Trump is SEE btw. Not sure where anyone sees any Ti. . .Originally Posted by Bertrand
Trump is SEE btw. Not sure where anyone sees any Ti. . .
Interesting. What makes you think he's an ethical type > logical type? Just curious. I always saw him as the logical type lol; cold, harsh, brash, calculating, tells it like it is, doesn't care for political correctness, not giving in to social pressure, etc
--------
As far as Ti specifically,
1. If you listen to him speak, he likes to drop a lot of truth bombs.
For example, he likes to call out mainstream media via Twitter. He likes to call them out on their INCONSISTENCY, in terms of fair reporting, a very Ti-thing to do IMO. "ITS FAKE NEWS!!!!!". I feel like a Te-valuing type would be more skeptical to make such bold claims without having the "real world data" to back it up/prove it. Remember, for Ti types, internal consistency/truth for the individual (Ti) is of more value than public consensus (Te) and I can definitively see this in Trump.
2. You can also get some clues by the way he does interviews at conferences; though he may seem emotionally hot-headed on the surface, beneath it all he presents himself very calm and collectively. When he gets ready to answer a question you can tell he kind of cooly sorts through his mind on what's important, what's not, what's real, what is not, discards extraneous information and accordingly spits out succinct, to the point answers.
T > F here
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-25-2017 at 03:05 PM.
Well, we're seeing very different things in him then. Blunt, no-filter is Se-leading, yes, but both Se-leads can have that quality. What I see is that his reactions, speeches, everything is based on either how he feels about something, or just being a politician and saying the stuff he thinks will get him what he wants. He even admits it, saying one thing before election and then openly admitting to a crowd that it was just campaign talk and that he doesn't care about that stuff now. His ideas have no coherency to them (let's cut spending but build a hugely expensive and idiotic wall. let's "drain the swamp" and pull in all the same old people into administrative positions. Let's stop immigrants from countries involved in terrorism but leave specific countries off that list and add others without any connection to known terrorists and on and on and on) I haven't seen any evidence of Ti, creative or otherwise. Fi creative, Fe demonstrative on the other hand, those I see. Here's a short excerpt I pulled from transcripts of his speeches for a quick example. I really think it speaks for itself:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I want to thank everybody. Very, very special people. And it is true, this is my first stop, officially. We’re not talking about the balls, or we’re not talking about even the speeches -- although they did treat me nicely on that speech yesterday. (Laughter.) I always call them the dishonest media, but they treated me nicely. (Laughter.)
But I want to say that there is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump. There’s nobody. (Applause.)
The wall behind me is very, very special. We’ve been touring for quite a while, and I’ll tell you what -- 29? I can’t believe it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Twenty-eight.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, 28. We got to reduce it. That’s amazing. And we really appreciate what you’ve done in terms of showing us something very special. And your whole group, these are really special, amazing people. Very, very few people could do the job you people do. And I want to just let you know, I am so behind you. And I know maybe sometimes you haven’t gotten the backing that you’ve wanted, and you’re going to get so much backing. Maybe you’re going to say, please don’t give us so much backing. (Laughter.) Mr. President, please, we don’t need that much backing. (Laughter.) But you’re going to have that. And I think everybody in this room knows it.
You know, the military and the law enforcement, generally speaking, but all of it -- but the military gave us tremendous percentages of votes. We were unbelievably successful in the election with getting the vote of the military. And probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did. (Laughter.) But I would guarantee a big portion, because we’re all on the same wavelength, folks. (Applause.) We’re all on the same wavelength, right? He knows. It took Brian about 30 seconds to figure that one out, right, because we know we’re on the same wavelength.
But we’re going to do great things. We’re going to do great things. We’ve been fighting these wars for longer than any wars we’ve ever fought. We have not used the real abilities that we have. We’ve been restrained. We have to get rid of ISIS. Have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. (Applause.) Radical Islamic terrorism. And I said it yesterday -- it has to be eradicated just off the face of the Earth. This is evil. This is evil. And you know, I can understand the other side. We can all understand the other side. There can be wars between countries, there can be wars. You can understand what happened. This is something nobody can even understand. This is a level of evil that we haven’t seen. And you’re going to go to it, and you’re going to do a phenomenal job. But we’re going to end it. It’s time. It’s time right now to end it.
Fair enough. Although I have to say I disagree on claiming there's no coherency/consistency in Trump's ideas
I'd like to point out, though Trump's ideas may seem totally idiotic/incoherent to the outside observer/never-Trumper, to HIM/other conservatives, they may be TOTALLY consistent/reasonable. I think for democrats/liberals all his actions may be perceived like he's being totally crazy, emotional and unreasonable to be honest lol. If you look at mainstream media, it's almost as if EVERYTHING he does is filtered through a negative light. And this isn't anything new. The image of Past Republican presidents/candidates were definitely influenced by the media in a negative light as well
For example, if you recall, George Bush was painted as a dunce, and Sarah Palin was painted as this ditzy stupid blonde lol, thus there would be the temptation in typing them as F versus T. Trump definitely has this emotional, irrational, ******-like image depicted in mainstream media. I mean come on, since DAY ONE it appears like he's doing EVERYTHING wrong lol. It's like OF COURSE people see him as inconsistent and illogical. I don't blame people typing him as ethical lol. Obama, on the other hand, if you recall, was painted as this prophetic, god-like figure; intelligent, charismatic, all about bringing "HOPE AND CHANGE!", etc. Overall, he definitely had very positive media vibes/bias
And I think this bias should be considered when typing politicians. For me, I personally see consistency with Trump, as crazy as it may sound for you lol. But then again, I have a very conservative/Christian/Republican bias too. I also follow politics VERY closely so I'm MUCH more familiar with the nuances of Trumps ideas as well as how he's fairing as president (historically) versus the average American, so that definitely factors into my typing of him
At least we both see Se leading LOL
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-24-2017 at 08:15 PM.
I'm not typing him based on his political beliefs or media portrayals. I'm typing him based on what he says and what he does. But yeah, Se leading seems a given for him, so at least there's that.
Last edited by squark; 02-24-2017 at 12:01 PM.
For example, Trump's executive order on immigration.
Those against Trump were very surprised and shocked when he did this. Characterizing him as impulsive and dangerous. Not making any sense as to why he would do such thing.
His supporters? Not so much. They knew Trump campaigned for this. To Trump supporters his actions are consistent with what he promised.
Therefore, you can make an argument his words/actions have been pretty consistent throughout his presidency thus far.
Lol!! And are you sure about that? Because you just contradicted yourself. You just listed off his political beliefs in an earlier post:
that's just your opinion. just because you think building a wall is idiotic doesn't automatically make him or anyone that supports it anti-Ti lol. his words and actions can still be consistent to someone who values Ti
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-25-2017 at 03:07 PM.
It's the countries he chose to limit and those that he did not limit that was inconsistent with the stated idea of keeping out terrorists.
Trump didn't choose them
Its the list Obama thought was most infiltrated with ISIS during his presidency. Trump was just using this as a starting guide. The possibility of adding more countries is still there.
Your statement is a rationale liberals/democrats/mainstream media uses against Trump BTW.
You're just proving my point EVEN MORE @squark
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-24-2017 at 11:00 PM.
I'm aware he didn't choose them. Was going to elaborate but don't much want to get into a political discussion. He's leaving those kinds of things up to his advisors who are just a continuation of the same old same old. The travel ban wasn't about terrorism, and that's not why those particular countries were targeted. He is doing his populist thing, the media are actually helping him with that btw, and it's all just politics as usual. While some of the ideas listed on his official agenda/platform are good ideas (and others like the wall are absolutely retarded) none of that actually matters.Trump didn't choose them
Its the list Obama thought was most infiltrated with ISIS. Trump was using this as a starting guide. The possibly of adding more countries is still there
You're just proving my point even more @squark
Listen to the words he says, where his emphasis is, what he's focusing on, how he relates to the audience. Take a closer look at his actions, everything he does is political and about influencing people to get what he wants. What he calls being a businessman, I call being a politician, for example on donating to the Clinton Foundation:
"When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me," Trump said. "With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good.Try not to be too influenced by whether you agree with him or not, and just look at what he says and does. Like I said already, I'm not interested in some political debate or something, so I won't say anything more about this, but take a look at what elements he's actually using, and which ones he isn't."Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."
PS. and read this: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._SEE_composite
LOL. That was the whole point of what I've been saying. To differentiate whether HIS ACTIONS are consistent versus whether YOU THINK his policies are consistent or not.
Example:
Campaigning for X while running for president, and now DOING X as president -----> HIS ACTUAL ACTIONS show consistency
vs.
"It's the countries he chose to limit and those that he did not limit that was inconsistent with the stated idea of keeping out terrorists" -----> @squark's OPINION THAT HE'S INCONSISTENT
Ironically you seem to be the one unable to see this nuance.
lol wtf?
What's it about then and why were they chosen? You just lost all credibility here but I'm very curious to hear your answer
Here's a link to the Executive Order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-united-states
I must be reading something wrong???
lol your exact words ---> "It's the countries he chose to limit and those that he did not limit that was inconsistent with the stated idea of keeping out terrorists."
I must be reading something wrong???
rigghhhhht
Your opinion.
Again, just because you personally think building a wall is retarded it doesn't make him/his supporters anti-Ti.
I see the Se. Se is about getting what you want. But where do you see SEE > SLE here
Trust me. I read that multiple times 7 years ago
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-25-2017 at 04:22 PM.
I told you I didn't want to get involved in a poltical discussion. Look at more than just the rhetoric. Do a little research and then draw your own conclusions.
lol
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-25-2017 at 01:57 PM.
Well, it looks like Trump is just going to be more of the same... not really any different than Clinton. More Wall Street and bankers puppetry, more privatization, more neo-liberalism, more deregulation, more kleptocracy and oligarchies. He wants to invest in public infrastructure so he himself and his friends can profit off of it. There's just not going to be a war with Russia (instead, it might be a war with China). Yay!
Shoulda been Bernie.
You're a little too emotionally invested in this. Especially if you think you "beat" anyone. Once you read a bit more and learn a bit more about what's going on (or if you do I should say) you'll hopefully see that.
it must suck to lose
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-25-2017 at 03:00 PM.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and I truly belief he was the only candidate on either side who would have taken on the establishment to any positive end. That said, I don't think the establishment under Obama was so horrible (it was flawed and there remained issues to be addressed, but that is the case with any presidency), and Trump has been doing many things that I do not believe Clinton would have done. No one who wasn't desperate to buy into the pipe dreams Trump was spouting is surprised by how things are turning out. The only thing that surprises me is how quickly and unscrupulously the Republican orthodoxy in Congress has fallen in line. I thought they would at least pull a John McCain and put up a facade of having a moral compass.
Namely, the threat the Trump administration poses to the environment is my biggest concern. Everything else is moot when this foundation of public health is at sake. Environmental stewardship is, IMO, the issue of greatest salience with regard to the quality of life for anyone under the age of 50 and their children in the immediate and distant future. While Hillary may indeed have been in cahoots with Wall Street, she at least acknowledged the necessity of making sure our air is breathable, our water is drinkable (and that there was enough fresh water available to sustain us to begin with), that our wildlife survived, and that we wouldn't all die of cancer induced by exposure to toxic chemicals. She acknowledged that coal industry has suffered, but was rejected because she dared to tell the inconvenient truth that coal is simply going to decline from here on out and that renewables are the future.
Trump, on the other hand, has put a guy who is basically temperamentally opposed to the whole reason the EPA exists, undone a rule to protect waterways from coal mining waste, want to either divert or end NASA's research on climate change, and just generally seems to regard all environmental policy (or all regulation in general) as an obstruction to job creation. This is a myopic perspective. It's understandable he wants to save and create jobs for the blue collar voters who supported him. But it's also in the best interest of everyone that our environment is protected. Regulations exist for a reason. They may be inconvenient and limiting, but they're not just there to be annoying bureaucratic red tape. For the most part, they're there to protect the public interest.
Also... there's the issue of Steve Bannon, a very dangerous man who has basically declared war on the free press and the thin-skinned, testy attitude Trump, Spicer, and Conway have taken with regard to media scrutiny, to the point where several adversarial news organizations (The New York Times, BBC, CNN, Politico) were outright barred from yesterday's press briefing, and preferential treatment was given to the likes of OAN and (gasp) Bannon's own Breitbart. I don't think Clinton would have presented a such a threat to the First Amendment.
Last edited by Animal; 02-25-2017 at 04:24 PM.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Well... what is happening is extremely interesting... and also not very surprising, because the exact same thing has happened in my own country. It seems like the US is turning more and more like a "socialist" state, where democratic power is becoming more and more vague and hazy and becoming more just for show. The government itself is losing control, losing control to the political power-apparatus, the bureaucrats, the CIAs, the military-industrial complex, the ones that they should be controlling. The industries and financial sectors and the bankers are having more and more cozy and close relationships with the government. The President does not control them, they control "him". And they have started to have a life of their own. And it has been this way for a while now, since George W Bush, and Trump is merely a challenger.
Basically, the "establishment" was simply too big, and too powerful for one man, that is, Donald Trump, who is basically a politically inexperienced man, to take on.
Glenn Greenwald, a very penetrative and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist describes it perfectly:
- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46476.htmGLENN GREENWALD: The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.
Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news—in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.
As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America
Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
Commentary: Trump is showing how the Deep State really works
Is Trump fighting the ‘deep state’ or creating his own?
Discussion Of ‘Deep State’ Erupts On Fox Business:
You have people who are too smart and too cunning for the rest of the population (the bureaucrats, the CIAs, the career politicians, the finance sectors, the "elites") who operate "under the radar" of the regular media scrutiny and civil surveillance, "in the dark", who are "invisible", who were not even democratically elected, but nonetheless hold an enormous amount of power, and therefore, almost invincible and almost impossible to take down. They are the ones who control and exercise real power, not the government, not the President. They are powerful, they are fearsome and furious. They can manipulate the left, they can manipulate the right, and they can even manipulate Donald Trump. Or if he doesn't comply, then surely they can bring him down somehow by any means of arsenals that they have at disposal; the unsubstantiated rumors, the "fake news", they can control the entire media, the entire population, the entire industries if they chose (they are surely controlling the left). The only objective for them has become to consolidate and maintain their own power, which has started to walk on its own, it has a life of its own, it has become a self-serving "system" which its own objective is its own self-preservation.Judge Andrew Napolitano, another panelist, echoed Hilton’s concerns. “I mean the deep state, it’s not just intelligence, it’s banking, it’s law enforcement, it’s the administrative agencies…It’s the below the radar service of the government that never changes no matter which party runs the White House,” he said. “The laws have been written to keep them in power.”
- http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...residency-rip/There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense. The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying everything to stop us, is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled this country dry.
The left is in such a state of "anti-Trump" hysteria that they're willing to do anything to "take down" Trump, even if that means taking him down undemocratically, taking him down by lies and unsubstantiated rumors, taking him down via the most undemocratic system, the "establishment", by "making a pact with the devil". This is understandable of course, because it's all guided by feelings as politics usually is, but that doesn't mean that it's right.
- http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...craig-roberts/The United States is now in the extraordinary situation that the liberal/progressive/left is allied with the deep state against democracy. The liberal/progressive/left are lobbying for the impeachment of a president who has committed no impeachable offense. The neoconservatives have stated their preference for a deep state coup against democracy. The media obliges with a constant barrage of lies, innuendos and disinformation. The insouciant American public sits there sucking its thumb.
But not to worry, the left! The Trump presidency is already dead it seems:
The Trump Presidency: RIP
--
I'm afraid that the Americans are in it for a hell of a ride. They don't understand that there could be such a thing as "fake news". They don't understand that the entire media could be orchestrated by some small and exclusive elite holders of power. They don't understand that they could very well be living in some sort of Orwellian alternate "reality", where nothing is what it seems, where words and definitions have lost their sense of meaning, and they could not rely on any kind of reliable information.
What they can do is to just keep fighting for democracy, and to not lose the sense of its very meaning, and to not let people become apathetic and hopeless to their continuing losing sense of control of their own government and their own self-determination, and to urge the journalists to become more curious and tell the truth to the general population, to not be on the side of power and instead be on the side of the people.
I think that this is a historic moment for America... they're at a crossroad where they could either completely lose control of their own government, or they could reclaim their own power. And Trump had nothing to do with this... but I think he knew somehow, he knew what was happening. I think Sanders also knew.
Last edited by Singu; 02-27-2017 at 11:23 AM.
^^ I completely agree with both @Animal and @Singularity in regard to what they say might have been Trump's initial good intentions (more jobs for Americans -if they are white males) and his inexperience at a job like the Presidency, and at the way in which he underestimated the opposition.
His method of running things seems to be to create general chaos and fear, to keep everyone in the dark regarding his intentions, and to let his subordinates carry out the heavy lifting while he bounces from one contradictory pronouncement to another. If some project that he wants to have happen fails because he hasn't prepared sufficiently or has underestimated the task, then he will invariably backpedal and blame someone else (but never his base, which is not Republicans, but is rather Authoritarians), and then he's off to find new enemies.
However, in a very short time, he has alienated the liberals, the judiciary, the powerful figures in the Republican party, the intelligence services (which is a huge mistake - these guys are skilled at infighting, take a long view, and have little respect for the law), and the news media. He seems to have no idea how powerful they are.
He seems to be doing his job as if he were the absolute owner of a large slum housing project, with his close family members as his main enforcers. If someone crosses him, his response is to sue them, which might work against a small business contractor but is not going to work against any of these groups. He is uninterested in policy, he doesn't read, he watches Fox News for information favorable to himself, and he can't tolerate any criticism, so he's not going to learn on the job. No amount of good intentions will overcome ineptitude on this level. He is spectacularly unqualified for the Presidency.
Given the forces arrayed against him, his ineffectiveness, his low tolerance for dissent, and his age and physical condition, there is a very good chance that Trump won't be President in four years.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-27-2017 at 01:14 PM.
LOL. All these things being portrayed of him at this point is LARGELY exaggeration/speculation. As I've mentioned much of it is catalyzed by the (liberal) mainstream media (And not to mention Hollywood celebrities: Last night the Oscars attack Trump and Actress Ashley Judd thinks Trump's election is worse than being raped as a child) painting him in a negative light. Seriously, Trump could be drinking water and all you guys will FREAK!
[img]http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/well-well-well-donald-trump-drinking-water-adolf-******.jpg[/img]
Its only been a month and people are acting like it's the end of the world. Because come on, people just hate Trump and want to find *any* little reason to set him up for impeachment. Hell, even witches are gathering together to cast a spell on Trump (LMAO)
OH THE HORROR!!!! HE'S UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT!!! Give me a break.
If you break things down logically, he's not the villain people are making him out to be. It's all just false mantras and false accusations to paint him in the worst way possible. Like everyone's picturing this mass raid going on, with illegal immigrant housemaids and lawn-care mowers getting handcuffed and shipped out of the country when this isn't even his policy lol
As far as Trump "shutting down the media" here was John McCain's thoughts:
Lol.“The first thing that dictators do is shut down the press..."
Dictator? Shutting down the press?
Trump IS NOT shutting down the press. He's CRITICIZING, ACCUSING, and calling out the DISHONESTY and BIAS of the press. lol.
If Trump was a dictator/ fascist/ nazi he would pass an executive order to shut down CNN or have the media run through him.
Yes, at certain press conferences, Trump DOES give conservative news media preference over liberal news media, but guess what?
If you REALLY want to intellectually honest, president OBAMA DID THE SAME THING WITH CONSERVATIVE NEWS MEDIA
And you know what? It's perfectly okay to do this at times.
--
Here's political commentator Ben Stein giving his opinion on the mainstream media on CNN.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-27-2017 at 06:10 PM.
^I don't personally buy into the "Trump is LITERALLY ******!!!" alarmist stuff, because I think Trump is a lot dumber than ******, and is too incompetent to pull off what ****** did. I don't think Trump is outright malicious. I just think he's so stupid that other people who don't give a shit about the common people (Steve Bannon, Paul Ryan, Vladimir Putin, et al.) are going to have a field day taking advantage of his naivity. THOSE are the people that I'm worried about. And on the fronts that he DOES exert some personal agency, he has ended up inadvertently meandering into very bad policy that will leave this country objectively worse off in the end. Trump in the Oval Office isn't a threat. He's a liability.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Let's be honest here. It really doesn't matter whether Trump does good or bad. Anti-Trumpers/(liberal)media will still find a way to hate him/make him look bad regardless. Like its already been decided to take him out. You can just feel the tension. Like sharks swarming around, waiting for that one drop of blood. After all, just one drop is all it takes. Like Trump has to run a perfect presidency or it's game over. And that's not fair. We as Americans need to stand behind our president.
I'm just here to point out the false claims that are happening right now, in the present - because right NOW, it's the people that are OVERREACTING. It's the media throwing out exaggerated/misleading claims. THAT's leaving the country divided and worse off objectively. When people are wearing vagina hats and violently protesting the streets, destroying property/doing harm while simultaneously carrying a sign that says LOVE TRUMPS HATE while not understanding any of Trump's policies, it's a little concerning. THAT leaves the country divided and worse off objectively.
As far as Trump being "so stupid," I don't know. I admit he has a bit of an ego and it's a double edged sword. But he did beat all the Republican candidates and ultimately won the entire thing. Maybe he's not as dumb as you think he is. Maybe he has something to offer, that is, if we even give him a chance. Or not... We can just keep "resisting" and have our teachers cancel classes so we can recover from the emotional trauma inflicted upon us and we can raise our foam swords and put on our armour while we bash/LARP Trump on the 16 types forum lol
In the end, it's people's irrational and emotional tantrums that are both threats and liabilities to the country
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-28-2017 at 03:14 PM.
Trump's win shows that many people cast ballots with the same amount of thought as they did in high school. I think that he realizes that he's like the dog that caught the car and now doesn't know what to do with it. The job nails his feet to the floor unlike his previous jobs, and his missteps are out there for everyone see and judge every day, which I think would be a SLE's worst nightmare. Incompetence makes reality shows interesting so I don't think the press is gunning for him as much as trying to present the suffering in the most entertaining way - like Trump's reality show did. Isn't this poetic justice at its most ironic?
a.k.a. I/O
I don't know... I think what's happening is extremely dangerous. There's so much anti-Russia hysteria that the Americans, and the liberals of all people, are going straight back to the Cold War mentality. I mean, these are two major nuclear powers that could easily destroy the entire world. It's just foolish of the left to keep inflaming this anti-Russian rhetoric in the name of impeaching Trump. America keeps provoking Russia because it's in the interest of the insane neo-conservatives that want to seriously achieve world hegemony, and the military-industrial complex that wants to start more conflicts. The American liberals no longer care about the working class or more peaceful foreign policy. It's all about the "Identity Politics".
Trump wanted to improve ties with Russia, and I think the left should at least support that. Trump also wanted to improve the economy for the working class, again the left should at least support that. It's just foolish to go against Trump just because he's Trump. That's no different than the conservatives going against anything Obama does just because he's Obama. It's like fine, oppose Trump for all the bad things that he does, but you don't have to oppose the good things that he might potentially bring.
So again, I think Glenn Greenwald said it the best:
GLENN GREENWALD: Secondly, the idea that Donald Trump is some kind of an agent or a spy of Russia, or that he is being blackmailed by Russia and is going to pass secret information to the Kremlin and endanger American agents on purpose, is an incredibly crazy claim that has been nowhere proven to be true. It reminds me of the kind of things Glenn Beck used to say about Obama while he stood at his chalkboard and drew those—those unstable charts that he drew, these wild conspiracy theories that are without evidence.
Yea the whole Russian thing was/is blown way out of proportion
The idea that Donald Trump was working with Russians to ultimately rig the election lol.
Yes, there was some communication between Russian intelligence and American officials. But then you had these bombshell headlines creating the perception that there was some scam going on lol. *GASP* "COULD IT BE?" "IS IT POSSIBLE!?"
Except there's one problem...
It's not uncommon for campaigns to communicate with other countries. Like it's expected to make contacts with governments around the world.
There is currently no evidence of collusion or treason of any kind. If there was evidence of any, which is illegal, yes the president would need to be impeached, but there are none.
And guess what? Back in March 26, 2012, during election year, Obama was talking with the Russian president Medvedev at the time. Basically the gist of it was that Medvedev was asking Obama to have Russia's back vs. the rest of Europe. Obama responded by telling the president, "hey I need to look tough on you to win this election. BUT after I win, *wink* *wink* I'll be flexible in helping you get what you want." It was basically a behind the scenes type of conversation.
Did the media frame this interaction as some kind of scandal? No, they framed it as a fascinating and insightful look into deals that can happen behind the scenes. lol
And guess what?
Nobody remembers this. Not even the star anchor of NBC remembers this. Why? Because the media didn't make a big deal of it because it was Obama lol.
Yes Trump wants to smooth relations with Russia. It doesn't mean to be BFFs with Putin, but what he WAS saying is that, maybe if we smooth things up with Russia a little, they could be helpful to us down the road.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-28-2017 at 02:59 PM.
Define "need." A "need" is a requirement, imperative, or necessity. The implication here is that, if Americans don't back Trump, something bad will happen. However, many would say that, given the things the Trump administration has already done and things they have said they intend to do in the future, bad things are more likely to happen if we just give Trump free reign to go through with his plans. These bad things are not abstract ideas, but subjects people have studied and have valid reservations and concerns about: environmental policy, economic policy, heck, even his own Secretary of Defense James Mattis (an appointment I actually am supportive of; Mattis is a good choice) has disagreed with him on key points. Surely, it is not beyond your capacity for nuance to acknowledge that people may have valid reasons to disagree with Trump?
I see no compelling "need" to unquestioningly back Trump because (1) no President in the history of this country has ever enjoyed exemption from scrutiny and opposition, (2) I see real problems arising from his lack of knowledge, stated points of policy, and the more astute forces like Bannon and Ryan whispering into his ear, and (3) opposition is a vital, critical part of how this country was meant to function, and was enshrined into the mechanism of government by the Framers of the Constitution.
You think a bunch of histrionic liberals is more of a threat to this country than the combined sum of an unscrupulous, inexperienced, easily manipulated man like Trump in the White House, people like Steve Bannon and Paul Ryan vying for his attention, and everything the U.S. federal government is capable of doing (when it has already committed outright atrocities throughout our history, without the knowledge of the people)? Look, I agree that it would be ideal if Americans would focus less on making enemies of each other, and more on "making America great (again)." But I don't agree that quietism is the answer.
It's fully possible that Trump was smart enough to know how to get into the Presidency, but not smart enough to successfully execute the duties of a President. Intelligence isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like winning an election automatically means someone is competent for the job. If that were the case, we would never have bad Presidents. Trump's win is more a reflection of the people who voted for him (the economic disenfranchisement of the working class, their anxieties about the shifting culture of this country, the fears elicited by global terrorism) than his fitness for the role. For the majority of his run, he didn't even have any specifics about how he would address any of these issues because he didn't have to. People were just desperate to believe he could help them.
But, for fuck's sake, is Donald J. Trump REALLY the mountain you want to die on?? For the love of God, why?! Why him? What about this man compels you to defend him until the bitter end? You realize this man is going to make it necessary for you to willfully ignore increasingly more and more of his failings (you've already begun doing so, as above), and force you to justify increasingly more and more repugnant shit spearheaded by actually "bad dudes" like Steve Bannon? Even if you're among that working class contingent that Trump want to do good by, there's still a big likelihood he won't be able to make the changes necessary to actually help you. What do you get out of it? Would it not make more sense to at least adopt an agnostic attitude with respect to Trump? Because, otherwise, you're in for a world of hurt.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
These men are ridiculous and have to be disempowered.
I used to be a registered Republican, back when I still gave credence to what my parents told me. After I got to the University of Michigan and was exposed to people of many types and ideologies, and was able to debate them, I realized that I agreed more with the liberal ideologies and switched parties.
For a long time, I disparaged Conservatives as only the converted can do. I saw their views as attempts to preserve a favored status for an otherwise undeserving in-group, and I could never understand why so many people of the working class would repeatedly vote for wars which killed their children, tax reductions on the wealthy which increased their own burden of paying for their children's education and some measure of social insurance, and a chance to retire without having to sell everything and become impoverished. I just could not figure it out.
Then, I came across two pieces of the puzzle.
The first revelation came from reading "The Authoritarians", which basically said that there are people who strongly believe in authority, either theirs over other people, or other people's over them. (http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf - note that Authoritarians blow up the world in the simulation game, twice, because they don't learn to cooperate with out-groups, while the cooperators reduce wars and increase the general welfare of the entire planet.)
The second revelation was when I found a video by Jonathan Haidt (https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_h...the_moral_mind), who looked at the moral roots of liberals and conservatives. His talk was the first time I ever realized that conservatives are actually more moral than liberals, and they place a very high value on protecting the members of their own group. You can see this play out in the way that conservatives will "circle the wagons" when the group is threatened.
With these two ideas in mind, I happened to reach a point where the economy tanked and my business customers basically stopped sending us orders. I could understand this, but it did not make daily life any easier.
One guy at an Aerospace company was extremely conservative. He listened to Rush Limbaugh and had a hard time even standing next to blacks. He knew I am extremely liberal, but even in the depths of the depression, he still sent us work. I asked him why he was doing that, because we are not the cheapest, nor the fastest to deliver. He said, "Adam, you guys do a good job and are fast.", which was only half true. I then realized that, for whatever reason, he was doing what he could, even though it cost him money, to support the people whom he saw as belonging to "his group", and I could clearly see the conservative advantages of supporting your group in times when it is threatened.
This conservative moral impulse can be a force for great good. The thing to do is to broaden the definition of "in" groups to include everyone. After all, are we, or are we not, our brother's keepers?
I have taken the opposite journey. I started out extremely liberal, but over the years, I've come to understand the perspective of conservatives. I actually took Haidt's morality test a few years ago, and came out higher on some of the conservative moral values than most liberals. I fully understand and appreciate what these people are trying to protect when they vote Red.
But the point I find myself making to my conservative friends lately is that, I believe Trump is forcing them to betray the better angels of their nature. That, if the noble impulses that underlie the conservative ethos are to preserve and protect the hard-won order they value so much, this administration is very much the wrong one to peg their hopes and trust on. If not through outright malice, then through incompetence and myopic self-interest, the Trump administration has been the administration of chaos. They have demonstrated no respect for the established order, or an appreciation of how hard-won and how tenuous that established order is. The safety, security, and freedom we enjoy today are not things we can take for granted. Yet, the Trump administration has been eager to throw it all away. They have sowed division and mistrust for personal gain; they take a blithe or outright hostile attitude towards crucial aspects of American democracy like a free press, judicial oversight, right of protest, etc.; they don't seem to be taking their duties very seriously at all. And yet, I see conservatives conscripted unwittingly into this war in which they're forced to pit their own loyalty to Trump against basically every other fiber of their moral being. Trump is forcing people to act and speak against their own moral compasses.
This administration isn't like other Republican administrations. There's a reason actual conservatives like Ben Shapiro do not support him. To conservatives, my message is basically, he doesn't deserve your loyalty. You're better than him.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
You answered your own question later:
A basketball team can't be great if all the players are selfish and unwilling to pass the ball.
The Backstreet Boys can't be great if there's a feud amongst the group
It's like you're trying to have a great marriage but your nagging wife prevents unification/moving things forward lol...next thing you know BOOM Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt divorce!!!
And also not to mention civil war...
Yes we may be divided politically, but as Americans we need to unite.
You don't remain seated/refuse to clap (the democrats during the Joint session congress address) when the president walks into the room, it's common respect. Republicans, as much as they disagreed with Obama, at least showed decency 8, 4, 2 years ago. You don't remain seated/refuse to clap/not show the common courtesy to a widow of a fallen US navy seal (which is not even a political moment).
I’m not arguing for things that COULD happen. I’m arguing for things that ARE happening and I’m correcting FALSE claims.
Like I wouldn’t care if people claimed “DONALD TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN SPY WORKING TOWARDS THE DEMISE OF AMERICA” if it was based on real, factual evidence.
If things like this continues, this is only going to perpetuate a FALSE NARRATIVE.
Also, I’m not familiar with all his policies at the moment, that’s why I’m not commenting on them.
But what I AM talking about are ones he’s doing right NOW and they AREN’T extreme as people are making them out to be, based on the facts and evidence.
Again, I’m NOT against disagreements based on TRUE claims. I AM against forming opinions based on FALSE/EXAGGERATED claims and I feel the need to step in lol
Like I heard someone say “IF YOU VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP I DON’T RESPECT YOU AS A PERSON. HE IS AGAINST IMMIGRANTS.”
Do you see how divisive this can be?
And it’s like okay, I respect your opinion, but let’s examine WHY you think he’s anti-immigrant and let’s see if the facts back it up. Usually their argument falls apart and they get more emotional.
I’m all for valid dissenting opinions based on TRUE FACTS.
I’ve said this a million times. But the media is being particularly unfair with Trump. That's why he's fighting back. Obama wasn’t held to the same standards of scrutiny.
Your opinion and it’s fair, as long as it’s based off true facts and evidence.
And its been fun to watch the cry babies.
People have been protesting daily from DAY 1. You didn’t see Republicans protesting on streets the first day Obama set foot in office. No, they were in their jobs working like responsible American citizens.
That was one example. But it’s pretty much everyone on the left getting emotional and lashing out.
When you get emotional, your IQ tends to get cut in half. It’s kind of like when you fall in love for the first time, your brain is bathing in those love chemicals and it makes you do stupid things. Oh love <3 <3
And it's not only histrionic liberals like I said. Figures like senator Elizabeth Warren crying and breaking the rules because she didn’t get what she wanted
You can’t cry and whine yourself to be above the rules.
Again, I don’t agree crying like a baby is the answer either. When a baby is crying and wailing the answer isn’t to give the baby what it wants 100% of the time to appease it. Now you’re teaching the baby as long as it cries it’ll get whatever it wants. That’s setting the baby up for bad habits.
Similarly, we can’t allow people to destroy property/cry to get whatever they want. We can’t let violence and emotional tantrums be the norm. That’s setting a bad example.
Like smashing property and destroying ATM machines. OH YOUR VOICES ARE HEARD NOW!! lol
Remember millions of people are voting for their government officials. If they're forming their opinions based off these crazy things they see and hear (like these protests), yes, long-term it will ABSOLUTELY have consequences.
And just because you’re smart, it doesn’t automatically mean you’re going to become a successful leader/president either.
There are a lot of dumb/average people out there that were competent enough to make a lot of money, competent enough to become great leaders, etc. A lot of what success comes down to is working hard and taking action. I don’t see why this concept wouldn’t apply for presidency.
Like you can sit around with your taped glasses and discuss theory but if you don’t take action it doesn’t mean anything.
That and he’s also the natural result when you spend years and years on end screaming at innocent, hardworking people about political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, racism where it doesn’t exist, homophobia where it doesn’t exist, sexism and rape where it doesn’t exist, shoving socialism and a bloated welfare state we never wanted down our throats, and telling straight white men that everything in the world is their fault.
All things I'm against.
It’s okay. He's doing exactly what he campaigned for.
LOL. I’m willing to get carved up on a slab of stone shouting “FREEEDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!”
But in all seriousness, various reasons, but:
1. Balls. Big fucking balls the size of boulders.
2. Candor. (“Low life leakers!”)
And this combination is refreshing. It allows him to stay grounded and not get pushed around. Plus he seems like a genuinely nice guy.
And plus,
I want to offer a dissenting opinion. This place seems like a huge hugbox/circle jerk session where everyone pats each other on the back while ranting and raving against Trump. I’m simply allowing some members/forum lurkers here see a different perspective. I know I won’t be getting any “likes” from @Adam Strange but *shrugs* lol
And it makes it more interesting for our audiences. Take out the menacing Trump supporter and put that racist bigot in his place!!!! lol
Then talk about his actual failings here. I know he’s going to screw up down the road. I’m not saying he’s this perfect president lol. Again, I’m simply pointing out misleading opinions based off false premises.
I’m more open-minded than you’re painting me as
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-01-2017 at 05:04 PM.
Lol, @peteronfireee. Maybe not a "likes", but a "constructive" for sure. Most of your opinions are shared by at least half of the populace. There's some reason for that. I even share some of them, although not all of them.I want to offer a dissenting opinion. This place seems like a huge hugbox/circle jerk session where everyone pats each other on the back while ranting and raving against Trump. I’m simply allowing some members/forum lurkers here see a different perspective. I know I won’t be getting any “likes” from @Adam Strange but *shrugs* lol
I’m more open-minded than you’re painting me as
Your stuff is worth reading, and I do read it. If I didn't listen to other opinions with an open mind, I'd be stuck where I am.
I think this article goes a long way toward explaining why many people voted for Trump while not liking him very much.
http://angrybearblog.com/2017/03/lar...ology-101.html
I’m all for valid dissenting opinions based on TRUE FACTS.
[...]
And its been fun to watch the cry babies.
[...]
And it's not only histrionic liberals like I said. Figures like senator Elizabeth Warren crying and breaking the rules because she didn’t get what she wanted
You can’t cry and whine yourself to be above the rules.
Again, I don’t agree crying like a baby is the answer either. When a baby is crying and wailing the answer isn’t to give the baby what it wants 100% of the time to appease it. Now you’re teaching the baby as long as it cries it’ll get whatever it wants. That’s setting the baby up for bad habits.
Similarly, we can’t allow people to destroy property/cry to get whatever they want. We can’t let violence and emotional tantrums be the norm. That’s setting a bad example
.
I believe you. I am just in a "mood". Don't you ever go away.I’m more open-minded than you’re painting me as
p.s. sorry about the hack job on your post.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Lol, well, you would have a better time if you actually looked into his policy instead of just trying to meme people to death. Unreasonable people will remain unreasonable. But the reasonable people that might be persuaded to take a more charitable attitude towards Trump are more likely to do so if you just calmly explain the specific merits of his policy, or at least the good intentions behind them. It doesn't inspire much faith in your man if your entire reason for supporting him basically amounts to spite or "LOOK WHAT YOU STUPID LIBERALS MADE US DO!!!" I know that's not your whole reason for voting for the dude, but that's how it comes across when you fixate on the most absurd excesses of the liberal movement.
At this point, Trump is already a known quantity. He may have only been in office for a month now, but he has already made some key maneouvres on the chessboard and taken a definite stance on some key points that we can safely guess the direction of much of his policy. I say this because, when you look at Trump's actual policy, you actually see a well-intentioned effort to help the American working and middle classes -- not the work of a fascist megalomaniac that is the fever dream of many on the left. I agree. Those people are being ridiculous. That said, most of his policies are short-sighted, problematic, betray a lack of understanding of nuance and complexity of the factors at play, and we've already begin seeing that, as I'll explain below.
A lot of Trump's policy (for instance, the travel ban) seems to be spearheaded by Steve Bannon. The thing you need to know about Steve Bannon is that he only actually got into politics after 9/11. His entire orientation to politics can be explained as a response to the trauma of that event. His ideology is characterized by three main points:
- a notion that the United States and American values are threatened and that a catastrophic event like the Civil War or WWII is waiting on the horizon for us (this conviction he got from his reading of the Strauss-Howe generational theory)
- economic policies that should be informed by Judeo-Christian values (as opposed to the self-interest characteristic of Ayn Rand-style economics; this is interesting because it is in direct contrast to globalist, neo-liberal economics of guys like Paul Ryan and others in the Republican orthodoxy). This also sort of blurs the line between Church and State, so there's that.
- a particular distaste for Islam, which he perceives as a great threat to this country. (As it happens, it's an opinion he shares with Trump's now-former National Security Advisor, Mike Flynn, which has led me to believe he was Bannon's pick for this role.)
If you read nothing else about the Trump administration, I highly recommend this article on Steve Bannon (don't worry, it's not a hit piece; in fact, it paints a fairly sympathetic portrait of the man), because I think he will play a pivotal role in shaping Trump's policy. His rhetoric is all over Trump's campaign. You certainly heard Bannon's influence on Trump's speech last night, with its somewhat apocalyptic vision of our current trajectory and highly protectionistic overtures. Bannon is also inexperienced in politics, and I think the missteps that the travel ban and Mike Flynn turned out to be are demonstrative of that. I foresee future missteps.
Incompetence really is the main sticking point I have with Trump. I don't actually think he's a bad guy. In fact, I like him much better than the Republican orthodoxy, who have unscrupulously exploited the vulnerabilities and faithfulness of the American working class for the last fifty years, while enacting policies that only serve their corporate overlords. The worst part of watching his speech last night was seeing Paul Ryan's smug, shit-eating face behind Trump the whole time. But, I just don't think he fully understands what will work and what won't, and that leaves him vulnerable to the influence of people who really have the power to fuck things up. I wish I could be less cynical, because there's something almost quixotic and admirable about what he's trying to do. But, I think we needed someone more more experience, more patience for sitting through boring details and complexity, and who is less problematic as a human being (not in the sense that those problems [racism, sexism, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.] necessarily prevent him from being successful at making American great again, but that they make him an easy target) to do so.
Last edited by Animal; 03-01-2017 at 05:34 PM.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I lol’ed
WHAT. DO. YOU. WANT.
Not just the absurd excesses, MANY are still hoping for that dream as you point out later:
And not to mention the press coverage (ABC, NBC, CBS) of the FIRST MONTH/HONEY MOON PERIOD show 88% hostile/negative coverage lol And pretty much everyone I meet, see on social media, etc thinks Trump has bad intentions lol
I just read those articles (thanks for providing them btw, definitely interesting) and I totally understand where you’re coming from now… But bro not gonna lie, you’re making Trump/Bannon sound like Darth Vader/Darth Sith. Like the young Jedi Anakin Skywalker being seduced by the dark emperor/evil Sith lord, brooding over his shoulder, whispering into his ear lol. And yeah, I can see how these influences can be troubling (or optimistic, depending on the news source, but probably mostly negative lets be honest lol) but it’s all just speculation at this point.
A kid can grow up playing Mortal Kombat/violent video games his entire life but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to end up bullying kids at the school he attends or do uppercuts/fatality moves on them lol. Don’t get me wrong, I can totally see Bannon in his dimly-lit room, wearing a dark cloak and holding a candle, devouring volumes of Strauss-Howe, smiling, as he chants prayers of Islam’s destruction, with Civil War posters plastered all over his room; I can definitely see how this may paint a concerning picture in your mind.
But in the end, are these influences necessarily going to result in the demise of America? Like you can pull up a record of a private conversation of Trump a decade ago, about how woman will let men of power grab them by their pussy, but that isn’t going to necessarily translate into pussy-grabbing/sexist policies. You can paint Bannon as this white-nationalist, power-hungry mogul willing to trample over anyone to get what he wants...But it's all just speculation.
Hell, Trump/Bannon can dress up as anime characters and do cosplay/LARP in their free time in their basements for all I know. As long as it doesn’t negatively affect the performance of their jobs (And I recognize this is what you’re arguing)
MMA fighters go into the UFC with different fighting backgrounds/influences (brazilian jiu jitsu, boxing, wrestling), and in the end, it’s a matter of how these techniques come together to blow your opponent out and walk away with a win. A win for America is what we're all looking for
As a Christian I don’t necessarily agree with the influences of, for instance, a Mormon. But that doesn’t necessarily mean someone like Mitt Romney will be doing controversial things if he were president. And as long as Mitt Romney doesn’t let those beliefs infringe upon the US constitution (like forcing me to be polygamous or whatever lol) and puts America first, I don’t care what he believes.
The same goes with Trump/Bannon.
And plus, it's still kinda hard at this point to tell exactly HOW MUCH influence Trump is getting from Bannon. Whether Bannon HAS BEEN influencing Trump the entire time or whether Bannon's been hired BECAUSE he was on the same page as Trump. One thing for certain is that Trump already had some ideas planned (ex: the ban/wall) well before hiring Bannon.
Maybe he needs your Ni lol
LMAO. Yeah I saw that
And according to Trump’s speech, there were things mentioned that democrats should be cheering for too:
1. Increased government spending on infrastructure (to build roads, airways, inner cities, bridges, etc)
2. Paid family leave
3. Lifting government regulations (for ex FDA) on pharmaceutical companies to decrease cost of drugs
4. Booming economic growth (it just came out today that Obama *IS* the first president since the great depression with not even 3% GDP growth in any year)
I see a man who has total common sense. DT is all about:
-What do we need to get done?
-What works?
-What are we doing to fix it?
Total common sense.
I see him, as the first pure entrepreneur president, as a smart senior guy who solved problems his entire life, who has been practical his entire life.
He’s a business leader not afraid to make mistakes (and the news media doesn’t get this). It’s like, of course he’s going to make mistakes. And as an entrepreneur he understands when you make a mistake, you correct it, learn from it, then move on.
Other guys will spend 7 years planning, and not do anything.
That’s fair, but again we’ll just have to wait and see at this point
That is, if things like the 88% negative coverage doesn't skew our perception of the evil president and the dark lord lol
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-02-2017 at 08:13 PM.
Here, I'll give you guys a real-world and current example of how the media is bashing on Trump/people associated with him RIGHT NOW lol
The whole Jeff Sessions talking with Russians thing going on right now
Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, is currently "under investigation" for "talking" with Russian officials, therefore the possibility of collusion/treason.
He's now accused of lying because he testified before congress that he hasn't "talked" to any Russian officials, when in fact he did.
So who's right now? Let me break it down:
So last year, Jeff Sessions, as a SENATOR, met twice with the Russian ambassador
The first time: At a heritage foundation speech which included ambassadors from ALL OVER THE WORLD. So it was basically a meet and greet/social event/social gathering he attended lol
Second time: He talked to the Russian ambassador at the US ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING with >25 ambassadors around the world attending. lol
As a US senator, it was literally HIS JOB to "talk" to these people. Not to mention it'd be rude to ignore them lol
So the key here is differentiating:
"Talking" with the Russian ambassador vs. Specifically meeting with the Russian ambassador on behalf of TRUMP'S ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
What Jeff said: no! I didn't meet with the Russian ambassador!
What Jeff MEANT to say: no! specifically for the election, I didn't meet with the Russian ambassador! I didn't exchange any campaign information!
The media: JEFF SESSIONS MET WITH HIM TWICE. HE IS A LIAR!!!! HE MUST BE RESIGNED!!!!
Let's be honest, this witch hunt is the media's attempt to keep the "Russia stole the election" narrative alive
lol what a joke
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-04-2017 at 04:22 AM.
Trump's plans for tax cuts, which I guess will give more money to those job creators and will trickle down:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/...ight-hand.html
In my own small experience with taxes, the more money I've made, the less I pay in taxes, so I've seen this with my own eyes. I'm not at zero yet, but give it a few years.
Is this right? No.
But if everyone does it, I'd be a fool not to.
The correct approach is to make everyone who benefits from the system pay more, above a certain basic income level. On an increasing scale with wealth. Tax financial transactions and rents (unearned income). Since whatever you tax becomes more expensive and thus you get less of it, why would anyone want to tax productive labor (earned income)?
Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phones.
Republicans wonder if getting a few more tax cuts for the 1% is worth this idiocy.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...-some-tax-cuts
lack of foresight in a nutshell
hopefully this ends up being a case of "congratulations, you played yourselves" when Trump does more long term damage than short term benefit (to the decrepit side of the republican party).. its actually hard to imagine the cause of the left being advanced quicker by Hillary, had she been elected, if this keeps up... probably depends on how the supreme court ends up looking in 4 years
i guess betas really do help (please no nuclear war though)
If we set aside Trump's unprofessional behavior (what he says) and just look at his actions (what he does), it looks like he is pro-business, not pro-market.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/...ve-market.html
Pro-market is straight capitalism, which is bad enough, but pro-business is much worse, since it rewards existing firms at the expense of innovation (which is where all progress comes from).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
