|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 18, 2018 15:44:08 GMT -5
Sure, but to become the most hated man on the planet, I suspect that wasn't part of his plan, however sociopathic he may be. And I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here... He's a textbook narcissist. I truly believe he's not capable of perceiving he can be disliked by anyone much less hated. To the extent he might be able to do so it will be sublimated and re-directed in typical narcissistic patterns. Right. Any attention is good for a narcissist. Exhibit A: Charles Manson. Exhibit B: Ted Bundy. Exhibit C: Kim Jong-un. And so on...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 15:53:32 GMT -5
it's quite wrong to suggest that the British people universally dislike President Trump. I've met quite a few intelligent right-wingers, who probably should know better, that say they admire Trump and, even, that we could do with our own Trump over here instead of a weak leader like Theresa May. YMMV, but I have literally not met a single person who doesn't (a) think he's an absolute imbecile, (b) loathe everything about him; and that cuts across politically boundaries, even those who are fairly out on the head-banger end of the right.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 18, 2018 16:33:26 GMT -5
Sure, but to become the most hated man on the planet, I suspect that wasn't part of his plan, however sociopathic he may be. And I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here... Looking at his business history, his campaign and the mess that is his administration, do you really think he ever had any plan? He just like seeing his name in print and his face on tv and having people sucking up to him. That is the extent of his planning. I still think the election was never serious for him, that he did it for attention and to fleece the suckers who would give him campaign contributions, without producing anything. I think he got caught up in things and just went along with it because he got more and more attention and never expected to win. When he ended up with the White House, I suspect he s@#$ himself and then went with it, surrounding himself with people to massage his ego. The rest is a pack of opportunists who sucked up to get themselves into positions to wallow in the trough.
|
|
cee
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by cee on Jul 18, 2018 17:54:13 GMT -5
I'm inclined to believe that he sincerely went into this believing he'd be loved. And he wasn't wrong. It' just that he didn't think he'd be that hated at the same time.
He is exactly the same kind of politician as Berlusconi was in Italy : rich, vulgar, old but obsessed with youth and kitties, hyper nationalist, TV personnality, with fascist power trips and ideas. Berlusconi even owned the football team Trump wished he had. This led Berluscony to several prison sentences he all managed to escape from, but he got banned from running for any position for 5 years if I remember correctly.
The result is that in a country that used to be communist in the western european way for decades, the far right-nationalist-racist party is now in power, years after the turmoil left by Berlusconi.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 24, 2018 22:49:16 GMT -5
So, Trump says Russian interference was aimed at helping Dems. By targeting their own computer files and stirring up voters against them. So, in other words, the Russians were making the Dems hit themselves and ket saying, "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" I see; it makes perfect, logical sense..... Is this Bizarro World? "Mr President, what about the evidence that the Russians deliberately tried to sway the election?" "Russians am helping Democrats. Me am Bizarro Super Hero number 1! Me am awesome. Me am always winning! So much winning!"
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 26, 2018 20:40:16 GMT -5
Me am love this 24 hour infotainment! Me am never been happier, Trump am genius!
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 27, 2018 5:52:14 GMT -5
An aspect of the Cohen tape story that has me baffled is that while some people are arguing whether Trump paying a playmate to buy her silence constitutes a msidemeanour or not and whether it is actionable, nobody seems to worry that it basically confirms that he did have an extraconjugal affair (something he always vehementaly denied).
When Bill Clinton was in a similar position, it led to an impeachment hearing. Oh, sure, the pretext was that he had lied under oath, but he had lied about his sex life, not about whether he was endangering the country or anything.
Have the times changed? Is cheating on one’s wife acceptable, now? Or is it that when it comes to Trump the public has a very, very high tolerance level on account of all the craziness that surrounds him? Or is it that it really doesn’t matter in the final analysis because the ant-Trumps think he’s guilty anyway, the pro-Trumps think he’s innocent whatever happens and there are no on-the-fence-about-Trump people to sway one way or the other?
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 27, 2018 9:02:07 GMT -5
An aspect of the Cohen tape story that has me baffled is that while some people are arguing whether Trump paying a playmate to buy her silence constitutes a msidemeanour or not and whether it is actionable, nobody seems to worry that it basically confirms that he did have an extraconjugal affair (something he always vehementaly denied). When Bill Clinton was in a similar position, it led to an impeachment hearing. Oh, sure, the pretext was that he had lied under oath, but he had lied about his sex life, not about whether he was endangering the country or anything. Have the times changed? Is cheating on one’s wife acceptable, now? Or is it that when it comes to Trump the public has a very, very high tolerance level on account of all the craziness that surrounds him? Or is it that it really doesn’t matter in the final analysis because the ant-Trumps think he’s guilty anyway, the pro-Trumps think he’s innocent whatever happens and there are no on-the-fence-about-Trump people to sway one way or the other? There are a number of things at play here, in my estimation, including: 1. Trump's alleged activity happened before he was President, while Clinton's with Monica Lewinsky happened while he was in the White House. 2. IRT the Clinton situation, a lot of liberals said that it was his private business, it was between him and his wife, and that it didn't affect how he governed, so why should anyone other than Hilary be upset about it? Well, if you are on record as not considering extramarital affairs to be a big deal, then you've kind of lost the ability to condemn someone else for them. 3. As for the Republicans, they're being tremendous hypocrites about the situation, but that is to be expected from them. They have long been a "do as I say, not as I do" bunch, so why would anyone be surprised they aren't holding Trump to the same standard they held Clinton? The thing people have to realize or remember about Republicans is that they value winning above anything else, and if they view Trump as their best option for holding the White House for four more years (after the next election, as they already have it for 2.5 more now), they will do whatever it takes to protect him. He could bite the head off a dead baby seal while having sex with a live hooker, bite the head off a live baby seal while having sex with a dead hooker, have sex with a dead baby seal while biting the head off a live hooker, or have sex with a live baby seal while biting the head off a dead hooker on TV, but if he represents the Republicans' best chance to retain the presidency and implement their agenda, they'll defend him to the last. Democrats want to play fair, or at least they claim to, and that is why they will lose time and time again. As Dark Helmet put it in Spaceballs, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." Democrats fight for causes while Republicans fight to retain power, so while the Democrats will throw out Al Franken because the #MeToo movement is important to a lot of their base, Republicans will back Trump because he rallies people to their side. Another problem for Democrats is that it doesn't matter how many people in California they register to vote or how many far-left (at least in US terms) folks they elect in New York, because they're going to win those states in a presidential election anyway. Democrats, by and large, don't connect with people in rural areas because the leadership in the Democratic Party, at least recently, views those people as stupid, backwards, and not worth their time; just think of Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" or Hilary's "basket of deplorables" comments. Those folks aren't glamorous and don't pay $10,000 per plate at fundraising dinners so they can hobnob with A-List celebrities, so they aren't worth the time to talk to, to find out what their concerns and needs are, and the Republicans seize on that, telling those folks that the Democrats don't care about them and those folks buy it. That isn't to say it isn't partially true, but the Republicans will do whatever they have to do to win, whereas the Democrats will say "when they go low, we go high". That may be a great slogan and a nice sentiment, but if you want to wrestle a pig, you're going to have to get into the mud at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 27, 2018 10:34:25 GMT -5
There's a lot of sense in what The Captain says here, as Democrats indeed have come across as the party of the elites, but much of that image has been immoderately burnished by the Republicans (and not just the far right, Tea Party types), clearly a tactic of their Machiavellian strategy. But leave us not forget the obvious preference among the Republicans for the moneyed classes, which if it was not evident before they took over all three branches of government, certainly is now. There is not a decision that has been made, an appointment approved, nor a policy enshrined since January 2017 that has not benefited the upper class of this country at the expense of everyone else. These range from the tax cut (Each of the Koch boys benefits to the tune of 500 million dollars) to the ravaging of the EPA (replacing Scot Pruitt or any Trump cabinet member is like cutting off one of the Hydra's heads) to the immolation of any government regulation that in any way restricts the right of a business to make money at the cost of jeopardizing the health and safety of employees or consumers. And that's without mentioning the attempted immolation of Romneycare, which health insurers and drug manufacturers apparently favor. Hmmmm. Give it to the Republicans. Since the devastating defeat of Goldwater in 1964, they have been plotting and planning to do just what they are doing right now. They were patient, clever and calculating, and started their campaign to return America to the Gilded Age at the state and school board level. They took over state legislatures, and ergo the state election boards and commissions. (now they are just a couple of GOP-controlled legislatures away from being able to call for a Constitutional Convention, one that would focus on substantial changes to the the First, Second and "Civil War" Amendments.) They worked alongside fundamentalists on their moral message as they stood up for the persecution of Christians and the "Judaeo-Christian heritage of the Founders, exploited white resentment, aligned with the NRA as it became an arm of the munitions industry, cheapened education by equating theology to science, turned the concept of government regulation into an assault on individual liberty, paradoxically turned the concept of individual choice --whether a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body or anyone's right to love the person he or she chooses -- into civil sins, now have eroded or destroyed much of the public's understanding of the bedrock principles of the Constitution, from freedom of speech to the right to vote. (Thank you, John Roberts.) Obama was vilified for his God and guns remark and Hilary for the basket of deplorables. If they had a chance, they'd not make those comments again. They were shorthand, bumper-sticker sentiments, the kind that whip up your enemies. Trump is excellent at those kinds of statements. However, we can't deny that the GOP and their avatar in the White House I wrote way back somewhere on this thread and said many times in conversation that the 2016 election is our Election of 1860. In this case, the goal of the winning party (ironically, the nominal ancestors of the winners in 2016) was not the preservation of the union, but its disintegration. I think Icctrombone said earlier that we are in the throes of a civil war now, and I see more and more evidence of it every day. This is a fracturing like we have not seen since 1968. Trump is an agent of chaos; he not only thrives in it, he requires it to survive, as others require food and drink and oxygen. He is an expert at playing side against side, and because he cannot be trusted (except to do whatever benefits him in the short term), he's a dangerous opponent. And the GOP is just like him; they're just better behaved. And that's why even if Trump were to be removed tomorrow, none of this would change, at least not quickly. The damage has been done. We are in for a long and difficult run.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 27, 2018 11:24:29 GMT -5
I think Icctrombone said earlier that we are in the throes of a civil war now, and I see more and more evidence of it every day. Agree with this completely. There was a really good article on CNN last week about the divide in Virginia between two districts of the state where the divide has become extreme. The fight now is between the metro/urban centers, which tend to be full of progressive, diverse, secular, information-sector workers, and the suburban/rural areas, which tend to be populated by conservative, white, religious workers in the agricultural, manufacturing, and natural resources extraction fields. One of the biggest issues is that most people have simply lost the ability to see the other side's point of view, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. Politics, as with society in general, has taken on the form of competition, where one side MUST win and the other MUST lose, instead of cooperation for what is best for both sides. There's no middle ground or fence-sitting, just picking a side and destroying the other, because they are the enemy; you see this on both sides of the aisle, and it only gets worse as we live in our echo chambers, getting our news from either CNN or Fox, seeing just our friends' posts on Facebook, and reading just those books and websites that support our point of view and vilify the other side's. The best thing either side could do is just listen, but that takes time and effort that most people don't have the patience for. It's easier to spout off some soundbites, whip your side into a frenzy through fear or envy or hatred, and let the survivors pick through the ashes after the fight. We are indeed in this for the long haul.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 29, 2018 19:03:54 GMT -5
What do you think of Sean Spicer?
I'll tell you why I'm asking later.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 29, 2018 21:30:18 GMT -5
I think nothing of all the sanctimonious alt-right twisted a-holes right now, they are all wastes of time and should be spanked by rather large franchise restaurant employed ladies. The only reason Trump had even one decent person working for him was because he liked the cheers of brainless twits every time he said the "mad dog" nickname at his 'rallies'. People need to start ignoring and simply working around obvious know-nothings pretty soon, not feeding them. Howzzat? Adding: Spicer, a lickspittle lackey to the above at best.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 29, 2018 22:29:36 GMT -5
What do you think of Sean Spicer? I'll tell you why I'm asking later. I prefered Melissa McCarthy's impression to the actual SOB, mouthpiece for morons.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 29, 2018 23:56:20 GMT -5
As for listening. It's an excellent point. I have. What do you do though with the people who never listen back, think they're always right, never admit to being wrong, and will knowingly lie even to maintain that? How long do you keep listening? Maybe not listening with some would be the appropriate thing where they have proven over and over and over that they are almost never worth listening to. So that leaves trying to explain to the people who believe in gurus or leaders that fit that description why the person they are following is manipulating them for less than honorable ends.
So someone comes at you with their half-true 'fact' from the Rush Limbaugh show. You try to get across what Mr. Limbaugh is leaving out but they simply repeat the same thing over again? How do you lead them to their 'aha' moment... that the reason there are "more trees in the U.S. today than when the country was founded" as the righteously outraged Rush has 'woken' them up to with his 'facts' is not because 'enviro-nazis' have lied to us all?!
An old editorial by Analog (Astounding) editor John W. Campbell told of how education has traditionally had to be forced on us humans throughout history, by might or force, or just ultimate gravity (nature). Do we have to fight and start to quit taking b.s. to get these people to use their brains finally? We are in a situation very similar to Weimar republic Germany in the '20s where there was a proliferation of all these very slanted and propagandist newspapers and periodicals. The fact that we have such specialized politically slanted websites and news channels as well as various stripes of so-called newspapers that are not much above the National Enquirer (which is a friend to Trump) is not my idea of an information age. Without protections, laws, regulations it's just an open space to be filled by thugs really, like the thugs fighting in the streets of Weimar Berlin waving various flags and blaming various 'others'.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 30, 2018 4:04:55 GMT -5
The reason I asked about Spicer is because there is someone I follow on Instagram. Someone that has become a small part of my daily routine for about 10 minutes a day after I exercise. Simply put, this person is a news anchor on a news network who's work I enjoy. The network is an international news network. No commercials, and about 8 total shows. Doesn't seem to be very biased one way or the other about global events, which I appreciate. More importantly, the network reports more on a global scale since it's Chinese funded. Well, I guess you can say you might not ever hear anything too discouraging about China in itself. So there is a caveat.
Anyways, I saw recently this person had a photo with Paul Spicer at some public event. I was thinking "dang, isn't this guy bad news?" Apparently this person is life long friends with Spicer. But then I thought, I don't know any of these people so what's the really big deal. For a moment it did cross my mind that maybe I should stop following this person due to the association. But then I thought that was dumb, and I have more pressing matters anyway.
|
|