Trump lies and false news breaks all records

[carpedm9587]

You keep making my point.

Even if Hillary had won, I would still think this is the greatest Country in the world and would not even think of leaving it. The USA isn't a house.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That I'm self-loathing? Not sure that anything you said establishes that. That we are different? We absolutely are. And that you would stick around if Hillary had one seems irrelevant to me. Hillary is not Trump. My point is not that we are electing people who's political stances we disagree with. I have lived through far right and far left without batting an eyelash.

My point is that the ability of our nation to elect a human being as morally compromised, vile, and unacceptable - with no experience for the position - a lon list of conspiracy theories - and pretty much nothing going for him but the persona he created on "The Apprentice" says volumes about our country. That he can ride the tide of media popularity and nationalism to attain office once is a sad, but it says more about the degree of anger/reaction/gullibility of our population than anything else. If, however, it happpens a second time, the problem is significantly deeper. It is an indicator, to me, that the varying ways that our country has degraded over the years are irreversible (at least in my lifetime). I'm not going to spend the rest of my life feeling embarrassed of my country and countrymen, with little/no hope of effecting change. I'll go find a place where I can more happily and proudly live.

However, if your view was that electing Hillary reflected such a badly damaged and dysfunctional country that it was not likely to be repaired in your lifetime, and you still elected to stay here out of (blind?) loyalty, I have to wonder about your rationality. Why would anyone do that to themselves?

But we are discussing prematurely. We have 2.5+ years before we will know whether or not that is going to happen. I have high hopes that most of our citizens will be screaming "your fired" in 2020.

[carpedm9587]

I remember thinking that, when Bill Clinton won, our country was doomed. We survived. We survived Obama. We are a very resilient nation.

Survival is not my metric.

[Zymologist]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That I'm self-loathing? Not sure that anything you said establishes that. That we are different? We absolutely are. And that you wiould stick around if Hillary had one seems irrelevant to me. My point is not that we are electing people who's political stances we disagree with. I have lived through far right and far left without batting an eyelash.

My point is that the ability of our nation to elect a human being as morally compromised, vile, and unacceptable - with no experience for the position - a lon list of conspiracy theories - and pretty much nothing going for him but the persona he created on "The Apprentice" says volumes about our country. That he can ride the tide of media popularity and nationalism to attain office once is a sad, but it says more about the degree of anger/reaction/gullibility of our population than anything else. If, however, it happpens a second time, the problem is significantly deeper. It is an indicator, to me, that the varying ways that our country has degraded over the years are irreversible (at least in my lifetime). I'm not going to spend the rest of my life feeling embarrassed of my country and countrymen, with little/no hope of effecting change. I'll go find a place where I can more happily and proudly live.

But we are discussing prematurely. We have 2.5+ years before we will know whether or not that is going to happen. I have high hopes that most of our citizens will be screaming "your fired" in 2020.

I think I get what you're saying, but what's your opinion on those who voted for Trump--and may vote for him again--as a "lesser of two evils?" No doubt you'd disagree with that, but is that still indicative of the major degradation you're talking about?

[carpedm9587]

I think I get what you're saying, but what's your opinion on those who voted for Trump--and may vote for him again--as a "lesser of two evils?" No doubt you'd disagree with that, but is that still indicative of the major degradation you're talking about?

Frankly, yes. At this point, the only way I could see anyone else beibng the "lesser of two evils" is if the Democrats ran a candidate as loathsome as Trump. If we end-up with two loathsome candidates - if our country cannot find ANY two people who are better than this man, then something is seriously broken.

The ideal scenario, IMO, is if a reasonable someone on the Republican side steps forward and challenges Trump in the primaries, taking him out of the equation completely. The second best scenario is if that does not happen, the Democrats run a reasonable candidate, and they take the election.

Pretty much any other scenario is an indication (to me) that our country has descended to a level of dysfunction that is not likely to change in my lifetime. I look around and see other countries that are far less dysfunctional. I'll probably relocate to one of them. I do have sympathy for those who voted for Trump the first time around. Hillary was widely despised; Trump was making grandiose promises; Trump was pricking the bubble of discontent nationwide. But if, after 4 years of his childish, egocentric, dysfunctional behaviour, and his inability to deliver on the most serious of his promises, he is re-elected...that's an indication (to me) of political blindness and herd/tribal mentality that is just not likely to change in our lifetimes.

[Cow Poke]

Survival is not my metric.

OK, I thrived! Happy? I'm beginning to think you're related to Joe Bltsflkja - whatever his name is... you know, the cartoon guy with the dark cloud over him all the time?

400px-Joe_Btfsplk_Excerpt.jpgjoebtfsplk-300x225.jpg

[carpedm9587]

OK, I thrived! Happy? I'm beginning to think you're related to Joe Bltsflkja - whatever his name is... you know, the cartoon guy with the dark cloud over him all the time?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27027[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]27028[/ATTACH]

That's because you're taking one thread with one opinion and broadcasting it across the entirety of my being...


I'm actually a pretty happy guy!

[Sparko]

However, if your view was that electing Hillary reflected such a badly damaged and dysfunctional country that it was not likely to be repaired in your lifetime, and you still elected to stay here out of (blind?) loyalty, I have to wonder about your rationality. Why would anyone do that to themselves?

My view is that even a lousy president can't destroy this great nation. At most it would be an 8 year setback. I didn't leave when Clinton was elected, or Obama. Just rode it out. One of the great things about our nation is that the President doesn't really have that much power.

[Cow Poke]

That's because you're taking one thread with one opinion and broadcasting it across the entirety of my being...


I'm actually a pretty happy guy!

You PRETEND in all the other threads - this is the ONE thread where it all comes out.

[carpedm9587]

You PRETEND in all the other threads - this is the ONE thread where it all comes out.

[carpedm9587]

I keep forgetting that just tortures the cow....

[Starlight]

One of the great things about our nation is that the President doesn't really have that much power.

Do you realize that the US is unusual in that it gives much more power to the president than other nations typically do?

One of the historical influences in that was that prior to the US declaration of independence, the British king at the time was quite supportive of the US interests, but the British parliament was not. By that time, the British king had minimal political power and the political power had almost all been moved away from the monarchy and into to the hands of the British parliament. This seems to have had an impact on the thinking of a few of the US founding fathers who realized their situation would have been a lot better if the king's political power had been stronger. As a result, when they drafted the constitution, they created the position of President, who was like an elected king, but with vastly more political power than the British king had relative to the parliament.

One big 'lesson of history' in the time since the creation of the US, that has been observed in nations around the world, is that giving a single person as much power as the US gives its president, tends to eventually result in problems. As a result the academic consensus now seems to be that having a powerful elected president = bad system, and that the preferable system is a parliamentary system (where rather than electing a particular person into a leadership position such as presidency, the populace instead votes for congressmen/MPs or parties, and those parties themselves appoint their leaders among themselves and can replace them at any time, like how the Speaker of the House position functions in the US) because you are not focusing political power in the hands of a single person, you are distributing it among a large group of elected people. This generally stops the formation of dictatorships because the power is always distributed and never consolidated in the hands of any single person.

[shunyadragon]

You PRETEND in all the other threads - this is the ONE thread where it all comes out.

It is interesting that go to extreme efforts not respond to the topic of the thread and PRETEND in all threads.

[carpedm9587]

My view is that even a lousy president can't destroy this great nation. At most it would be an 8 year setback. I didn't leave when Clinton was elected, or Obama. Just rode it out. One of the great things about our nation is that the President doesn't really have that much power.

I completely missed this statement. It is, unfortunately, not as true as it used to be. Over time, the presidency has accumulated far more power than it once had. Little by little, the president has accumulated the ability to wage war (by calling it a military action), control immigration, establish terrorist-control policies, etc. There is a good article about this shift here.

[Starlight]

Survival is not my metric.

There's been some quite interesting studies lately that indicate the biggest difference between US conservatives and liberals is fear.

The conservatives typically have a bigger amygdala (the part of the brain that responds to fear) on MRI scans, and in psychological tests they spend more time than liberals looking at scary things when shown them. Psychological research also shows that if you put a conservative in a less-scared frame of mind for a while (e.g. by getting them to imagine they have a superpower of being unable to be physically harmed in any way) then they start giving more liberal answers to political questions (and similarly if you scare a liberal and make them afraid then they start giving more conservative answers to political questions).

Given that fear (and particularly fear of physical harm to self) seems to drive the conservative brain (literally, via an overactive amygdala) and mindset, it seems totally unsurprising that "survival" is their focus but not yours.

[carpedm9587]

There's been some quite interesting studies lately that indicate the biggest difference between US conservatives and liberals is fear.

The conservatives typically have a bigger amygdala (the part of the brain that responds to fear) on MRI scans, and in psychological tests they spend more time than liberals looking at scary things when shown them. Psychological research also shows that if you put a conservative in a less-scared frame of mind for a while (e.g. by getting them to imagine they have a superpower of being unable to be physically harmed in any way) then they start giving more liberal answers to political questions (and similarly if you scare a liberal and make them afraid then they start giving more conservative answers to political questions).

Given that fear (and particularly fear of physical harm to self) seems to drive the conservative brain (literally, via an overactive amygdala) and mindset, it seems totally unsurprising that "survival" is their focus but not yours.

I'm going to stay FAR away from that here... but I'll read the links...