Trump

[Guest]

But for crying out loud get over the words. I wish he wouldn't say those kind of things. I wish we'd see a lot more of the SOTU effort and less of the twitter effort. But there are a lot of people out there that are sick and tired of being threatened, brow beaten and told they are racist, privileged and wrong just because they work hard and stay out of trouble and have been under threat from the left for years, and you know this is true. Now that they have a leader who fights back and some enjoy that. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

"a lot of people tired of being threatened, brow beaten and TOLD they are racist, privileged, and wrong." "For crying out loud get over the words"

LOL.

[wufan]

Yes. He said "Somebody said, 'treasonous.' I mean, yeah, I guess 'why not?' Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much."



This is exactly what I predicted. Trump supporters were always going to say "yeah, I'm not a fan of the tweeting, but get over it." Do I really have to explain why it's bad for the president to call the other side treasonous for not supporting him? That's North Korea level stuff. It's not "silly." It's propaganda, and it's frightening to see people think it's not a big deal. It is absolutely, unequivocally not the same as "Nancy's look of hatred." One is an expression of disapproval for government actions. The other is an attempt to brainwash people into thinking democrats are anti-american and treasonous for the mere fact that they don't support our supreme leader. And it's got people thinking that it's okay for the president to say stuff like that so long as he's not literally throwing people in jail for their behavior.

Look, Trump is not going to stop his crap so long as his base is telling his targets to lighten up. At some point, the base has to come around and start saying "we like your policies, but unless you change you're behavior we're going to support a republican challenger in 2020."

Two other notes:

1. My first post wasn't even an attempt to get anyone on board. It was literally just a defense of a pretty rationale post by CBB. I just don't think it's fair to call his post a "tantrum" when it's a pretty reasonable thing to have a visceral reaction to.

2. As to the rest of your post about dems shutting down free speech: I try to be a pretty big advocate for free speech rights in most contexts. I don't think it's accurate to suggest I regularly support the limitation of those rights.

A tantrum IS a visceral response to words. It’s almost the definition.

[wufan]

So there are disagreements as to how far is too far. What’s the proposal? Counter name calling?

[jdshock]

A tantrum IS a visceral response to words. It’s almost the definition.

Look, you called out CBB for having a "tantrum" and literally said it added nothing to the discussion. And instead of responding to any of my post about why it's meaningful Trump called half of our elected officials treasonous, you are getting into a "the definition of the word 'is'" type discussion about the word tantrum.

Yes, my point is that you called it a tantrum in an attempt to discredit everything in the post. My point is also that we should give people a little leeway to have more visceral reactions if we think the president is trying to shut down free speech. Those aren't contradictory beliefs. That's specifically my point. Instead of saying "whoa, that's a tantrum so I don't have to respond," we should all do a better job of trying to respond to the merits.

So there are disagreements as to how far is too far. What’s the proposal? Counter name calling?

I do not understand this post. Calling people treasonous is not "name calling." My proposal is that Trump's base should start making a stir about these kinds of comments instead of saying "I don't support it, but what are you gonna do?" or "rub dirt in it."

[wufan]

I promise you, this is not even slightly the measure of my vitriol. And this is coming from a person that has never cast a vote for a Democratic President.

Frankly, I think the most useful thing I can say to those that still support Trump is "look in a mirror, you are *** ****** insane." Literally every view, belief, idea, thought, meme is false or delusional. My fight-flight reaction goes off the charts when I see people buying into propaganda to the absurd extent I am seeing, despite mounds of contradictory evidence.

I see people defending, nay actually full-throatedly supporting Nunes. Nunes, a member of the Trump transition team whose conflict of interest led to his recusing himself from Russia related matters. It is beyond hypocritical to attack the FBI for the "bias" of thinking Trump-affiliates are guilty and trying to prosecute them (that is sort of the definition of prosecution) but to defend Nunes breaking his recusal to push factually false memos that are plagued with actual conflicts of interest. And like all these things, I have pages of equally bad backstory showing massive conflicts of interest, outright lies, and extremely dangerous propaganda points that all point to Nunes being untrustworthy and acting in bad faith.

As far as Trump goes, I don't have a positive opinion of him. Perhaps that will be taken wrongly: I don't mean to say my overall viewpoint of the man is negative, but rather that I do not have single individual positive thought towards the man among all the negative.

Do I think he is racist? Well, not nearly as much as he is sexist, but certainly. That is what I consider to be the reasonable conclusion after Trump: refused to rent to black people, says Haitians have aids and Nigerians live huts, said he "hates" black guys counting his money, called for the death penalty for 5 black teenagers after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, stated that laziness was a trait in blacks, called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" including US citizens, claimed a judge was bias because of his Mexican heritage, etc.

To put forth such effort defending such a man is ... delusional is the nicest word I can muster. Like I said before, this is basically a fight or flight reaction to people calmly accepting and even supporting calls to arrest any opposition for treason, "bias," or some sort of conspiratorial coup. That should be the point where even Trump supporters step back and say "wow, that is really too far." Instead, they cheer louder.

Lots of hyperbole and shooting from the hip. Your framing and bias makes for a lousy argument.

[jdshock]

I'll also add: all of my prior arguments were before seeing that post you quoted because I do think that one is probably not a particularly helpful post on this subject, lol.

So, I'll walk my comments back a little.

[wufan]

Yes. He said "Somebody said, 'treasonous.' I mean, yeah, I guess 'why not?' Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much."



This is exactly what I predicted. Trump supporters were always going to say "yeah, I'm not a fan of the tweeting, but get over it." Do I really have to explain why it's bad for the president to call the other side treasonous for not supporting him? That's North Korea level stuff. It's not "silly." It's propaganda, and it's frightening to see people think it's not a big deal. It is absolutely, unequivocally not the same as "Nancy's look of hatred." One is an expression of disapproval for government actions. The other is an attempt to brainwash people into thinking democrats are anti-american and treasonous for the mere fact that they don't support our supreme leader. And it's got people thinking that it's okay for the president to say stuff like that so long as he's not literally throwing people in jail for their behavior.

Look, Trump is not going to stop his crap so long as his base is telling his targets to lighten up. At some point, the base has to come around and start saying "we like your policies, but unless you change you're behavior we're going to support a republican challenger in 2020."

Two other notes:

1. My first post wasn't even an attempt to get anyone on board. It was literally just a defense of a pretty rationale post by CBB. I just don't think it's fair to call his post a "tantrum" when it's a pretty reasonable thing to have a visceral reaction to.

2. As to the rest of your post about dems shutting down free speech: I try to be a pretty big advocate for free speech rights in most contexts. I don't think it's accurate to suggest I regularly support the limitation of those rights.

I believe actions are important, not words. Trumps actions aren’t threatening in any way in my mind, therefore, I’m only mildly concerned.

As to the the comment that the base should oppose him. It’s pretty clear that opposition to Trumps words are not effective. Instead, we should praise and criticize his actions and policies. Actions have long lasting impact. I’m up for that.

[ShockingButTrue]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ail-probe.html

The lyin' SOB perjured himself ... Again!

[CBB_Fan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ail-probe.html

The lyin' SOB perjured himself ... Again!

Just so you know, that article says a lie in its first sentence.

An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president Barack Obama wanted updates on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The text they refer to was send on September 2nd 2016 (I should know; I went through all of them). There was no Clinton email investigation at the time. The text itself said "potus wants to know everything we're doing" and didn't go into more details, but let me explain the timeline.

The Clinton email investigation ended on July 5th. Weiner's laptop was found to have new emails on September 28th, and was brought to McCabe's attention on October 28th. In the simplest terms, the text message was sent in a period where no one knew about the Weiner laptop and could has to refer to something other than the email investigation.

The previous text explained that the meeting was for "TPs for D," where "D" is taken to mean the director of the FBI James Comey. It was likely referring to calls by house Democrats to investigate Russia-Trump connections, as that is a much better fit to the timeline and what Comey was working on at the time. It also matches Obama's schedule; he met with Vladimir Putin at the G20 conference on September 5th.

Also, perjury is lying under oath. For instance, your Secretary of State has committed perjury by lying about never meeting Russians. As far as I am aware, Fox News is not a court either now or when Obama gave the interview. There is also a difference between wanting to know what the FBI has found in its investigations and actively trying to influence them. Obama asked for updates, Trump called for leading investigators to be fired.

Again, reality is obvious, documented, and consistent. You choose to ignore it.

[ShockingButTrue]

The court of public opinion Sherlock. He took his oath at the inauguration. You're pretty quick.

You leftist's must think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary is blind, stupid, or both... oh, wait...

[ShockingButTrue]

Lie.jpg

Un huh... A picture is worth a thousand words. It's just quicker to post than to elaborate. You get my point.

Haters gonna' hate...

[JJClamdip]

image.jpeg

[ShockingButTrue]

It's just like an episode of All In The Family isn't it?

What bias?

[ShockingButTrue]

Cuz' she was never put under oath?

I seem to have read somewhere recently where she had stated she didn't win the election because of misogyny. The succubus is weakening.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mi...&utm_content=1

The DOJ's IG M. Horowitzs' final report hopefully will be coming to the light pretty soon. Nunes is just compiling the evidence. One could he say he's making a portfolio, just as the DNC/Steele did. The snowflakes can just stay in their cocoons.

[JJClamdip]

image.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpeg

[jdshock]

I believe actions are important, not words. Trumps actions aren’t threatening in any way in my mind, therefore, I’m only mildly concerned.

As to the the comment that the base should oppose him. It’s pretty clear that opposition to Trumps words are not effective. Instead, we should praise and criticize his actions and policies. Actions have long lasting impact. I’m up for that.

This just feels like a cop out. You know words have meaning. Let's think about a few examples.

• If any of the economic growth can be attributed to Trump in 2017, it was almost all based on "words" since he hadn't passed any economic legislation until the end of the year.
• If the president were to say something like "employers should stop hiring Catholics because they show poor moral judgment," you don't think that would have any effect?
• If the president were to say "don't trust Paul Ryan because he's just part of the swamp," you don't think that could possibly change election results?
• If words don't matter, why do we have a SOTU? Why do we have speeches?

Words are actions. Saying the democrats were treasonous for not supporting him causes (1) a further divide between the two parties; (2) his base to feel further justified in their loyalty to Trump since anyone who opposes him is unamerican; and (3) creates a disincentive to speaking out against the president. As small as you think it might be, it is a disincentive to speak out against the president if you think you might get called treasonous.

You say it's clear that opposition to Trump's words is not effective. Since when? When has his base ever complained about any of his words?

[wufan]

“Words are actions.” I philosophically disagree with this position. Words do not cause harm unless they are a “call to action.” If Trump said that we are going to “hold the treasonous dems accountable for their behavior,” I would absolutely speak out about that. He didn’t. Good ideas and bad ideas should both be expressed so that they can be debated and good ideas from clear thinkers will win out ALWAYS. It’s only when we silence the dissenters that bad ideas take hold. The key to rallying your team is slandering the other side. The key to growing ones team is through convincing arguments.

The things that that get people worked up about Trump are not ideas. They are slanderous base rallying rhetoric. Those are not debatable positions; they are just rhetoric. What is there to say or do about rhetoric? Shrug your shoulders. “Why are we allowing in immigrants from shithole countries?” What does that even mean? It’s a poorly articulated idea of either racism, or of a principled restructuring of immigration. It’s completely unclear. You can’t defend that statement, and if you attack it, what are you attacking? What’s the idea behind it? No idea. I don’t respond to Trump supporting memes in this thread. Why? Because they don’t say anything. They are propoganda. I could say, “I disagree,” but then what? What do I disagree with? There is no substance.

Actions, on the other hand, are the acting out of ideas. That’s a debatable position. Are the actions good ideas or bad ideas? I’m happy to debate Trump’s ideas, but they are so poorly articulated that they leave a ton up to interpretation. I’m happy to say that Trump’s tweets are socially divisive. Now what? What’s the idea we are debating? We already agree that he shouldn’t do that. I’m not willing to shame him down from his stupid rhetoric. That stimulates a stance against authoritarianism. He has a right to say stupid ****. He shouldn’t.

[ShockingButTrue]

... And who could forget this one?

Liar.jpg