Trump explained - because you all are blind

[El_Machinae]

I think you mean, like, 0.002% of people....maybe...

I mean 20%. They will express moral condemnation over innocent mistakes, or will applies rules-of-thumb instead of context. Keep in mind, I'd use the same percentages with regards to the Religious Right. I have to be careful actually mentioning the age of the Earth because doing so offends them.

There are many instances of the 'Regressive Left' (I appreciate the utility of this term) going too far, and I won't provide them political cover. None of this justifies electing someone as objectively terrible as D'ump.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean 20%. They will express moral condemnation over innocent mistakes, or will applies rules-of-thumb instead of context. Keep in mind, I'd use the same percentages with regards to the Religious Right. I have to be careful actually mentioning the age of the Earth because doing so offends them.

If you actually believe that 20% of the population of the US is "on the odious end of SJWing" then you should probably be supporting Trump, you're reactionary enough for it. I won't even get into the clear hypocrisy of applying this kind of rule-of-thumb rather than context.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean 20%. They will express moral condemnation over innocent mistakes, or will applies rules-of-thumb instead of context. Keep in mind, I'd use the same percentages with regards to the Religious Right. I have to be careful actually mentioning the age of the Earth because doing so offends them.

There are many instances of the 'Regressive Left' (I appreciate the utility of this term) going too far, and I won't provide them political cover. None of this justifies electing someone as objectively terrible as D'ump.

C'mon El Mac...the majority of people don't express outrage over anything. They don't even express an opinion unless you beat it out of them. There isn't 20% out there on either end ranting. There probably isn't 5%. They're just loud, not numerous.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, the opposite. The only thing people DO is express outrage. (but I'll agree it's certainly not a majority). Slacktivism absolutely dominates actual action. Interact with any self-described liberal on a wide swath of social issues, and see how fast you need to start tip-toeing before you hurt their feelings. Or before they get mad that you don't agree.

And I'm not just saying this as a person who defends my positions or is willing to attack other peoples'. People's political opinions are deeply held, and are mostly rules of thumb.

 

[Ajidica]

You guys gotta look at what Trump represents. His victory was proof that the people actually have more power than the establishment.

Power to the people, I guess?

And right now what we're seeing with all these "anonymous leaks" is the establishment trying to remove him because they can't control him. That scares me way more than anything about Trump. This is not a precedent we want to set.

I dunno, learned that Trump tried to get the FBI director to swear loyalty to him is the sort of information the public needs to know because it is really quite terrifying our president would think "The action I am about to take is a good idea" and not some sort of nebulous plot by "the Establishment".

His platform was very clear, and he's actually trying to stick to it. You guys don't even realize how arrogant you sound when you call all his supporters stupid/racist/etc

Okay, does Trump support a Muslim ban?

Oh, we don't know? Hmm, you would think he would be a bit clearer and put more thought into such a large policy shift..

SJWism is a pretty big phenomenon. It is supported by university professors and a large segment of the media. It has influenced the violent silencing of speech. The fact that many people think it's not a big deal is exactly why it needs to be called out and discussed.

In all my years, I have encountered exactly one person who I would consider a "SJW" and I, along with everyone else I know, think she is a weirdo.
So, my anecdote cancels out yours I suppose, so SJWs aren't a problem.

He has gotten the most negative media coverage of any president.

You don't see the consistently bad news coverage from such liberal organizations as the Wall Street Journal as possibly indicative of severe concern about the ability of Donald Trump to adhere to the basic norms and requirements of the Office of the President of the United States of America?

 

[metalhead]

Oh I see, you're one of those "rape culture" people.

I mean, it's hard not to lend that some credence, as a lawyer with passing familiarity with how poorly the system treats rape cases. Sexual assault happens frequently in wider society as well, not just in college, but college is where people passing into adulthood ought to be better educated on the issue, and women best protected. That . . . doesn't happen.

These are fair criticisms, but no different than any president before him. There is definitely a large amount of corruption in our government that is unfortunately unavoidable . However I think the establishment hating him does point to him being less controllable than his predecessors.

I can see the logic in your conclusion, and I would agree with you - if Trump had any deep-felt convictions about anything. But he doesn't. He's far more malleable than an Obama or a Bush because he has no pre-existing political ideology. His views aren't just going to be shaped by Goldman Sachs and military brass and Republican leadership. They'll be dictated by them.

He's no different from other presidents in that regard, which is why he's firmly an establishment figure. The fact that he is a billionaire used to buying politicians enmeshes him in the establishment far more than other past presidents.

These aren't criticisms of Trump, per se, but they are clear refutations of any claims to being anti-establishment.

 

[Traitorfish]

Trump is a winner. He has the hot babes. He has the money. He has his own golf course. He is a best-selling author. He is a TV star. He is President of USA and flies on Air Force One. A winner, by any standard. If impeached, he will shoot off a final tweet: "Hated DC, great day at golf; so long suckers". He wins, you lose. Just accept it and tell yourself that winning isn't everything.

Does Trump believe that? He does not give the impression of man at peace with his achievements.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Trump is a winner. He has the hot babes. He has the money. He has his own golf course. He is a best-selling author. He is a TV star. He is President of USA and flies on Air Force One. A winner, by any standard. If impeached, he will shoot off a final tweet: "Hated DC, great day at golf; so long suckers". He wins, you lose. Just accept it and tell yourself that winning isn't everything.

Trump bestrides the nation like a Colossus. And Colossus has a laser pointer in a nation full of cats. The cats keep banging their heads against the wall, but the cats just will not learn; more fun for the Trump. It is not about "policy", it is never about policy.

Trump had one big insight: that pro wrestling and national politics were the same TV show, just with different dress codes. Not similar shows, but the same, like the Flintstones and the Jetsons. He proved this. He sits in the oval office every day as living belching proof. The news is fake because the show is fake, WaPo and NYT are just fanzines. No one in Washington wants to accept this fact; they want to go on thinking they are all serious people with serious ideas. This is why Trump must go and will go, Trump is a too large a red pill too be swallowed.

 

[civver_764]

He's no different from other presidents in that regard, which is why he's firmly an establishment figure. The fact that he is a billionaire used to buying politicians enmeshes him in the establishment far more than other past presidents.

If this is true, then why is the establishment media be slamming him so much? His platform is very clear and he has made very definitive actions towards implementing it. I don't see where this idea that he has no political ideology is coming from.

Power to the people, I guess? *snip*

Just because you're rich doesn't make you a part of the political establishment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Unless you have history books from the future, you really can't make this statement. Who knows what the future has in store? Maybe this trend of populism will continue and the future propagandized population will revere Trump as a hero. You never know.

Tax cuts will pay for themselves
Healthcare for everyone that will be so cheap and easy
Wall mexico will pay for
Coal jobs will return
ISIS defeated within 30 days
Hillary will be locked up
Ban Muslims
Bring back jobs from Gyna
Deport 11 Million illegals
Balance the budget

 

[Naskra]

I was quite serious in the OP - we really are watching a wrestling show. Trump is playing both hero and villain (it's win-win). Low approval ratings are fine with him - you're supposed to boo the bad guy. The only thing that matters is that you keep watching. If the audience is having an emotion, any emotion, Trump wins.
Have you noticed the Dwayne Johnson puff pieces? Other people are contemplating a wrestling/politics merger.

 

[Ajidica]

Just because you're rich doesn't make you a part of the political establishment.

With this I have heard it all; an ex-anarchist saying that a billionaire Manhattan property developer surrounded by unsavory lawyers, Goldman Sachs and other banking cronies, and disreputable foreign plutocrats likely involved in money laundering schemes isn't a part of the Establishment.
That "the Establishment" publicly refuses to give him approval or acceptance doesn't mean much when every actual action Trump has taken that has made it into law is designed for the enrichment of the Establishment plutocrats you perversely insist Trump is opposed to.

 

[Quintillus]

I was quite serious in the OP - we really are watching a wrestling show. Trump is playing both hero and villain (it's win-win). Low approval ratings are fine with him - you're supposed to boo the bad guy. The only thing that matters is that you keep watching. If the audience is having an emotion, any emotion, Trump wins.
Have you noticed the Dwayne Johnson puff pieces? Other people are contemplating a wrestling/politics merger.

Although you say you are serious, the first post reads like a parody. But I can see how you may be serious about Trump viewing it this way, and I think the wrestling show analogy is not too far off.

However I think you are mistaken about "Low approval ratings are fine with him... the only thing that matters is that you keep watching." It's certainly okay that some people hate him; you never become a great winner without causing people to hate you. And Trump himself knows this; as he said:

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!

(This really is a great Tweet IMO, but to the point he knows he has enemies, or "haters and losers" as he likes to call them, and is okay with that)

But Trump is also very egotistical. Haters and losers existing is fine, but he is obsessed with his popularity. Losing the popular vote? It's because of illegal immigrants in California voting. And the system being rigged (a theme of his even after he won). He still talks about the election; he still Tweets about it occasionally. He still hands out maps showing his electoral victory and talks about in interviews or at rallies. And when they're positive for him, he loves posting poll results, often cherry-picking the most favorable (but when they aren't favorable, as of lately, he suddenly doesn't like posting them so much). Simply reading his Tweets over the past year, his need for this type of positive validation is clear, and it makes the leaks about his private consternation at the reception of his presidency seem quite consistent with his personality.

And I read his Tweets religiously. I don't have a Twitter account and don't follow anyone else, but @realDonaldTrump is a must-check, at least once a day. You'd think I were a super-fan, but really it's just fascinating. I do indeed keep watching.

To apply a passage from a book I've been reading to Trump:

[The praise] drove home a lesson that the politician was predisposed to internalize: that he was a figure of destiny, impregnable. Which could only heighten the pain of the losses he had pledged himself to endure when they came. Which made him want to win even more; though the pleasure of those victories was dulled to the vanishing point by survivor's guilt; even as any victory could not be enough to please his internalized father anyway. This was an ego finely tuned to believe that it was nothing unless it was everything; one for which winning wasn't everything, it was the only thing - but which even victory could never fully satisfy.

Figure of destiny, impregnable... accurate. Survivor's guilt... his older brother. Internalized father... his father's harsh, tough attitude with an emphasis on winning. Winning being the only thing; that is obvious. And victory never fully satisfying; if winning the presidency cannot fully satisfy, which based on his Tweets it clearly hasn't, what can fully satisfy?

Alas, though the passage brought Trump to mind immediately upon reading it, it wasn't describing him. Who was it describing?

Spoiler :

Richard Milhous Nixon

 

[tamyrlin]

The whole establishment hates him, so how is it absurd? He has gotten the most negative media coverage of any president.

The whole 'establishment' is against him ,because he is totally incompetent and extremely ignorant . His offensiveness , disregard for rules, corruptibility, corporate interests might be fine with some of the 'establishment' . But his total incompetence in being corrupt or even getting a basic message across is the reason why is he lampooned everywhere.

By the way its not just the 'establishment' which lampoons him. He is lampooned throughout the world. Trump achieved in 100 days the ridicule which even Bush couldn't achieve in 8 years. Bush was at least competent enough to carry a lot of people with him in the 'weapons of mass destruction' and other 'establishment' lies.

 

[aelf]

You have to be a really small person to derive satisfaction from other people being upset at the results of an election.

The thing I don't understand is why so many people get in such a tizzy over what college kids say and do - and why for some reason that tizzy isn't focused on things like sexual assault or hazing deaths and is instead focused on a few isolated incidents of PC run amok. Where the hell are people's priorities these days? It doesn't seem like SJWs are the real problem here, at all.

People who whine endlessly about stuff like feminism but like to call other people "snowflakes"?

The OP is probably right, though. Americans aren't unique in this regard, so I wouldn't put it past American voters to continue screwing themselves for decades to come. It's a product of Cold War anti-leftist hysteria.

 

[Kaitzilla]

But you reserve your outrage for other, far more trivial things.

Also, the idea that Donald Trump is anti-establishment is absurd.

I think a President who slaughters even one of the Establishment's sacred cows is anti-establishment in this current political era.
Even if his economic policy is lots of Wall Street.
I mean, the main indicator of economic health is the Stock Market going up right?
It worked for Obama, and if Trump also wants to double the debt to get the rest of his agenda through, that's a good political strategy.

...
You don't see the consistently bad news coverage from such liberal organizations as the Wall Street Journal as possibly indicative of severe concern about the ability of Donald Trump to adhere to the basic norms and requirements of the Office of the President of the United States of America?

Would the media treat Trump well if he started acting more presidential?
Like George W. Bush?
Months of horrible media coverage only won him the Presidency, so I'm sure he'll change his ways soon.
The fact that he had any positive coverage at all ended the day he became the unforgivable, a Republican who won an election.


Trump is winning where it matters.

OPEC continues to weaken.
Illegal Immigration is down.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...legal-immigration-lowest-17-years-trump-said/
The stock market is up since his election.
He's got a flashy $250 billion trade deal inked with the Saudis.


If the 4th branch of government wants to browbeat Congress into a coup when the President has broken no laws, it won't be the rosy outcome they imagine.
Trump was elected for a reason, and burning him this early in his Presidency will piss off the people who put him in office, the working class.

Although, watching Trump get Birther'd with 0-evidence Russian stuff is delicious, delicious karma.
Hopefully the democrats keep that going for a few more years.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, the main indicator of economic health is the Stock Market going up right?

No.

the working class.

White people without college degrees are not "the working class" actually but okay

 

[El_Machinae]

The stock market is a horrible snapshot metric of the economy. If it's one piece of data, that's another thing. But it shouldn't be your first goto statistic.

That said, with the Boomers retiring, a rising stockmarket is going to be seen as an essential piece of the economy. This is horribly unfortunate, because a rising stock market is not absolutely a good thing. But it's also the way that a lot of Boomers are going to have funds in order to retire. And since it's all about them, they need that money to not revolt against the democracy they control.

the working class.

You will want to look at tax burden, personal debt levels, median income, and unemployment rates. Not the stock market. The stock market can easily benefit by making any of those indicators worse.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Arent they called white trash?

 

[Kaitzilla]

No.



White people without college degrees are not "the working class" actually but okay

Your assertion used to be true, but it is no longer.
The stock market really is the economy nowadays (2017), because the world's central banks are buying up stocks and bonds like crazy with printed money.
The central banks' efforts to "boost growth" account of the majority of our developed economies' growth now.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4064824-central-banks-massive-incursion-buying-stocks
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/central-banks-printed-nine-trillion/

White people are 60% of "the working class", a clear majority, so I think they are.
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-changing-demographics-of-americas-working-class/