Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Tubey]

Its really annoying that what he said is a bad word on our filter, cos it makes folk think that maybe you said something else. Or reports it, which will mean paperwork, a meeting, but a nice coffee and biscuit.

Yeah but at least you can go out for a fag after the meeting to unwind.

(Only makes sense if the word fag is blocked)

 

[tsubaki]

I think it's pretty well established there's nutters on both sides of the spectrum. Dangerous to paint everyone with the same brush.

It is dangerous, but it also significant that some of the people coming out with that sort of thing are / were quite prominent in the media or in her campaign.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Ah...no I haven't been reading either sides blog stuff. I thought you were suggesting folks on here were doing that.

I don't think those protesting Trump by and large are protesting those that voted for him...they are protesting the man's own words.

It becomes particularly messy when she received more votes. The people of the nation have spoken...even if they didn't do it in certain parts of the country.

Dems and their supporters were perfectly happy with the system before the election...but now...you know the score

 

[tsubaki]

Yeah but again, that's using the strawman of a perceived voting class to make the larger point - that indeed racists, anti-gay, misogynists etc. were a substantial part of Trumps' voter base.

Not all, but consider this - how many Trump supporters do you see denouncing Trump for those views? It's pretty close to "none". He says he "grabs women by the [Poor language removed]" and to a man and woman they're fobbing it off as unimportant. Therefore, whilst not racists and misogynists themselves, they are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to those traits advocated by Trump.

The problem is though that the strawman has taken over and replaced any attempt to either explain Clinton's defeat or understand why people voted for Trump; indeed you can actually see this in how you have worded your second paragraph.

Trump's supporters were never going to "denounce" him because a recording came out of him saying something like that - for a start, it was being reported on by a media which was openly and demonstrably biased against him, and which was actively looking for Republicans who could be caught on film expressing their disgust, and therefore feeding back into the narrative the media trying to create. To do so would have resulted in an advantage going to someone who they and a significant portion of other folk disliked.

 

[ilikecheese]

Dems and their supporters were perfectly happy with the system before the election...but now...you know the score

Not really. The first presidential election I was able to vote in was 1992 (I just missed the cutoff in 88), so I have voted in 7 presidential elections. The candidate I voted for has won the vote in 6 of the 7 elections I've voted in...yet now on two occasions the system has been broken. Trump was moaning about the exact same thing in 2012.

 

[tsubaki]

Ah...no I haven't been reading either sides blog stuff. I thought you were suggesting folks on here were doing that.

I don't think those protesting Trump by and large are protesting those that voted for him...they are protesting the man's own words.

It becomes particularly messy when she received more votes. The people of the nation have spoken...even if they didn't do it in certain parts of the country.

Noone on this forum has been that daft, and I do think people have the right to protest his election (though to be honest given what the likely alternative was I don't really see the point of it). As for the popular vote, everyone knew that was the system beforehand and there is a bit of a parallel with the whole superdelegates thing.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

See what happens when I'm not around.

 

[ilikecheese]

Noone on this forum has been that daft, and I do think people have the right to protest his election (though to be honest given what the likely alternative was I don't really see the point of it). As for the popular vote, everyone knew that was the system beforehand and there is a bit of a parallel with the whole superdelegates thing.

I guess to my last point I'd say that if it was a clear cut victory in both the popular and electoral vote, it would be much less likely there would be protestors...at least on the scale we've been seeing. It was the same in 2000.

That said, this campaign was ran in such a way that it really doesn't matter who won...there would have been protests either way.

 

[Elong]

It is dangerous, but it also significant that some of the people coming out with that sort of thing are / were quite prominent in the media or in her campaign.

Again, been the same for both sides.

To me, it's more worrying that the media have sides too. I know that's another topic and has been going on for years now, but it makes me switch the news off these days. The truth is all a perception spun by whichever channel you're tuned in to.

 

[Tubey]

The problem is though that the strawman has taken over and replaced any attempt to either explain Clinton's defeat or understand why people voted for Trump; indeed you can actually see this in how you have worded your second paragraph.

Trump's supporters were never going to "denounce" him because a recording came out of him saying something like that - for a start, it was being reported on by a media which was openly and demonstrably biased against him, and which was actively looking for Republicans who could be caught on film expressing their disgust, and therefore feeding back into the narrative the media trying to create. To do so would have resulted in an advantage going to someone who they and a significant portion of other folk disliked.

Which means they found that to be more important that denouncing racism and misogyny, which is what I said in my second paragraph.

I don't think you're getting that it's not a black and white approach.

 

[ilikecheese]

Again, been the same for both sides.

To me, it's more worrying that the media have sides too. I know that's another topic and has been going on for years now, but it makes me switch the news off these days. The truth is all a perception spun by whichever channel you're tuned in to.

Indeed.

CNN: The protestors.....
FOX: Paid anarchists....

 

[Elong]

Indeed.

CNN: The protestors.....
FOX: Paid anarchists....

Yeah I found CNN equally hard to watch this time around. They were as bad as Fox. As Trump starting getting more and more points, the desperation was clear to see.

 

[JonS]

Nixon is worth re-visiting, in light of recent events. He has since been 'normalized' to some extent by having been a President, but before winning, he was considered an odious red-baiting opportunist hick in establishment circles. Dean Acheson famously refused to be in the same room with him: "I will not break bread with that man." And some of the stunts he pulled - the 'Checkers' speech etc. - were legitimately tacky and crude. If something short of the indignation that Trump inspires, Nixon was at least equivalent to a Ted Cruz.

But Nixon was a very thoughtful statesman, and a true innovator in foreign policy, far more so than Kissinger, who, we now know, dismissed most of Nixon's ideas before hastening to take credit for them after they succeeded. It's to Nixon's innovations and courage that Kissinger owes his current status as wise, opaque seer/peddler of platitudes to elites seeking the comfort of familiar self-serving cliches

Nixon came to power by shrewdly, presciently responding to a very similar social chasm, arguably the same one that still divides us, but which then was provoked by far, far more serious turmoil, albeit before the amplifying and falsifying effect of social media. Nixon understood perfectly the power of resentment - it had informed and inspired his entire life's work, far more so than Trump, who is mostly just playing yet another stock-character on TV.

But resentment clouded Nixon's vision and inevitably resulted in his excesses. He simply could not transcend his rage and fear of humiliation, and, at home and abroad, he lashed out violently, impetuously, and counter-productively. As Kissinger snidely but perhaps knowingly quipped: "Just think what this man could have been if he had been loved."

This is what I worry about with Trump - character matters, especially given that someone like Nixon could only look on with envy at the power that Trump now enjoys. I suspect there is a certain amount of bureaucratic and procedural momentum that will guide and restrain the early days. But the entire world will look at this as a weakness to be tested, prodded, and exploited. How will Trump react to provocation, from China, Iran, or even ISIS, which would love nothing more than to goad the US into overreacting, as we done so reliably for the past 16 years? Having flatterred and legitimized a bunch of ex-Baath/suburban Euro virgins with a flair for the dramatic by escalating them into a global security threat to mobilize our own gullible angry men to serve domestic purposes, can the biggest, most spiteful bull of them all resist seeing red when provoked by a procession of the world's most nimble matadors? Can he afford to be clever, or patient, if it risks looking weak to a furiously emasculated base? This is man with a history of extreme, petty vengeance, after all, like Nixon, but with none of Nixon's intelligence or cunning, or, above all, positive guiding visions to counter-balance the fury.

Great writing mate. Really enjoyed your analysis

 

[ilikecheese]

Yeah I found CNN equally hard to watch this time around. They were as bad as Fox. As Trump starting getting more and more points, the desperation was clear to see.

I've mentioned it before that CNN has gradually drifted further and further right as a counter balance of sorts to Fox's "Fair and Balanced" (lol) programming. It's about ratings more than anything else.

It could be said that we have become increasingly more divided as our news feed has become more divided.

 

[tsubaki]

Which means they found that to be more important that denouncing racism and misogyny, which is what I said in my second paragraph.

No, what you said was:

Not all, but consider this - how many Trump supporters do you see denouncing Trump for those views? It's pretty close to "none". He says he "grabs women by the [Poor language removed]" and to a man and woman they're fobbing it off as unimportant. Therefore, whilst not racists and misogynists themselves, they are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to those traits advocated by Trump.