Trumpisms

[carpedm9587]

The worst I remember is the birther issue. That's small fries compared to what we are getting now. Everything else was criticism of policy and that is what I expect.

I think you're being selective. There is a marvelous video, which I cannot find now, of the hypocrisy of Fox News. When Obama made reference to being willing to sit and have discussions with the leaders of Iran and north Korea, he was pilloried from almost every Fox news commentator. Those exact same people, when Trump made the exact same proposition, were all praise for his awesome leadership. I wish I could find it - it's hysterical. And that was just one example of Fox News' over-the-top reactions to Obama, for 8 solid years. There was a reason Obama wanted to kick them out of the press pool (which I think was a stupid move on his part).

Fair enough.

OK, I'll reword it. You'll need to ask all those lefty minded thinkers out there what they mean by it.

OK

Historical enemies being Russia by any chance? Perhaps you mean the UK for the allies part or even the EU? The whole Russia collusion thing just seems to be a load of noise really, a nothing burger if you will. As for the UK or the EU, well not everybody in the UK hates his guts, just the vocal brainless majority who need to be screeching because they have nothing better to do with their time. The EU is a massively corrupt organization and I'm glad that Trump is standing up to them. So I don't have any beef with him on that one. As far as I'm concerned Believe him to be on the "right side of history" for that one :)

Again - I said nothing about "collusion" - so not my issue. I am talking about taking a public stance, on foreign soil, against his own intelligence agencies and in favor of Putin. And Trump's behavior with Putin is simply not above suspicion. We know he has had business interests in Russia. Now name me one other president who has sat in a one-to-one meeting with a Russian leader with no one present but a member of his own family.

Something is rotten. I just don't know what it is.

Sure

Well I don't see why.

Because he's a vile man that I find to be an embarrassment to our country. He does not represent values I find important.

Do you think the negative news spin can still be affecting you on this though? I learned not to trust such organizations when I was but a lad studying Modern Studies at school. You quickly learn what the term "spin" is all about.

Let me elaborate a bit more. In my younger days, when I was a lefty myself I was a follower of what used to be a small party in Scotland called the Scottish Nationalist Party. Don't let the term "Nationalist" fool you, they were and still are a party fairly on the left of the political spectrum, even more so now I would say. The main policy was for an independent Scotland away from the UK. My beliefs were that a country should govern itself and make it's own laws and Scotland is a separate country. This was before devolution as well, i.e. before we got our own devolved parliament. When I moved to England I stopped voting completely on the basis that I had no-one to vote for. The SNP don't run for seats down in England obviously. However nowadays I don't recognize the Scottish Nationalist Party. Sure they want to still break away from Westminister and have an independent Scotland but they want to rejoin the European Union again after that happens. Essentially saying that we can't have England make our laws but it's OK for the 27 other countries in the European Union to do so. The Scottish Nationalist Party aren't a nationalist party anymore, they are essentially the Scottish Internationalist Party. That's when I learned that it was just an anti-English movement or at least had become one. I'd rather have a union with the UK, at least we have a closer understanding of each other than we do with the European Continent. How a party can spin itself as being a nationalist party while holding such beliefs is beyond me. Rightly so if you do mention this to anybody on the European continent the idea confuses them also and they wouldn't consider such a thing to be "nationalist".

So, a couple things. First, I would be a fool to claim I am 100% unaffected by negative news form any quadrant, but I do work pretty hard to form my opinions on the basis of what I see and hear and not what others say. I work to confirm what I read as much as I can. But most of my opinion about Trump is not based on what anyone else has said or written - it is based on his own words and deeds as observed by yours truly. I watched his interviews with Howard Stern over the years. I listened to the Access Hollywood tape. I listened to his speeches (actually, I try to read them - I'm at the point where watching him is like fingers on a chalk board). I follow him on Twitter and read his tweets. I read his executive orders and his announced policy positions. I listen to his proxies speak. My impression is on an entire administration infected with his narcissism and penchant for lying.

As for nationalism - or perhaps populism - it doesn't seem to me that is uniquely left or right. Both ends of the spectrum are capable of nationalism and populism - it just takes different forms. I am not a big "nationalist" myself. I have long loved my country - but I am more a child of the planet than a child of a particular nation. That may be because I travel pretty widely, and I am closely tied to the technologies that have come to bind us together. The shift to globalism, IMO, began a long time ago. It began when the empires of Spain, Portugal, France, and England set out to colonize the planet. It continued when the telegraph made global communication possible in a matter of minutes or hours instead of weeks or months. It was furthered when the planet was tied together by a global airline system. It really took hold in an irreversible way when the Internet became the force that it has become. We are tied together by money - by travel - by information - and increasingly by law. A nation seeking to withdraw itself from that reality is simply going to isolate, and ultimately impoverish, itself. We see that repeated in government after government, but nowhere with as much clarity as the difference between the two Koreas.

So, for me, the question is how we find a balance between "national law" and "international law." How we find the balance between a national economy, and the international economy. All f it is about compromise and balance. Those are two concepts Trump does not understand. He is locked into a fever of nationalism and populism and, IMO, blind to its long-term consequences. He is doing more harm than good, by far.

So I don't like the man - I think he's a vile, immoral/amoral pig. And I don't like his policies. I think he is harming our country and the world in general.

[carpedm9587]

I had to reread this .... I initially saw "hat crimes".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34878[/ATTACH]

He is guilty of promoting/fostering an environment in which both hate crimes and hat crimes occur.

[Cow Poke]

He is guilty of promoting/fostering an environment in which both hate crimes and hat crimes occur.

Except for the hat, Obama did the same thing -- we have become a very divisive nation, and it didn't just suddenly come upon us when Trump came on the scene.

[carpedm9587]

Except for the hat, Obama did the same thing -- we have become a very divisive nation, and it didn't just suddenly come upon us when Trump came on the scene.

Oh I think we knew it before. Polarization is not new. It's just reached a fever pitch.

[Cow Poke]

Oh I think we knew it before. Polarization is not new. It's just reached a fever pitch.

But it's still all Trump's fault, eh? Remember Obama constantly weighing in on divisive issues before getting all the facts?

[Charles]

[carpedm9587]

But it's still all Trump's fault, eh? Remember Obama constantly weighing in on divisive issues before getting all the facts?

You and I have very different views of Obama. And we have very different views on what has most contributed to the polarization. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on much of it.

I frankly think you'd be surprised by what I think most contributed to the polarization. But, in the event you have any interest at all, I think this is a pretty good list.

[Cow Poke]

You and I have very different views of Obama.

Of course!

And we have very different views on what has most contributed to the polarization. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on much of it.

You are certainly entitled to be wrong, but I still love ya.

I frankly think you'd be surprised by what I think most contributed to the polarization.

Quite frankly, I'm still surprised by your view of Nathan Phillips.

But, in the event you have any interest at all, I think this is a pretty good list.

I take no particular issue with your list, and particularly think that #13 plays a HUGE part.

[carpedm9587]

Of course!

You are certainly entitled to be wrong, but I still love ya.

Took the words right out of my mouth

Quite frankly, I'm still surprised by your view of Nathan Phillips.

In all honesty, CP, I don't think you have a clue what my view of Nathan Phillips is. My impression is that you were too busy reacting to actually listen to what I was saying - and to hear how my views were evolving as more information came forth. You also added a great deal to my posts that I never put there. It happens a lot around here.

If you're actually interested, just ask.

I take no particular issue with your list, and particularly think that #13 plays a HUGE part.

There were numbers?

(I can't even find the list anymore... )

[Cow Poke]

There were numbers?

(I can't even find the list anymore... )

source

I would add, in addition to the "decline of journalistic responsibility", the mayhem known as "social media" which pretty much force-feeds perceptions on either side.

[carpedm9587]

source

I would add, in addition to the "decline of journalistic responsibility", the mayhem known as "social media" which pretty much force-feeds perceptions on either side.

Ahh... THAT list. I thought you were talking about the list of "evil things Trump has done or is doing."

I'm engaged in too many discussions. I'm losing track...

I largely agree with you. We all thought the Internet would make for a free flow of information and create a level playing field. No one stopped to realize that it makes it possible for people to surround themselves with exactly the information that will feed their confirmation bias (i.e., their "bubble") and result in people auguring down into a hole of their own making.

It's one of the reasons I'm here (and other sites/groups that lean both left and right). I began to realize I was in my own little bubble - and wanted to get out of it.

It's also why I have dinner/lunch with my VERY Republican sister and her husband regularly - specifically for the purpose of talking politics.

[Cow Poke]

Ahh... THAT list. I thought you were talking about the list of "evil things Trump has done or is doing."

You never pay attention to me when I talk.



Quick story....

My wife and I were going to a Christmas Party one night, and we were stopped at a red light. There was a car in front of me, and I noticed in my rearview mirror that a car was coming up on us too fast to stop - I told my wife "Brace for Impact!!!"

The car hit us, but he had sufficiently braked to make it just a "bump" instead of a crash.

We got out to exchange information - he seemed like a decent chap - so I told him, "look, it doesn't appear there's any damage, but I'll look at it in the light of day, and if there's any problem, I'll call you". We shook hands, and were getting ready to get into our respective vehicles, when he called, "wait just a minute".

I stopped, turned around, and he said, "Can I just explain one thing?" I said "sure!"

He said, the reason I hit you was because my wife had just said "you never look at me when I talk", so I looked at her, and .... BAM!!!!

[carpedm9587]

You never pay attention to me when I talk.



Quick story....

My wife and I were going to a Christmas Party one night, and we were stopped at a red light. There was a car in front of me, and I noticed in my rearview mirror that a car was coming up on us too fast to stop - I told my wife "Brace for Impact!!!"

The car hit us, but he had sufficiently braked to make it just a "bump" instead of a crash.

We got out to exchange information - he seemed like a decent chap - so I told him, "look, it doesn't appear there's any damage, but I'll look at it in the light of day, and if there's any problem, I'll call you". We shook hands, and were getting ready to get into our respective vehicles, when he called, "wait just a minute".

I stopped, turned around, and he said, "Can I just explain one thing?" I said "sure!"

He said, the reason I hit you was because my wife had just said "you never look at me when I talk", so I looked at her, and .... BAM!!!!

I love it. And it's another data point to support a position I have long had....


...it's usually the wife's fault...

[Darth Ovious]

I think you're being selective. There is a marvelous video, which I cannot find now, of the hypocrisy of Fox News. When Obama made reference to being willing to sit and have discussions with the leaders of Iran and north Korea, he was pilloried from almost every Fox news commentator. Those exact same people, when Trump made the exact same proposition, were all praise for his awesome leadership. I wish I could find it - it's hysterical. And that was just one example of Fox News' over-the-top reactions to Obama, for 8 solid years. There was a reason Obama wanted to kick them out of the press pool (which I think was a stupid move on his part).

Do you not think that that both presidents had different intents? Even you have to admit that Trump didn't enter negotiations with North Korea to appease them but was willing to call out Kim Jong-un.

Again - I said nothing about "collusion" - so not my issue. I am talking about taking a public stance, on foreign soil, against his own intelligence agencies and in favor of Putin. And Trump's behavior with Putin is simply not above suspicion. We know he has had business interests in Russia. Now name me one other president who has sat in a one-to-one meeting with a Russian leader with no one present but a member of his own family.

Something is rotten. I just don't know what it is.

I was asking what your stance was not necessarily saying you believed in collusion. I couldn't really care much about Putin really. There was the incident here in the UK with the nerve gas that they tried to pin on Putin but couldn't really prove it, although granted he would be a suspect. However there is consideration to be made that it was an ex soviet agent being targeted and not the British public. Don't get me, it was bad and it did affect British people, I'm just saying they weren't the targets so it wasn't a direct threat against the UK is all I'm saying. I'm a bit confused why you think leaders having one to one meetings is an issue. Surely lots of world leaders have one to one meetings with each other.

Because he's a vile man that I find to be an embarrassment to our country. He does not represent values I find important.

Vile man seems to be quite a strong term. Don't get me wrong I think he overstepped the mark with Ted Cruz and the incident with his wife and all but I think you are ignoring the plus sides of his humanity. For instance he has been credited with charity work and also been known to give money to kids as kind gestures. He is a human being after all and nobody is perfect.

So, a couple things. First, I would be a fool to claim I am 100% unaffected by negative news form any quadrant, but I do work pretty hard to form my opinions on the basis of what I see and hear and not what others say. I work to confirm what I read as much as I can. But most of my opinion about Trump is not based on what anyone else has said or written - it is based on his own words and deeds as observed by yours truly. I watched his interviews with Howard Stern over the years. I listened to the Access Hollywood tape. I listened to his speeches (actually, I try to read them - I'm at the point where watching him is like fingers on a chalk board). I follow him on Twitter and read his tweets. I read his executive orders and his announced policy positions. I listen to his proxies speak. My impression is on an entire administration infected with his narcissism and penchant for lying.

As for nationalism - or perhaps populism - it doesn't seem to me that is uniquely left or right. Both ends of the spectrum are capable of nationalism and populism - it just takes different forms. I am not a big "nationalist" myself. I have long loved my country - but I am more a child of the planet than a child of a particular nation. That may be because I travel pretty widely, and I am closely tied to the technologies that have come to bind us together. The shift to globalism, IMO, began a long time ago. It began when the empires of Spain, Portugal, France, and England set out to colonize the planet. It continued when the telegraph made global communication possible in a matter of minutes or hours instead of weeks or months. It was furthered when the planet was tied together by a global airline system. It really took hold in an irreversible way when the Internet became the force that it has become. We are tied together by money - by travel - by information - and increasingly by law. A nation seeking to withdraw itself from that reality is simply going to isolate, and ultimately impoverish, itself. We see that repeated in government after government, but nowhere with as much clarity as the difference between the two Koreas.

So, for me, the question is how we find a balance between "national law" and "international law." How we find the balance between a national economy, and the international economy. All f it is about compromise and balance. Those are two concepts Trump does not understand. He is locked into a fever of nationalism and populism and, IMO, blind to its long-term consequences. He is doing more harm than good, by far.

So I don't like the man - I think he's a vile, immoral/amoral pig. And I don't like his policies. I think he is harming our country and the world in general.

I'm just going to note things it was quite a long paragraph to read.

Access Hollywood tape - Sorry but I've had friends of mine joke about a lot worse than that. They may seem like bad jokes and all but I wouldn't say that those friends were awful people because of it. I guess my background and generation is a lot different to yours in that sense. There is a lot truth when they call it "locker room talk". Heck my friends didn't even say these things in a locker room and not just with me present either but other friends of mine in a group. It was taken with the grain of salt like it should be.

Howard Stern interviews - You'll have to explain those ones to me. I've not seen them.

As for his policy decisions and speeches I think that the things he says get taken a different way from what he means. I've seen people spin this quite a lot. Usually in real life we will listen to people and just understand a comment when they say it, but for some reason when it's Trump it's just automatically assumed to be taken for the worse. I've no idea why. He will say one thing and then everybody else will believe CNN when they report that he said something different.

I think you are wrong about globalism. My wife is from Thailand and I have been there several times. They still have a nationalist attitude towards their country, it doesn't mean that they can't work with other nations and I don't see Trump saying that either. I think you need to get a better definition of what is meant by globalism. My anti- EU stance is built on my belief that it is built wrong. It is corrupt, overbearing and undemocratic. I don't mind a union of countries wanting a trade union with each other but I do object to a massive bureaucracy that seeks nothing but to control us. What people are objecting to with globalism is the controlling narrative, not countries working together to actually improve things. To me a one world government just eventually becomes a one world dictatorship and when that happens they will be no-one who can stand up to such a thing. There is a reason why British colonialism failed. It wasn't just.

I don't think any less of Trump because he wants to look after America's interests. After all that is what he is elected to do. He doesn't want to stop cooperating with the rest of the world completely, he just doesn't want America to pulling the full weight and I can understand why. What gain is there if it's only America contributing to the world stage and other nations are neglecting on that front?

[carpedm9587]

Do you not think that that both presidents had different intents? Even you have to admit that Trump didn't enter negotiations with North Korea to appease them but was willing to call out Kim Jong-un.

No, I don't see them as different. There was nothing in what Obama said that I can find that said "appeasement." His stated position is that you cannot make progress without engaging, and he was willing to engage. Several other presidents engaged with Kim and achieved concessions - only to have them come to nothing. None of them saluted the generals of that power. I realize I am speculating, but it is hard for me to imagine that if Obama had done so, there wouldn't have been a massive outcry from the right. But Trump did - and even his own intelligence chiefs are telling him: Kim is showing no signs of giving up nukes. As far as I can tell - one thing has happened: Kim stopped his missile tests. That's something, but it's something that has happened before. So, as of now, I'm not seeing anything more from Trump than I've seen from others - and they managed it without a lot of childish name-calling.

I was asking what your stance was not necessarily saying you believed in collusion. I couldn't really care much about Putin really. There was the incident here in the UK with the nerve gas that they tried to pin on Putin but couldn't really prove it, although granted he would be a suspect. However there is consideration to be made that it was an ex soviet agent being targeted and not the British public. Don't get me, it was bad and it did affect British people, I'm just saying they weren't the targets so it wasn't a direct threat against the UK is all I'm saying. I'm a bit confused why you think leaders having one to one meetings is an issue. Surely lots of world leaders have one to one meetings with each other.

I know of no meeting between the leaders of enemy nations that was one-on-one with only a family member in the room. Trump (and his organization) have a history of lying and cheating and profiting from some very unsavory dealings. The combination of this one-on-one meeting, Trump's personal/moral/business history, and his business interests in Russia, have an odor to them. They are not proof of anything - but something is not right. Hopefully, eventually, we'll know.

Vile man seems to be quite a strong term. Don't get me wrong I think he overstepped the mark with Ted Cruz and the incident with his wife and all but I think you are ignoring the plus sides of his humanity. For instance he has been credited with charity work and also been known to give money to kids as kind gestures. He is a human being after all and nobody is perfect.

No one is "100% evil," so I am sure Trump has had his moments. But what I have found in digging into his history and his business dealings, and what I have seen of the public man both before and after his campaign and election lead me to the belief the man is predominantly vile. He is narcissistic to an extreme. He is almost blindly profit-driven. His so-called "foundation" was riddled with inappropriate activity. He demands loyalty and gives none. He has no business in the highest office in this land, IMO. I have to wonder, of all of the registered Republicans in the U.S., was this truly the best the Republican party could do?

I'm just going to note things it was quite a long paragraph to read.

Fair enough.

Access Hollywood tape - Sorry but I've had friends of mine joke about a lot worse than that. They may seem like bad jokes and all but I wouldn't say that those friends were awful people because of it. I guess my background and generation is a lot different to yours in that sense. There is a lot truth when they call it "locker room talk". Heck my friends didn't even say these things in a locker room and not just with me present either but other friends of mine in a group. It was taken with the grain of salt like it should be.

And therein lies the problem. It's not appropriate - and betrays an attitude about women that is not appropriate. I realize many on the right have simply dismissed it - including (apparently) most evangelicals (which absolutely amazes me). Even the few that initially decried it ended up dismissing it and embracing Trump. By itself, I probably would have said, "bad moment - everyone slips." Taken in combination with everything else - it paints a portrait.

Howard Stern interviews - You'll have to explain those ones to me. I've not seen them.

Search on "Sterns, Trump, Daughter." I'll be very curious to know what you think.

As for his policy decisions and speeches I think that the things he says get taken a different way from what he means. I've seen people spin this quite a lot. Usually in real life we will listen to people and just understand a comment when they say it, but for some reason when it's Trump it's just automatically assumed to be taken for the worse. I've no idea why. He will say one thing and then everybody else will believe CNN when they report that he said something different.

Darth - he's championed people doing violence in his rallies - he's ridiculed people right and left - he's told one lie after another. I'm not talking about his inability to frame a coherent sentence - I'm talking about what he incites and his actions. He behaves likes middle-school bully. Frankly, the primary reason I DON'T want to see Biden run for office is that he has a tendency to get down in the dirt right along with Trump. We need better.

I think you are wrong about globalism. My wife is from Thailand and I have been there several times. They still have a nationalist attitude towards their country, it doesn't mean that they can't work with other nations and I don't see Trump saying that either. I think you need to get a better definition of what is meant by globalism. My anti- EU stance is built on my belief that it is built wrong. It is corrupt, overbearing and undemocratic. I don't mind a union of countries wanting a trade union with each other but I do object to a massive bureaucracy that seeks nothing but to control us. What people are objecting to with globalism is the controlling narrative, not countries working together to actually improve things. To me a one world government just eventually becomes a one world dictatorship and when that happens they will be no-one who can stand up to such a thing. There is a reason why British colonialism failed. It wasn't just.

Oh I don't think that nationalism is a dirty word, Darth - don't get me wrong. I think that nationalism that excludes globalism is a bad call. As with all things - they need to be kept in balance. The nuances of each nation - their culture and history and practices - makes for delightful variation. The last thing I want to see is a global heterology. But the hyper focus on "America First" is not what I think we should be doing. In several ways - we already ARE first. Most notably, we are the richest nation in the world, holding the combined wealth of 1/3 of the globe. Trump occasionally tosses out a "let's all work together" and "we still want to be involved," but these occasional tidbits don't align with his choices and actions. And that is NOT the energy from his base. Just tune in to one of his rallies.

I don't think any less of Trump because he wants to look after America's interests. After all that is what he is elected to do. He doesn't want to stop cooperating with the rest of the world completely, he just doesn't want America to pulling the full weight and I can understand why. What gain is there if it's only America contributing to the world stage and other nations are neglecting on that front?

I sincerely doubt Trump has any interest in "America's interests." Trump has interest in Trump's interests. His narcissism and megalomania preclude pretty much anything else. And America has never been "pulling the full weight" of anything. We HAVE been pulling a disproportionately larger weight. IMO, that is as it should be. To those who have much, much is expected. I remember complaining once, years ago, that more and more of my salary was being taken in taxes. The owner of the company turned and looked at me and said something I'll never forget, "stop complaining," he said, "you're paying more because you're making more. A lot of people never get that opportunity." We live in the most wealthy nation on the planet. We have gotten there by freely polluting (at a time when it was not seen as a big issue) and by engaging in "America First" corporate practices that had us pillaging smaller, developing countries. I know - I was in several of them and saw it from the other side.

So now, from the height of our wealth, we're going to complain when we have to carry a bit of a lion's share? There is something amazingly self-serving in that posture. It fits well with Trump's personality. It does not fit with mine.

BTW, Darth, I recognize that you and I are probably pretty far apart in our views on Trump. Usually, exchanges with someone with your views turn into denigration, ridicule, and the inevitable stream of condescending emojis. I appreciate that you are keeping it above that level. I may not be impressed by Trump - but I am impressed by you.