Trump

[wufan]

wufan - "He possibly put a favorable spin on a publicly available presser."

Geez... this is what I was trying to explain a few pages ago. "Spin" is like marketing stuff. It's saying "economic growth is strong" or "our relationships with our allies are great!" or whatever. Every politician throughout history has used spin.

This is objectively false, and people should be willing to say it. Information that comes from the government should not be objectively false. And calling it objectively false gets me labeled with "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Do you honestly believe that's productive? Do you honestly not see how that's just a political tool to silence critics? You're immediately discrediting anything said by someone labeled with "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

More than most on here, you have engaged in actual legitimate discussion on topics. And if you can't see that these types of labels harm our ability to have open, honest dialogue, it's just a depressing example of the direction our country is headed. We are going to have less and less legitimate discussion between folks who disagree.

First off, I highly value your insight and opinion. I learn many things by reading your thoughts and the links you provide which provide further understanding into the philosophies I generally reject. It sharpens my understanding of my own beliefs and adds clarity to the opinions that I have given little thought too. We agree on very little, but I always look forward to hearing a progressive take from a clear rationale person. As evidence, I did not reply to your rebuttal about originalism in the constitution being a centrist position. I read part of the link you provided (it was exceedingly long) and recognized that my argument is inadequate to address my belief (though I disagreed with much of what I read).

My objection to this particular issue is two fold:

1. That it’s objectively false in the context of the event as presented by the Atlantic.

2. That it is a significant marker that points to totalitarianism.

For #1, based on the story from the Atlantic, it was not clear the question that Putin was answering. That makes it subjectively false in my book. Is the publication put out by the White House news worthy of news and worth discussion? Absolutely. This is something that should be placed in the back of everyone’s mind and we should watch to see if this is a continued MO. Not objectively false though.

For #2, you seem to be backing off of that somewhat (or perhaps it was never your intention to allude to this). Correct me if I am mistaken.

I do not believe that #2 follows #1 even if the release is false. There are several instance of similar occurrence in our countries recent past. It’s not good. It should be monitored. People should speak out about it. However, is not indicative of tyranny. I don’t believe that coming to such a conclusion is rationale, therefore I invoked TDS as an alternative reason that people might believe this to be the case.

I’m not a Trump fan. I didn’t vote for Trump (though I probably will in the next election). For me, this is something that should be noted; nothing more.

[ShockingButTrue]

Tyrannical is quite a leap in this instance I would say. But, it seems to be in line with the knee-jerk, unrestrained, hysterical even, ascribing pattern that frankly borders on fantasy. And irresponsible too. It completely ignores "the other side."

[jdshock]

As to one, fair enough. I obviously disagree. Putin says "yes" and then provides the rationale (He would've been better for Russia). If he had not heard the first part of the question, that sentence would be nonsensical. People are acting like the second part of the question (the part that says "did you direct your officials to help) would've been clearly about Trump, but that's blatantly false without the first half of the question. There's no way you can make his answer work with the question as posed unless Putin heard the first part of the question. I'd love to hear someone provide a rationale explanation for how Putin's answer could possibly make sense if he hadn't heard the first part of the question. The information he had just been speaking about was not about Trump or the election.

As to the second, I don't think I'm backing off of it. I'm not saying we're North Korea. But I am saying this is the canary in the coal mine. I'm saying this is the type of behavior that we've always said "Oh, well, if it ever gets to that place, we'll make sure to take action." And then we're not taking action. I believe objectively false information being disseminated by the government is crazy. It's unlike anything we've seen before. Prior presidents each have maybe a few times where they said objectively false (sky-is-green-esque) lies. I don't think we've ever, ever seen just the daily deluge of false propaganda that we have seen from this administration.

And to be clear, one of my biggest issues is the Trump Derangement Syndrome, which you keep using. It's nonsense. It's a made up term that the president throws around to discredit his critics. It's absolutely bonkers. The term is so juvenile, it's so just backwards, I honestly just don't have words for it. Obama critics have biases, yeah. Trump critics have biases, yeah. But to come up with this shorthand phrase to immediately discredit any criticism is absolutely preposterous.

[wufan]

Here’s a wiki link to TDS. It’s not a far fetched idea. I’m not using it to discredit anyone and I’m not directing it at you as an individual. I’m saying beliefs that I see as irrational about the Trump administration could be described with this term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Derangement_Syndrome

[jdshock]

I'm not sure what you want me to glean from the article. I knew what the term meant. It's not like a real medical diagnosis or something. The article is in-line with what I'm saying. It's used by pundits to discredit critics by saying "they're just paranoid, they're delusional" or whatever.

It just so happens we now have a president who fancies himself a third-party observer to the whole thing, and he uses the same political insults that used to be reserved for folks pandering to their day-time talk radio listeners.

[ShockerPrez]

Honest question.

We have 2 different realities.

In one reality, Obama/Clinton got their vision for America fully implemented. I mean, everything got implemented.

In another, Trump got his.

Which reality is more tyrannical in nature? i.e. Which reality gives the government more control in your life?

My opinion is that the Obama/Clinton reality is vastly more tyrannical in their desire to control my life, and it's not even close.

[Kung Wu]

Looks like the official transcripts were corrected. Just like Obama's.

[jdshock]

To be clear, Obama's transcript was not incorrect in the instance you referenced earlier. The video was updated, but the transcript was always accurate.

[jdshock]

The corrected transcript is an example of our government functioning the way it's supposed to. Our free press can run stories and call out our institutions when they lie to us. Then the institutions correct those lies.

Everyone who responded by saying it's Trump Derangement Syndrome or who tried to do mental gymnastics to say "I dunno... it's not clear," slow this type of process. Everybody should be opposed to direct falsehoods being told by our government.

[Kung Wu]

Or it truly was simply a technical error that was eventually caught and corrected.

[jdshock]

Kung Wu, whatever, that's fine. The reaction still got it changed because when we watched video sources that were not the official US video, we saw what objectively, actually occurred. The reaction caused them to update the video. That's a win. This is what we should all strive for.

[WstateU]

Looks like there’s proof...

this-is-what-stage-4-trump-derangement-syndrome-looks-like-32993308.png

[Shockm]

Everyone who responded by saying it's Trump Derangement Syndrome

You need a current example of Trump Derangement Syndrome? Here is a current one today. The quarterly GDP growth was announced today as 4.1. I'm think that I'm correct that O'bama never reached even 3.0 during his 8 years and this is the best growth since 2006.

CNN hasn't even mentioned the new GDP figures today but every time I turned them on, they mentioned Mueller, Russia, etc. That is TDS.

If you can't even be honest enough to admit that there is such a thing as TDS, there is no reason to discuss anything. (That is a direct quote or very close, from Jdshock) :)

[jdshock]

You need a current example of Trump Derangement Syndrome? Here is a current one today. The quarterly GDP growth was announced today as 4.1. I'm think that I'm correct that O'bama never reached even 3.0 during his 8 years and this is the best growth since 2006.

CNN hasn't even mentioned the new GDP figures today but every time I turned them on, they mentioned Mueller, Russia, etc. That is TDS.

If you can't even be honest enough to admit that there is such a thing as TDS, there is no reason to discuss anything. (That is a direct quote or very close, from Jdshock) :)

Obama hit 5.2% in the third quarter of 2014. Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[Shockm]

Ok. Listen instead if lecturing and debating. The 4.1 gdp figure was a quarterly number that came out today. However, the graph I had looked at was a yearly graph ( I had mis-read it as quarterly figures). I listed the yearly figures and Obama didn’t show up well. His yearly numbers were 2.9 and below. We will have to see if Trumps numbers hold up during the next two quarters.

[jdshock]

Shockm, but that would suggest that someone could be wrong about something without it being a "Derangement Syndrome." It would, in fact, require us to actually be able to talk about issues without political name calling and to try to have an actual dialogue on an issue.

Maybe that means it's a ridiculous political insult that people should just quit using, particularly if the given example of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" ended up not even being factually accurate.

[Shoxfan11]

ROFL this is gold

Poster 1 accuses people of having Trump Derangement Syndrome, posts incorrect statistics
Poster 2 responds correcting poster 1 on his statistics
Poster 1: "Listen and stop lecturing me!!!!" instead of apologizing for being wrong. Then tries to insult Obama anyways.

[ShockerPrez]

I don't think the left ever used Obama Derangement Syndrome to classify people who disagreed with Obama.

The preferred term was Racists.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Democrats are the true racists - historically in reference to slavery and lynching, and in the modern era in reference to social welfare and abortion promotion.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/19/16906928/black-anti-abortion-movement-yoruba-richen-medical-racism

T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

I may have laced this one with too much wasabi.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

I'll let the dummy speak for himself:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ob...ot-back-trump/

I swear to God, I believe he was being sincere (rare). And mighty fu***** arrogant too. Ha, ha...

[C0|dB|00ded]

lol

What do you expect from a community organizer with a mentality lodged firmly in the ghetto. If the gubament can't do it for you, no one can.

The Obama experiment should be studied in business schools everywhere. Reiterate to the young minds the poverty and empty promises that await those who would embrace socialism. Do you really want to put your lives in the hands of people like B.O. - people who've never accomplished anything substantive their entire life?

A job in Washington should be unpaid and filled by people with the HIGHEST qualifications - preferably retired and relying on a lifetime of wisdom and success.


T


...:cool:

[Shockm]

All the cheering and hoping (by the democrats) for America to fail is unbecoming. No wonder they don't appreciate our veterans, wish to kneel for the National Anthem (obvious not all of them but a seemingly large majority), and cheer on Socialism. As it has been said many times, they seem to want to hate Trump and cheer on his failures more than love our country and cheer on successes. It's sad really.

[pinstripers]

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-repatriation-us-military-remains-returned-2018-7

55 is a good start. Thanks, Trump

[C0|dB|00ded]

Just goes to show that if you aren't planning on bombing a tyrant into oblivion, your next best choice might be to try and work with them and change their worldview with a little kindness. It is the Christian thing to do...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. We've tried the stonewall approach with rogue little shithole countries with varying degrees of failure. However if they take advantage of our kindness gesture, we hit back twice as hard as before.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

I'm just amazed that there are people who actually think Trump's anti-trade platform is all just a ploy to get other countries to commit to lowering tariffs. Trump regularly refers to imports as "losses." The dude just doesn't understand trade.

Also, I am glad that he no longer seems to be trying to hide the idea that the tax plan helped the wealthy get richer. Remember when he said about his tax plan: "This is not good for me. Me, it's not so -- I have some very wealthy friends. Not so happy with me. But that's OK. You know, I keep hearing Schumer: 'This is for the wealthy.' Well, if it is, my friends don't know about it."

[Kung Wu]

Also, I am glad that he no longer seems to be trying to hide the idea that the tax cuts helped the wealthy get richer. Remember when he said about the tax cuts: "This is not good for me. Me, it's not so -- I have some very wealthy friends. Not so happy with me. But that's OK. You know, I keep hearing Schumer: 'This is for the wealthy.' Well, if it is, my friends don't know about it."

In your source, he wasn't saying that about "tax cuts". He said that about "loopholes".

So right now, America's tax code is a total, dysfunctional mess. The current system has cost our nation millions of American jobs, trillions and trillions of dollars, and billions of hours wasted on paperwork and compliance. It is riddled with loopholes that let some special interests, including myself -- in all fairness. This is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me. Believe -- This is not good for me. Me, it's not so -- I have some very wealthy friends. Not so happy with me, but that's OK. You know, I keep hearing Schumer: "This is for the wealthy." Well, if it is, my friends don't know about it.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I remember reading something about the NYC wealthy getting hit particularly hard.


T


...:cool:

[Kung Wu]

The tax cuts were great for _everyone_. Poor, middle class, wealthy. The regulation cuts were EXCELLENT for the Koch brothers (because oil is one of the heaviest regulated industries). jdshock, you were disingenuous when attributed the quote above as being his commentary about tax cuts, when in fact, it was about loopholes.

[jdshock]

Alright, that's fine. My original post was "disingenuous" when I referred to the broad Trump tax plan as the tax cuts.

Let me be not disingenuous when I clarify now by saying: Trump once tried to sell us on the idea that the wealthy hated his tax plan. Now, he's saying the Koch Bros got richer off of the tax plan.

Either way, none of it changes the fact that people who are holding up hope that Trump comes around on trade are sticking their heads in the sand.

P.S. I like the idea that we can distinguish between "great" and "excellent" in the sense that the tax cuts were "great" for everyone but the regulation cuts were "excellent" for the Koch Bros. But somehow we can't distinguish between the lesser benefit received by poor people under the tax cuts and the incredible benefits received by the wealthy under the tax cuts.