they're shit. But I'm pleased that, for once, they aren't rolling over and showing their bellies to a Republican party that has clearly lost its fucking mind.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:46 pm UTC

The way to do it is you reframe it so that both sides saves face. Democrats agree to some additional money for stuff that rhymes with wall, but no wall. Republicans lower their ransom number from 5 billion vs 1.6 billion down(Democrats already offered this, and also offered 25 billion in exchange for DACA) to 2 billion or something. Maybe some goodie that Democrats want like extra snap or even DACA. But Trump is doubling down here, and Democrats are pressuring leadership/politicians to not give an inch. (Though 1.6 additional billion seems generous to me).

What I don't like, is the attempt to drag non-essential employees back to work in order to reduce the political fallout. Trump has too much latitude here.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The way to do it is you reframe it so that both sides saves face. Democrats agree to some additional money for stuff that rhymes with wall, but no wall. Republicans lower their ransom number from 5 billion vs 1.6 billion down(Democrats already offered this, and also offered 25 billion in exchange for DACA) to 2 billion or something. Maybe some goodie that Democrats want like extra snap or even DACA. But Trump is doubling down here, and Democrats are pressuring leadership/politicians to not give an inch. (Though 1.6 additional billion seems generous to me).
I agree that, if politics was operating as it should be, there'd be compromise here involving expending money on border security and infrastructure. However, Trump has made it clear he won't agree to anything that doesn't contain the phrase "5 billion dollars" and "build a border wall". Compromise is impossible -- and it's got nothing to do with the Democrats. All they can do is shrug and wait him out. If Trump wants to shut the government down for two years over this, all they can do is try to circumnavigate him. Giving him what he wants means permitting this strategy to work -- and this strategy cannot be permitted to work.

Hell, I'm tempted to say the Democrats should be even more hard-line about this: When a child starts screaming and breaking dishes because he wants apple-pie for desert, the appropriate response is not to offer him ice-cream instead.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:31 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote: Giving him what he wants means permitting this strategy to work -- and this strategy cannot be permitted to work.

Hell, I'm tempted to say the Democrats should be even more hard-line about this: When a child starts screaming and breaking dishes because he wants apple-pie for desert, the appropriate response is not to offer him ice-cream instead.
Amen to that.

Giving in, or even appearing to give in, is what sets up and validates a dictatorship. As a kid I'd wondered why, in a system where one party makes the law but the other party must approve it first, why the other party can't simply say "The only law I will approve is {this one}" thus becoming in effect a dictator. I also wondered why airliners weren't used as weapons, when they fly all over the world.

I have my answer now, and I don't like it. I don't think I want to say any other things I'd thought of at that age.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:56 am UTC

Trump retweets unsubstantiated, xenophobic nonsense again.

The bit about prayer rugs can only have come from a fringe group. Heh.

What if Trump's actually been trying to stop the flow of rugs into the U.S. all along, and everyone's been assuming he meant drugs?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:36 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Trump retweets unsubstantiated, xenophobic nonsense again.

The bit about prayer rugs can only have come from a fringe group. Heh.

What if Trump's actually been trying to stop the flow of rugs into the U.S. all along, and everyone's been assuming he meant drugs?
The fucked up part is that even if it was true, who cares? "Oh my God, there are Muslims in Mexico!"

Also:
CNN wrote:Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.
This story bothers me -- not because Mueller's people corrected Buzzfeed, but because it's the same thing with James Comey all over again, yet people still refuse to believe that these guys aren't operating at the behest of some insidious political agenda.

However you feel about Comey's decision regarding Hillary's emails or Mueller's decision regarding Buzzfeed, these things make it clear they are not on the side of any political party. It bothers the shit out of me seeing Republicans treat them as credible investigators when their statements serve Republican interests, and like political hacks when they don't. Democrats do this too, but Fox News has it nailed down to a science.

Anyway, yeah -- a lesson Trump consistently teaches everyone: Just because your subject is an idiotic, xenophobic, fascist, racist blow-hard doesn't make it now okay to abandon journalistic rigor.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The fucked up part is that even if it was true, who cares? "Oh my God, there are Muslims in Mexico!"


Oh, but you can tell that these particular Muslims are super-committed religious radicals, because they abandoned their prayer rugs (and their Qur'ans, too, if you read everything that this very credible but unidentified "Border rancher" is quoted as saying). That's how you know.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:27 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Oh, but you can tell that these particular Muslims are super-committed religious radicals, because they abandoned their prayer rugs (and their Qur'ans, too, if you read everything that this very credible but unidentified "Border rancher" is quoted as saying). That's how you know.


They didn't need them anymore. They immediately blew themselves up in crowded public spaces after crossing the border, we just didn't hear about it because of the agenda of the liberal Fake News.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:57 pm UTC

Trump offers DACA support for Wall.

This is a hamburger today for repayment on Tuesday (As in Trump will take the wall money and then never support DACA, he's done it here before, he did it with North Korea, and he will do it again whenever he can). I'd say that the Democrats probably know that already though.

President Trump makes special announcement on the humanitarian crisis at the southern border.

You have got to give Trump credit where it is due. The lies stream out of his mouth so smoothly and with such excellent acting, intonation, and conviction. I can definitely see why his supporters are so ready to believe him. If I didn't catch some of the logical leaps (Vast quantities of drugs pouring across the border [citation needed as to what "vast" means]... drugs account for #### deaths each year [How many of those drugs are from the southern border/see earlier citation needed]) and outright lies, it would be very easy to believe him. He doesn't make it difficult on his supporters. All they have to do is nothing (in terms of fact checking) and they'll believe everything he says. I will note that I don't believe he wrote his own speech (he just knows how to lie smoothly which is a difficult skill).
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:04 pm UTC

MAGA hat boy's mother blames 'black Muslims' for her son harassing Native American man.

But, of course, criticizing people for racism and meanieheads telling people to not teach their children to be bigots is how we got Trump. Conservatives need to be coddled and allowed to live in a fantasy world so we don't upset them.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:10 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:Trump offers DACA support for Wall.

This is a hamburger today for repayment on Tuesday (As in Trump will take the wall money and then never support DACA, he's done it here before, he did it with North Korea, and he will do it again whenever he can). I'd say that the Democrats probably know that already though.


Note also that it's a permanent wall today for a temporary extension of Dreamers' limbo situation.

I.e., just postponing when Trump will again make his base happy by kicking the DACA kids out.

If he were actually offering the DACA kids citizenship, it might be worth considering, but this isn't worth it.
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:13 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:You have got to give Trump credit where it is due. The lies stream out of his mouth so smoothly and with such excellent acting, intonation, and conviction. I can definitely see why his supporters are so ready to believe him. If I didn't catch some of the logical leaps (Vast quantities of drugs pouring across the border [citation needed as to what "vast" means]... drugs account for #### deaths each year [How many of those drugs are from the southern border/see earlier citation needed]) and outright lies, it would be very easy to believe him. He doesn't make it difficult on his supporters. All they have to do is nothing (in terms of fact checking) and they'll believe everything he says. I will note that I don't believe he wrote his own speech (he just knows how to lie smoothly which is a difficult skill).

Well sure, he's incredibly talented in that regard. I might go as far as to say he's the most successful con man in history.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:06 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:You have got to give Trump credit where it is due. The lies stream out of his mouth so smoothly and with such excellent acting, intonation, and conviction. I can definitely see why his supporters are so ready to believe him. If I didn't catch some of the logical leaps (Vast quantities of drugs pouring across the border [citation needed as to what "vast" means]... drugs account for #### deaths each year [How many of those drugs are from the southern border/see earlier citation needed]) and outright lies, it would be very easy to believe him. He doesn't make it difficult on his supporters. All they have to do is nothing (in terms of fact checking) and they'll believe everything he says. I will note that I don't believe he wrote his own speech (he just knows how to lie smoothly which is a difficult skill).
This is actually partly what always shocked me about Trump: He's *never* struck me as a good liar. Even seeing him on television as a child, I recall thinking of him as a greasy used car salesman. He throws so many red flags regarding being a liar that I never understood how anyone could take him as being anything different.

Seriously, the past two years has been like watching half the country fall for the stupidest, most obvious con-job imaginable. It's like realizing half the country can't recognize that the Nigerian Prince email is a scam.

Seeing Trump elected has been an eye-opening experience for me -- both in regards to the relative self-awareness of my fellow Americans and their ability to recognize their own lack of self-awareness.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:49 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:This is actually partly what always shocked me about Trump: He's *never* struck me as a good liar. Even seeing him on television as a child, I recall thinking of him as a greasy used car salesman. He throws so many red flags regarding being a liar that I never understood how anyone could take him as being anything different.

Seriously, the past two years has been like watching half the country fall for the stupidest, most obvious con-job imaginable. It's like realizing half the country can't recognize that the Nigerian Prince email is a scam.

Seeing Trump elected has been an eye-opening experience for me -- both in regards to the relative self-awareness of my fellow Americans and their ability to recognize their own lack of self-awareness.

I think that is the wrong conclusion to draw. What should be the punch in the guts is it showing just how much half the country hates the democrats. Because that's the two-party system for you: A vote for a candidate isn't a mark of approval particularly, it simply means someone was viewed as the lesser of two evils.

So, yes, some might well have been taken in by Trump, but almost certainly less folk than you seem to assume. Where the scales should be falling from your eyes is just how shockingly successful the negative campaigning must have been, I suppose from the Tea Party era onwards.

Personally I'd guess the odds to be better than 50/50 that Trump will win the next election too...

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:09 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
gd1 wrote:You have got to give Trump credit where it is due. The lies stream out of his mouth so smoothly and with such excellent acting, intonation, and conviction. I can definitely see why his supporters are so ready to believe him. If I didn't catch some of the logical leaps (Vast quantities of drugs pouring across the border [citation needed as to what "vast" means]... drugs account for #### deaths each year [How many of those drugs are from the southern border/see earlier citation needed]) and outright lies, it would be very easy to believe him. He doesn't make it difficult on his supporters. All they have to do is nothing (in terms of fact checking) and they'll believe everything he says. I will note that I don't believe he wrote his own speech (he just knows how to lie smoothly which is a difficult skill).
This is actually partly what always shocked me about Trump: He's *never* struck me as a good liar. Even seeing him on television as a child, I recall thinking of him as a greasy used car salesman. He throws so many red flags regarding being a liar that I never understood how anyone could take him as being anything different.

Seriously, the past two years has been like watching half the country fall for the stupidest, most obvious con-job imaginable. It's like realizing half the country can't recognize that the Nigerian Prince email is a scam.

Seeing Trump elected has been an eye-opening experience for me -- both in regards to the relative self-awareness of my fellow Americans and their ability to recognize their own lack of self-awareness.


It's just that there's no hesitation in the lies. It sounds like the truth and he alternates between facts and lies like a professional swimmer does with his arms. With so many things said so quickly it's hard to know what is the truth unless you already know, and many people don't have time/interest/etc. to know these days. Two parts from gaming:
+In planetside 2, sniping isn't as hard as you'd imagine if you aren't picky about targets. You'd be amazed by how many people stand still for a few seconds on the battlefield.
+In Diablo 2 "The best lies are hidden in truth."

I do think he came up with MAGA, Warren 1/2020, sending bricks (a dangerous insult tied in with the wall ... throwing bricks through windows, but what a wall is made of), and other things. The same way a con man uses a body builder to hoc strength tonic.

Another thing: Trump was raised from birth to be a con man to masses by his father. He's been practicing for 70 years now. There's that saying that it takes 10000 hours of practice to be good at something. Even politicians aren't raised like that, used car salesmen are specialized towards individuals, and normal con men work small crowds. Trump is a rarity among con men.
Last edited by gd1 on Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:58 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:he alternates between facts and lies like a professional swimmer does with his arms.

Call me just irrationally averse to everything he says¹, but in my experience he actually alternates between non-truths and lies.

The closest things to truths he gives is misrepresented 'truths'. The stock market being the highest ever, for example, when the nature of the stock market is to (over the long term) have bigger and bigger numbers and so you can almost always pick your moments to highlight a spike higher than any prior spike, even if the spikes aren't getting quite so high as they should have been on past performance. So it's true, but only like "2019 is the highest year number we've had so far, thanks to Trump" is true.(At best, he can at least claim that we're not in a global financial crash, for the time being, though as he's even been using the "best economy², ev4r!" meme when it clearly isn't, seemingly not even caring for dissembling (or misinterpreting, like "where's the Global Warming, in the midst of this snowstorm?") but just throwing things out there that perennially sound good.


Rule number 1, for me, is to presume that what Donald says is a lie. I'm rarely proven otherwise. Rule 2 is that if Donald says <current opposition bugbear> is guilty of doing bad things that may or may not be true, but it's odds on favourite that Donald did do this thing, as will eventually be known (hard to prove a negative - but so many things, from dubious Russian dealings to rigging polls, seem to have clearly come to his mind as accusations towards others only after he tried to do them himself, so if he accused a random senator of TPing a tree in the grounds of Trump Tower I'd be left wondering where he had run amok with the bumbaclart rolls).


Which I know leaves me vulnerable to believing the worst about him, even when it's not the case, but he's just so impetuously disassociated from the truth that I don't think I'm making enough errors of judgement to worry about that.



¹ I've said before that if Trump said the sky was blue I'd want to check this for myself.
² i.e. market figures, which is not necessarily the same thing, as volume of demand and currently presumed prices of shares can be inflated by overvaluing as things still going bad but investors assuming they'll momentarily turn out good again and they're trying to get in the roller-coaster car as it rushes through at a presumed dip, to get them to the top of what they think is the rise coming up. But I digress!

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:04 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
gd1 wrote:he alternates between facts and lies like a professional swimmer does with his arms.

Call me just irrationally averse to everything he says¹, but in my experience he actually alternates between non-truths and lies.

The closest things to truths he gives is misrepresented 'truths'. The stock market being the highest ever, for example, when the nature of the stock market is to (over the long term) have bigger and bigger numbers and so you can almost always pick your moments to highlight a spike higher than any prior spike, even if the spikes aren't getting quite so high as they should have been on past performance. So it's true, but only like "2019 is the highest year number we've had so far, thanks to Trump" is true.(At best, he can at least claim that we're not in a global financial crash, for the time being, though as he's even been using the "best economy², ev4r!" meme when it clearly isn't, seemingly not even caring for dissembling (or misinterpreting, like "where's the Global Warming, in the midst of this snowstorm?") but just throwing things out there that perennially sound good.


Rule number 1, for me, is to presume that what Donald says is a lie. I'm rarely proven otherwise. Rule 2 is that if Donald says <current opposition bugbear> is guilty of doing bad things that may or may not be true, but it's odds on favourite that Donald did do this thing, as will eventually be known (hard to prove a negative - but so many things, from dubious Russian dealings to rigging polls, seem to have clearly come to his mind as accusations towards others only after he tried to do them himself, so if he accused a random senator of TPing a tree in the grounds of Trump Tower I'd be left wondering where he had run amok with the bumbaclart rolls).


Which I know leaves me vulnerable to believing the worst about him, even when it's not the case, but he's just so impetuously disassociated from the truth that I don't think I'm making enough errors of judgement to worry about that.



¹ I've said before that if Trump said the sky was blue I'd want to check this for myself.
² i.e. market figures, which is not necessarily the same thing, as volume of demand and currently presumed prices of shares can be inflated by overvaluing as things still going bad but investors assuming they'll momentarily turn out good again and they're trying to get in the roller-coaster car as it rushes through at a presumed dip, to get them to the top of what they think is the rise coming up. But I digress!


It's a fact that drugs come across the border, just not anywhere near what he's stated. There probably was a caravan, but it wasn't comprised of the people he described as evil. The best lies are hidden in truth.

Pic unrelated:
Spoiler:
Image
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:57 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I think that is the wrong conclusion to draw. What should be the punch in the guts is it showing just how much half the country hates the democrats. Because that's the two-party system for you: A vote for a candidate isn't a mark of approval particularly, it simply means someone was viewed as the lesser of two evils.

So, yes, some might well have been taken in by Trump, but almost certainly less folk than you seem to assume. Where the scales should be falling from your eyes is just how shockingly successful the negative campaigning must have been, I suppose from the Tea Party era onwards.

Personally I'd guess the odds to be better than 50/50 that Trump will win the next election too...
I sincerely doubt Trump would have won without the solid base that genuinely believes he's the greatest President in modern history.

The Republicans who voted for him because he has an R next to his name are culpable, too -- but I kind of expected that. The people who chant "BUILD! A! WALL!" are the ones who concern me, and the ones who's opinions, numbers, and overall gullibility I've found so deeply shocking.
gd1 wrote:It's just that there's no hesitation in the lies.
Because he doesn't think he's lying. He's not a good con artist; he's a con artist who doesn't think he's a con artist. He's fallen for his own bullshit.

I imagine that's why he comes off as so "charismatic" despite having the charm of a soggy poop-bag -- he comes off as 'authentic'. If you're used to politicians putting on 'airs' to placate their base, someone who absolutely believes the pigshit he's shilling can be very compelling.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:40 am UTC

As a Frankfurtian bullshitter (as in, one who spews "bullshit" as Frankfurt defines it), Trump doesn't seem to care about whether what he's saying is true or not. He says whatever would be convenient to be able to say right now, and in his mind for that moment that's true enough, and it doesn't matter whether it will or won't "be true" in the longer run. It makes a nice story to make him look better to whoever he's talking to right now, and that's the only standard of truth that matters to him, so in that moment he believes it as much as he wants everyone else to, because he desperately wants to think well of himself as much as he wants other people to.

I've seen firsthand that behavior in other people, like my parents, who are desperate to protect their own self-image. They say whatever it is that they want to believe to be true, hoping that by saying it and having everyone else agree or at least not-disagree (which is tacit agreement, in their perception), they will be able to believe it's true as well.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:51 am UTC

He is a sociopath and a narcissist who has been rewarded for his worst behavior, whose wealth has ensured he could act largely free from consequence, and who has the entire conservative influence network apologizing for him purely because they fear progress more than they love their country.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:55 am UTC

(Written @Hippo, the two more recent posts have some connectuon to this, but I'm not currently replying to what they said while I was in the middle of editing.)

If you can fake honesty…

But, no. Modern politicians spin their facts. To various degrees of success. And if they get discovered to have actually lied it's a crippling injury, even a mortal blow to their political careers. Trump (and other "new breed"¹ popularist politicians) appear to be adept at bluffing their authenticism. Not even conning. Conning takes skill, and yet if what these people do is skill then it's shoddy and makedo at best. But they then weather the inevitable criticisms.

Their main success is not by being better at leading people, it's by being in the right place at the right time to be latched onto by people waiting to be led. Or "table flippers". Those who have a problem with the hand they are dealt and just want to flip the table, against the current order, and see if once it settles down and new hands are dealt it'll be something subjectively 'better'.

Trump has benefitted by being the Useful Idiot for the cryptoanarchists, in this regard, even if not deliberately made so by the other nation-interests like the one from which that phrase arises.




¹ Maybe old-breed, too. Maybe it was just in the golden age of the polis that politicians couldn't just ignore the 'wrong sort of public'. Prior to late 20thC journalism it was just too easy so long as you could survive the occasional Hogarthing, and now it's returned to the whims and vicissitudes of the dedicated 'pamphleteers' as to where core demographics of the chattering classes aim their adoration or wrath.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:59 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:But, no. Modern politicians spin their facts. To various degrees of success. And if they get discovered to have actually lied it's a crippling injury, even a mortal blow to their political careers. Trump (and other "new breed"¹ popularist politicians) appear to be adept at bluffing their authenticism. Not even conning. Conning takes skill, and yet if what these people do is skill then it's shoddy and makedo at best. But they then weather the inevitable criticisms.
This is relevant in regards to dog-whistle politics. To steal a quote from the linked article:

Lee Atwater, Republican Strategist (1981) wrote:Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Republican politicians have expended tremendous effort in courting the nastier parts of their base without actually owning them. That base has gotten increasingly angry with politicians only willing to validate their xenophobia via oblique references and occasional 'winks' to the camera.

Then in comes Trump: A man who doesn't 'wink' at them so much as invite them up on the stage, throw an arm around them, and declare them 'fine people'. He doesn't do this as part of some brilliant strategy or con; he does this because he's an oblivious, overt racist who's never occupied spaces where you have to hide your racism to prosper.

I think his success and the recent success of people like him (Shapiro, Miller, so many others) probably has a lot to do with a rejection of increasingly abstracted, sanitized rhetoric of politics and media, both of which insist on euphemisms wrapped in euphemisms. Heck, the media only just recently started calling Trump's lies "lies" -- it took them something like a year to finally find the moxie.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:24 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I sincerely doubt Trump would have won without the solid base that genuinely believes he's the greatest President in modern history.

Again, I don't think that's how they think. The main lie he successfully sold is that he's 'anti-elite', that he'd 'drain the swamp' etc. You don't to be 'great' for that any more than a bull has to be 'great' to smash up a china shop.

It was part troll vote (sticking two fingers up at 'p0litical correctness gone mad'), part racism, part xenophobia, part sexism and so on, but these are all reactionary things; None of them need people to actually regard him as good per se. He's a message from a part of society that feels sidelined lashing out at the rest.

Most mainstream republicans were horrified by his rise, but then, once he won the nomination, the two party system meant they had to fall in line and support him. 'He may be a monster but he's our monster...'

None of that should detract from your worry; If anything it should be more worrisome...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:16 pm UTC

My 'table-flippers'.

"Hey, Johnny, what are you rebelling against?"
"What've you got?"

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:18 pm UTC

elasto wrote:If anything it should be more worrisome...
... that 62,979,636 people voted for a guy they knew was a self-centred, arrogant, stupid, infantile, dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, incompetent, bad-tempered disaster waiting to happen who'd rob the country in every way he could, foul everything up, badly damage the economy and education systems, wreck international relations, get tens of thousands of people killed, trash the air and water quality, replace competent civil servants with family pets and generally suck, because they "want a president who hates spics too and don't care about that other stuff," like the voters who wanted to re-elect the guy who used his position of authority to sexually abuse minors because "what's important is that he's not a democrat?"
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:17 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I sincerely doubt Trump would have won without the solid base that genuinely believes he's the greatest President in modern history.

Again, I don't think that's how they think. The main lie he successfully sold is that he's 'anti-elite', that he'd 'drain the swamp' etc. You don't to be 'great' for that any more than a bull has to be 'great' to smash up a china shop.

It was part troll vote (sticking two fingers up at 'p0litical correctness gone mad'), part racism, part xenophobia, part sexism and so on, but these are all reactionary things; None of them need people to actually regard him as good per se. He's a message from a part of society that feels sidelined lashing out at the rest.


Exactly. There is no doubt a core of really awful people who share his really awful beliefs; folks who share his racism, sexism, and xenophobia and do see him as a good, maybe even great, president.

But I think that for a lot more people, it was a protest vote. There is a large segment of the population that feels that government no longer represents their interest, especially at the federal level. There are a lot of people who believe that government is incompetent, corrupt, or both; and who saw Trump as somebody who could shake things up. A lot of people believed - and many still believe - that the awfulness of Trump is exaggerated or even fabricated by the media.

Most mainstream republicans were horrified by his rise, but then, once he won the nomination, the two party system meant they had to fall in line and support him. 'He may be a monster but he's our monster...'


I think what really horrified some of the old guard in the GOP is seeing the rules change. You have a bunch of old assholes who've learned to use the system to keep themselves in power - and suddenly this fucking game show host comes along and not only does he bullshit his way into the White House - he bullshits his way right past *their* chosen candidates. Someone like Bush or Cruz or maybe even Rubio was supposed to take it; someone who knew the game and would play the game. What horrifies them is that the result was as much (or more) a finger to them as to the democrats.

And now that's he's president, they're terrified that if they defy him on matters of any consequence, they're going to be sent home; if not to democrats then to Trump-friendly republicans.

None of that should detract from your worry; If anything it should be more worrisome...


I am more worried by the fact that our government got to the point where people saw Donald Trump as a choice than I am about Donald Trump himself.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:34 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
elasto wrote:If anything it should be more worrisome...
... that 62,979,636 people voted for a guy because "what's important is that he's not a democrat?"

Exactly. The eye-opening part for me is that, yes, partisan politics is that bad in your country. How much worse must they view Clinton?

cphite wrote:I am more worried by the fact that our government got to the point where people saw Donald Trump as a choice than I am about Donald Trump himself.

Exactly. Imagine someone with the populist appeal of Trump but with genuine Machiavellian intent...

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:32 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Exactly. The eye-opening part for me is that, yes, partisan politics is that bad in your country. How much worse must they view Clinton?


The partisanship can extend beyond just Clinton vs Trump though. The Supreme court for example. Already the GOP got 2 new LIFETIME appointments made. Ginsberg and Breyer are both 80+ years old. This term was probably one of the most important in terms of SCOTUS. A staunch Republican could easily see a disastrous president who gets 2 (or more) justices appointed to the Supreme court as well worth it in the long term.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:34 pm UTC

Oh, absolutely, apologies if I didn't make that clearer.

Yes, most voters have 'red-lines' - and for every voter that says 'if you're racist (true or not), that's enough to disqualify you for me no matter what else is going on', another will say 'if you're a baby-killer (true or not), that's enough to disqualify you for me no matter what else is going on', and another will say 'if you're going to take away my guns (true or not), that's enough to disqualify you for me no matter what else is going on'.

This isn't all negative campaigning; There are some genuine differences of view at play here. Most countries manage to have a more rational debate about it, but, ironically, America's primacy on freedom of speech might be permitting the nutjobs on all sides to drown out the more nuanced voices in the center.

But, yes, there are a number of 'winner takes all' situations here where, yes, literally the only thing that matters is the D or R after their name, which makes it rational for even those who hate Trump to their very core to still support him. The Supreme Court is perhaps the most obvious example, but there are others too.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:46 pm UTC

VERIFY: CAN SENATORS REMOVE MITCH MCCONNELL TO REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT?

I initially thought that the Republican senators had no power to get the vote going without Mitch McConnell, and that he was protecting their re-election by giving them plausible deniability as to their stance on the shutdown.

As it turns out, based on the linked article, the Republican senators could remove Mitch McConnell, start the vote, and override a veto. I hope that the people who support them and Trump and have been hurt by this shutdown remember that on election day.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:11 am UTC

gd1 wrote:...As it turns out, based on the linked article, the Republican senators could remove Mitch McConnell...
The powers that Mitch is wielding are the powers of a dictator. Ditto the powers that Trump is using (not signing any legislation except the thing he wants - that is essentially being a dictator).

Now, neither of them are "official" dictators, inasmuch as there are legal ways around them. But are there political ways around them? And as illumination of this (perhaps dubious) point, of the other dictators, were there legal ways around them? How much value is a legal way if the politics prohibit it?

How close do these two come to being dictators in the early stage?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:18 am UTC

ucim wrote:
gd1 wrote:...As it turns out, based on the linked article, the Republican senators could remove Mitch McConnell...
The powers that Mitch is wielding are the powers of a dictator. Ditto the powers that Trump is using (not signing any legislation except the thing he wants - that is essentially being a dictator).

Now, neither of them are "official" dictators, inasmuch as there are legal ways around them. But are there political ways around them? And as illumination of this (perhaps dubious) point, of the other dictators, were there legal ways around them? How much value is a legal way if the politics prohibit it?

How close do these two come to being dictators in the early stage?

Jose


I'm just pointing out that McConnell blocking the vote doesn't absolve the Senate Republicans.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:58 am UTC

gd1 wrote:
ucim wrote:
gd1 wrote:...As it turns out, based on the linked article, the Republican senators could remove Mitch McConnell...
The powers that Mitch is wielding are the powers of a dictator. Ditto the powers that Trump is using (not signing any legislation except the thing he wants - that is essentially being a dictator).

Now, neither of them are "official" dictators, inasmuch as there are legal ways around them. But are there political ways around them? And as illumination of this (perhaps dubious) point, of the other dictators, were there legal ways around them? How much value is a legal way if the politics prohibit it?

How close do these two come to being dictators in the early stage?

Jose


I'm just pointing out that McConnell blocking the vote doesn't absolve the Senate Republicans.

It doesn't absolve the voters either. Politicians are in tune with their employers/voters. They know roughly what the population wants. And the population wants them to stand firm on the position about the wall. You get 50% of the party on either side screaming to end the standoff by compromising, and the budget would be solved in hours.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests