USA politics following Trump's election

[Bertrand]

from that article:

But here, too, Trump’s response has been to blame the institutions recording his incompetence rather than to fix the underlying problem.

beta psychology in a nutshell

betas have to make every single dispute personal (because they can't distinguish between reality and its messengers) which is also why they give off that disgusting sexual vibe. like every solution inheres in dominating the superficial "source" which is never really the source at all. the universal solution of either trying to charm (Fe) or force (Se) people into compliance irrespective of reality reduces everything to a game over who can convince who of what lies and by what means... so much so they deny there even could be something more objective (this is where every argument takes a metaphysical turn)-- a convenient idea when you're arbitrarily trying to grab and consolidate power, since the truth devolves into whatever you want it to be. notice their pervasive critique of "news" in general. not just Trump but all betas. because the idea that they can't just dictate reality wholesale to their thralls means whatever disagrees with them must be lying-- hence we get all of Trumps unsubstantiated metaphysical rhetoric against the press-- it is indicative of beta methods and reasoning. from their point of view I'm sure it is 100% convincing, but it relies on the assumption that they, as rightful masters, have a godlike connection to the truth which, looking back through history, probably explains most corrupt religious institutions and their dogma as expressions of simple beta mind control (note: I am a Christian myself but in an individualistic sense, what I am identifying here are the excesses of religion as a human institution--in other words, the beta misuse of the god concept as a rubber stamp on empty human authority, not against God in general). Even IEI's like Dietrich Bonhoeffer admit this when they say things like the cheap proliferation of religious ideas has piled on more spiritual corpses and done more damage to the cause of Christ than any purely secular "adversary"--because at some point Gammas see through all that and God "dies" in their culture (Nietzsche--in other words, ILI didn't kill God, betas did a good enough of that job on their own--he simply pointed out what had already happened--now watch betas come in here and without a shred of self awareness try to go after the messenger, Nietzsche, by calling him IEI) and it takes someone like Kierkegaard (EII) to rehabilitate the concept (this time without all the beta corruption) after all the damage done to it (which is precisely what his Attack on Christendom represents).

[Chae]

from that article:




beta psychology in a nutshell

betas have to make every single dispute personal (because they can't distinguish between reality and its messengers) which is also why they give off that disgusting sexual vibe. like every solution inheres in dominating the superficial "source" which is never really the source at all. the universal solution of either trying to charm (Fe) or force (Se) people into compliance irrespective of reality reduces everything to a game over who can convince who of what lies and by what means... so much so they deny there even could be something more objective (this is where every argument takes a metaphysical turn)-- a convenient idea when you're arbitrarily trying to grab and consolidate power, since the truth devolves into whatever you want it to be. notice their pervasive critique of "news" in general. not just Trump but all betas. because the idea that they can't just dictate reality wholesale to their thralls means whatever disagrees with them must be lying-- hence we get all of Trumps unsubstantiated metaphysical rhetoric against the press-- it is indicative of beta methods and reasoning. from their point of view I'm sure it is 100% convincing, but it relies on the assumption that they, as rightful masters, have a godlike connection to the truth which, looking back through history, probably explains most corrupt religious institutions and their dogma as expressions of simple beta mind control (note: I am a Christian myself but in an individualistic sense, what I am identifying here are the excesses of religion as a human institution--in other words, the beta misuse of the god concept as a rubber stamp on empty human authority, not against God in general). Even IEI's like Dietrich Bonhoeffer admit this when they say things like the cheap proliferation of religious ideas has piled on more spiritual corpses and done more damage to the cause of Christ than any purely secular "adversary"--because at some point Gammas see through all that and God "dies" in their culture (Nietzsche--in other words, ILI didn't kill God, betas did a good enough of that job on their own--he simply pointed out what had already happened--now watch betas come in here and without a shred of self awareness try to go after the messenger, Nietzsche, by calling him IEI) and it takes someone like Kierkegaard (EII) to rehabilitate the concept (this time without all the beta corruption) after all the damage done to it (which is precisely what his Attack on Christendom represents).

Hm, interesting. What parts do Ni and Ti play?

[Bertrand]

Hm, interesting. What parts do Ni and Ti play?

off the cuff: I feel like Ni is how they envision their twisted plots, and Ti is how they organize their internal thoughts, as well as determining the structure and form their propaganda takes, usually in the shape of simplistic if-->then constructions

[Chae]

off the cuff: I feel like Ni is how they envision their twisted plots, and Ti is how they organize their internal thoughts, as well as determining the structure and form their propaganda takes, usually in the shape of simplistic if-->then constructions

Omg. Twisted plots, propaganda takes. You make me giggle

[squark]

beta psychology in a nutshell

Trump is SEE btw. Not sure where anyone sees any Ti. . .

[Computer Loser]

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

[squark]

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, if you listen to him speak, he likes to drop a lot of truth bombs (like his criticism of the media. "ITS FAKE NEWS!!!!!"). I feel like a Te-valuing type would be more skeptical to make such a claim without having the real world data to back it up. Remember, for Ti types, internal consistency/truth is more of value than public consensus (Te) and I can definitively see this in Trump. You can also tell by the way he does interviews; though he may seem emotional on the surface, beneath it all he very cooly sorts through his mind whats important, whats not, what's real, what is not, discards extraneous information and accordingly spits out a succinct, to the point answer.

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.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Trump is SEE btw. Not sure where anyone sees any Ti. . .

Hi @squark. I know some SEE and SLE very well and typing Trump as SEE bugs me. So here are my 2cts

Its not about not seeing any introverted thinking. It's that you don't see any quality thinking or reasoning.
Overestimating and bragging with one's mental capacity and ability to deal with people while simultaneously being painfully oblivious about the image they are making are traits of unhealthy ESTp.


I'll talk mainly about unhealthy SEE and SLE .


I can see how you identify his behavior, his frequent changes of plan, big but empty promises as Ti-Porl however unlike ESTp, unhealthy ESFp are easier to spot by their need for moral superiority. They will drop a ton of emotions and accusations of amorality and inhumanity on your head but won't be able to accurately define what they see as wrongdoing. They want to be seen as fair and noteworthy leaders of the people but not as business men.


SEE are aware that logical reasoning is not their strongest weapon while SLE advertise it as one of their strengths ("I have a very good brain").
Trump uses Fi as absolutely last resort and fails at it ( Claims to empathize with groups of people). The only level of communication he knows is business, where roles are clearly defined (aristocracy) superior positions are achieved through cleverness and the ability to make the best deals.


SEE-leaders earn their admiration trough ethical manipulation and displays of favor


I think the easiest way to identify a person as SEE or SLE is that SEE smile often with their mouth but not so with their eyes. Their eyes are carefully watching the other person and register emotional reactions to make sure that their manipulations work. SEE make good first impressions and will give the person much attention to achieve this.
As soon as they have your goodwill they will move on to charm the next one. When they can't win someone over SEE will take it personally.


SLE, on the other hand, smile less often but more sincerely in the sense that they have little knowledge on how to manipulate a person on an emotional level. They rely on their negotiation skills and can trap a person into a long conversation. They don't see the other person's discomfort and may even misinterpret it as submission.
Because they are negativists they don't trust people easily and will accuse people of treachery in odd situations.
Thinking that they are the smartest and have to stay the smartest (on top of the hierarchical structure) comes from very low introverted intuition and mistrust (Fi Porl, "Don’t Hire People Who Are Smarter Than You").


SLE overestimate their skills and/or underestimate the work and resources that are needed. When it turns out they can't do something (that happens very late in the process ) ,they will blame the circumstances or unfair behavior and sabotage by other parties.
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated!"
"My mic was 'defective!'"


SEE will see earlier that they don't have the ability to do something. Then they blame anyone but themselves with strong emotional displays and fingerprinting. They will find someone who is responsible and attack him publicly to save face.
From my experience it goes like this: "Why are we even in a relationship? I hate you! You should have known. Its all your fault! "


About Trump's Tweets: In a way this could be ethical manipulation but both types need reassurance from other people and much attention. Ultimately I see Trumps interest in social problems as Beta values and not as introverted feeling.


Edit:
The Donald Trump typing thread found some striking similarities in behavior between Elvis and young Donald Trump. I think visual identification is in many cases more accurate than any interpretation that is based words and reactions only. Not to forget that Trump is, to put it mildly, a very unstable person. So take what I wrote above with a grain of salt.

[Adam Strange]

Hi @squark. I know some SEE and SLE very well and typing Trump as SEE bugs me. So here are my 2cts

Its not about not seeing any introverted thinking. It's that you don't see any quality thinking or reasoning.
Overestimating and bragging with one's mental capacity and ability to deal with people while simultaneously being painfully oblivious about the image they are making are traits of unhealthy ESTp.


I'll talk mainly about unhealthy SEE and SLE .


I can see how you identify his behavior, his frequent changes of plan, big but empty promises as Ti-Porl however unlike ESTp, unhealthy ESFp are easier to spot by their need for moral superiority. They will drop a ton of emotions and accusations of amorality and inhumanity on your head but won't be able to accurately define what they see as wrongdoing. They want to be seen as fair and noteworthy leaders of the people but not as business men.


SEE are aware that logical reasoning is not their strongest weapon while SLE advertise it as one of their strengths ("I have a very good brain").
Trump uses Fi as absolutely last resort and fails at it ( Claims to empathize with groups of people). The only level of communication he knows is business, where roles are clearly defined (aristocracy) superior positions are achieved through cleverness and the ability to make the best deals.


SEE-leaders earn their admiration trough ethical manipulation and displays of favor


I think the easiest way to identify a person as SEE or SLE is that SEE smile often with their mouth but not so with their eyes. Their eyes are carefully watching the other person and register emotional reactions to make sure that their manipulations work. SEE make good first impressions and will give the person much attention to achieve this.
As soon as they have your goodwill they will move on to charm the next one. When they can't win someone over SEE will take it personally.


SLE, on the other hand, smile less often but more sincerely in the sense that they have little knowledge on how to manipulate a person on an emotional level. They rely on their negotiation skills and can trap a person into a long conversation. They don't see the other person's discomfort and may even misinterpret it as submission.
Because they are negativists they don't trust people easily and will accuse people of treachery in odd situations.
Thinking that they are the smartest and have to stay the smartest (on top of the hierarchical structure) comes from very low introverted intuition and mistrust (Fi Porl, "Don’t Hire People Who Are Smarter Than You").


SLE overestimate their skills and/or underestimate the work and resources that are needed. When it turns out they can't do something (that happens very late in the process ) , they will blame the circumstances or unfair behavior and sabotage by other parties.
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated!"
"My mic was 'defective!'"


SEE will see earlier that they don't have the ability to do something. Then they blame anyone but themselves with strong emotional displays and fingerprinting. They will find someone who is responsible and attack him publicly to save face.
From my experience it goes like this: "Why are we even in a relationship? I hate you! You should have known. Its all your fault! "


About Trump's Tweets: In a way this could be ethical manipulation but both types need reassurance from other people and much attention. Ultimately I see Trumps interest in social problems as Beta values and not as introverted feeling.

This is brilliant.

[squark]

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.

[Computer Loser]

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.

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.

I'm not typing him based on his political beliefs or media portrayals

Lol!! And are you sure about that? Because you just contradicted yourself. You just listed off his political beliefs in an earlier post:

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

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

[squark]

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.

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.

[Computer Loser]

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

[squark]

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

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.

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.

"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."

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.

PS. and read this: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._SEE_composite

[Singu]

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.

[Animal]

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.

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.

[Adam Strange]

^^ 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.

[Computer Loser]

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:

“The first thing that dictators do is shut down the press..."

Lol.

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.

[Computer Loser]

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.

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

Here's what I posted back when Trump first got elected. (2/27/2017)

: )

[Animal]

^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.

[Computer Loser]

^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.

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

[Animal]

We as Americans need to stand behind our president.

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.

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, destroying property/doing harm while simultaneously carrying a sign that says LOVE TRUMPS HATE while not understanding any of Trumps policies, it's a little concerning. THAT leaves the country divided and worse off objectively.

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.

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 swords and shields 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

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.

[Adam Strange]

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.

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?

[Animal]

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.

[Rebelondeck]

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

[Singu]

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.

[Computer Loser]

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:

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.

[Chae]

These men are ridiculous and have to be disempowered.

[Computer Loser]

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.

You answered your own question later:

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)."

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).

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.

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.

Surely, it is not beyond your capacity for nuance to acknowledge that people may have valid reasons to disagree with Trump?

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 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

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.

(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,

Your opinion and it’s fair, as long as it’s based off true facts and evidence.

(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.

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.

You think a bunch of histrionic liberals is more of a threat to this country

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.

But I don't agree that quietism is the answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s okay. He's doing exactly what he campaigned for.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

I’m more open-minded than you’re painting me as

[Adam Strange]

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

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.
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.

[Aylen]

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’m more open-minded than you’re painting me as

I believe you. I am just in a "mood". Don't you ever go away.

p.s. sorry about the hack job on your post.

[Animal]

Also, I’m not familiar with all his policies at the moment, that’s why I’m not commenting on them.

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:

1. 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)
2. 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.
3. 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.

[Adam Strange]

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

[Computer Loser]

Lol, well, you would have a better time if you actually looked into his policy instead of just trying to meme people to death.

I lol’ed

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!!!..."

WHAT. DO. YOU. WANT.

but that's how it comes across when you fixate on the most absurd excesses of the liberal movement.

Not just the absurd excesses, MANY are still hoping for that dream as you point out later:

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.

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

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…
…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…

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.

That said, most of his policies are short-sighted, problematic, betray a lack of understanding of nuance and complexity of the factors at play.

I foresee future missteps.

Maybe he needs your Ni lol

The worst part of watching his speech last night was seeing Paul Ryan's smug, shit-eating face behind Trump the whole time.

LMAO. Yeah I saw that

because there's something almost quixotic and admirable about what he's trying to do. .

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

[Computer Loser]

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

[Adam Strange]

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)?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How Trump spent his first month in office, by the numbers

[Adam Strange]

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

[Bertrand]

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)

[Adam Strange]

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).