U.S. Politics 2017: You Flynn Some, You Lose Some

[Morpheus]

I was born in the 80s, as a kid Trump was always a movie villain in the flesh, greed and selfishness come to life with a bad wig. That was even before being old enough to be aware of his racisim and shady business dealings. His brand was always that he is a rich, gaudy, out of touch asshole, which is why running as a populist was so absurd. Trump is the same guy he was 30 years ago, probably the same guy he was 50 years ago. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is there any doubt that Trump is a narcissist and possibly a pathological liar?

Does that really matter though? It seems doubtful to me that anyone who goes into politics is a nice person at heart. And that any appearance to the contrary is a carefully crafted façade.

Given that assumption, should we really care whether a politician is an asshole or not? Should we not base our evaluation purely on what he managed to achieve for the constituency that we happen to fall into?

So if you are anti-immigration, anti-gun control, pro tax reductions and a bunch of other platforms on which he ran, can you be blamed for not caring what type of person he is? Similarly, if you are against the policies that he seeks to pursue, should you really waste your time complaining about his personality type, or rather just focus your energy on disagreeing with his positions?

This endless gnashing of teeth about his rudeness, abrasiveness and lack of honesty seems pointless to me. Other than the fact that it is used as a strategy to try and get more voters to dislike him and thereby reduce his ability to effect the policy changes he is pursuing.

[Morpheus]

His personality is directly related to his policies. Bigoted, self-serving, steeped in delusion and ignorance; there really is no separation between Trump the person and Trump the political entity

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Does that really matter though? It seems doubtful to me that anyone who goes into politics is a nice person at heart. And that any appearance to the contrary is a carefully crafted façade.

As a considered response, 'I don't believe any of the hundreds or even thousands of accounts of how personally nice Barack Obama is' lacks a certain something. 

But sure. There's something to the argument that the personality of a politician should not be relevant, and it certainly should not blind one to a proper assessment of their record. The problem here is, Trump's record sucks out loud. He has achieved little or nothing, and what he has achieved is largely harmful to large parts of his constituency - because make no mistake, his constituency, as President, is every American, whether they voted for him or not. That is the President's job: to act in the interests of the country, not to pander to the people who are loyal to him. 

Does his personal behaviour matter? If it were simply a matter of manners, then no, but it isn't. He daily displays utter contempt for ordinary Americans who happen to fall into a group that he personally dislikes, or thinks is unpopular enough that he can get some credit by shitting on them. This contempt and these public statements of it have real consequences. They are not-so-subtle signals that these vulnerable people are fair game: for harassment, for violence, for disenfranchisement and unfair treatment. So yeah, it matters when Trump is awful. 

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Given that assumption, should we really care whether a politician is an asshole or not? Should we not base our evaluation purely on what he managed to achieve for the constituency that we happen to fall into?

Is that constituency 'all Americans'? Because if it is not, then the answer is 'no, we shouldn't, because that would make us selfish arseholes'. 

[Ormond]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is there any doubt that Trump is a narcissist and possibly a pathological liar?

"Pathological liar" is not as well-defined a concept in psychology as narcissist is.

And this depends on how much one's definition of lying rests on whether or not one believes the false things one says. I think Trump is so narcissistic that when he says something out loud, no matter how false in terms of its logic or evidence, he believes because he hears himself saying it, and he believes if he says it, it must be true. Which is why this morning's reporting shows he still believes that Obama's birth certificate is fake and that he really won the popular vote in the election. And pretty soon he will probably find some right wing racist site to retweet unverified videos of Hispanics doing bad things from, just as he did for Muslims this morning.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

As a considered response, 'I don't believe any of the hundreds or even thousands of accounts of how personally nice Barack Obama is' lacks a certain something. 

But sure. There's something to the argument that the personality of a politician should not be relevant, and it certainly should not blind one to a proper assessment of their record. The problem here is, Trump's record sucks out loud. He has achieved little or nothing, and what he has achieved is largely harmful to large parts of his constituency - because make no mistake, his constituency, as President, is every American, whether they voted for him or not. That is the President's job: to act in the interests of the country, not to pander to the people who are loyal to him. 

Does his personal behaviour matter? If it were simply a matter of manners, then no, but it isn't. He daily displays utter contempt for ordinary Americans who happen to fall into a group that he personally dislikes, or thinks is unpopular enough that he can get some credit by shitting on them. This contempt and these public statements of it have real consequences. They are not-so-subtle signals that these vulnerable people are fair game: for harassment, for violence, for disenfranchisement and unfair treatment. So yeah, it matters when Trump is awful. 

Is that constituency 'all Americans'? Because if it is not, then the answer is 'no, we shouldn't, because that would make us selfish arseholes'. 

Interesting argument. Does it really cover all Americans though? Including  the MS13 guys? Including illegal aliens who are not American citizens?

And how does that requirement cater for politicians who support policies that will inevitably favor some citizens at the cost of others? For example, a progressive tax scale, which favors poor people over rich people, or medical insurance policies that achieve the same, etc. etc.

Anyway, I don't want to make this an argument about who exactly a president should represent. I understand the point from which you are arguing. And I also agree with you that Trump is rather poor at achieving a lot of his stated goals. As I have said before, though, he has produced a conservative Supreme Court judge, and may produce another one before his term is up.

And if he becomes truly terrible, well, they can always get rid of him and replace him with Mike Pence or some other useful figurehead who can continue pursuing the policies Republicans are after.

As for Obama. I'd rather not go there. Views on him are as divergent as the political views that people hold.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Ormond said:

"Pathological liar" is not as well-defined a concept in psychology as narcissist is.

And this depends on how much one's definition of lying rests on whether or not one believes the false things one says. I think Trump is so narcissistic that when he says something out loud, no matter how false in terms of its logic or evidence, he believes because he hears himself saying it, and he believes if he says it, it must be true. Which is why this morning's reporting shows he still believes that Obama's birth certificate is fake and that he really won the popular vote in the election. And pretty soon he will probably find some right wing racist site to retweet unverified videos of Hispanics doing bad things from, just as he did for Muslims this morning.

I see your point.  The Narcissist supercedes "Pathological liar".  It is disturbing in any event.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Does that really matter though? It seems doubtful to me that anyone who goes into politics is a nice person at heart. And that any appearance to the contrary is a carefully crafted façade.

Given that assumption, should we really care whether a politician is an asshole or not?

And here is the part where we get into "both sidism". In case nobody has noticed, "both sides" is the Hidenburg Line of conservatives. Its where they will attempt to make their last stand, when it becomes apparent to them, their arguments are getting shot to pieces and shit is going down hill for them very quickly.

And yes, I think we should care whether a politician is an asshole. It's just not the case that the asshole always makes the better king, so to speak. Now conservatives might be impressed with Trump's tough guy bravado (but to me it's just more chicken hawkery by conservatives), but the fact is that Trump is a flamin' idiot and it should be apparent he just pulls random shit out of ass. The point is that its rarely the case that our choice is going to be the competent asshole versus the incompetent nice guy. And this case, Trump is an incompetent jackass.

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So if you are anti-immigration, anti-gun control, pro tax reductions and a bunch of other platforms on which he ran, can you be blamed for not caring what type of person he is? 

You can be blamed for making absurd arguments to support your various positions. Now you can say, "but, but, but that's the way I feel!" but you are admitting that your "conservative values" aren't remotely based on any type of basic logic.

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This endless gnashing of teeth about his rudeness, abrasiveness and lack of honesty seems pointless to me. Other than the fact that it is used as a strategy to try and get more voters to dislike him and thereby reduce his ability to effect the policy changes he is pursuing.

So bullshitting about important policy questions isn't important to you? I dislike him because I think his policies are horrible. Making it worse is the fact that he uses lies to cover up his bullshit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And here is the part where we get into "both sidism". In case nobody has noticed, "both sides" is the Hidenburg Line of conservatives. Its where they will attempt to make their last stand, when it becomes apparent to them, their arguments are getting shot to pieces and shit is going down hill for them very quickly.

And yes, I think we should care whether a politician is an asshole. It's just not the case that the asshole always makes the better king, so to speak. Now conservatives might be impressed with Trump's tough guy bravado (but to me it's just more chicken hawkery by conservatives), but the fact is that Trump is a flamin' idiot and it should be apparent he just pulls random shit out of ass. The point is that its rarely the case that our choice is going to be the competent asshole versus the incompetent nice guy. And this case, Trump is an incompetent jackass.

You can be blamed for making absurd arguments to support your various positions. Now you can say, "but, but, but that's the way I feel!" but you are admitting that your "conservative values" aren't remotely based on any type of basic logic.

So bullshitting about important policy questions isn't important to you? I dislike because I think his policies are horrible. Making it worse is the fact that he uses lies to cover up his bullshit.

OGE,

Beautifully stated.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And here is the part where we get into "both sidism". In case nobody has noticed, "both sides" is the Hidenburg Line of conservatives. Its where they will attempt to make their last stand, when it becomes apparent to them, their arguments are getting shot to pieces and shit is going down hill for them very quickly.

And yes, I think we should care whether a politician is an asshole. It's just not the case that the asshole always makes the better king, so to speak. Now conservatives might be impressed with Trump's tough guy bravado (but to me it's just more chicken hawkery by conservatives), but the fact is that Trump is a flamin' idiot and it should be apparent he just pulls random shit out of ass. The point is that its rarely the case that our choice is going to be the competent asshole versus the incompetent nice guy. And this case, Trump is an incompetent jackass.

You can be blamed for making absurd arguments to support your various positions. Now you can say, "but, but, but that's the way I feel!" but you are admitting that your "conservative values" aren't remotely based on any type of basic logic.

So bullshitting about important policy questions isn't important to you? I dislike because I think his policies are horrible. Making it worse is the fact that he uses lies to cover up his bullshit.

Anyway, I just found it interesting. I am not invested  in Trump. If they get rid of him tomorrow, no big deal. He is not a likeable person. I just think it is a waste of energy to focus on his character traits, rather than just sticking to the fact that you hate his politics. If he was as polite as Jimmy Carter, but still pursued the same policies he currently does, would you like him more?

[Yukle]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, I just found it interesting. I am not invested  in Trump. If they get rid of him tomorrow, no big deal. He is not a likeable person. I just think it is a waste of energy to focus on his character traits, rather than just sticking to the fact that you hate his politics. If he was as polite as Jimmy Carter, but still pursued the same policies he currently does, would you like him more?

Yes, of course. Since he wouldn't be a molester.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Does that really matter though? It seems doubtful to me that anyone who goes into politics is a nice person at heart. And that any appearance to the contrary is a carefully crafted façade.

Clearly you don't actually know any elected officials. Keep feeding this idiotic narrative though....

51 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So if you are anti-immigration, anti-gun control, pro tax reductions and a bunch of other platforms on which he ran, can you be blamed for not caring what type of person he is? Similarly, if you are against the policies that he seeks to pursue, should you really waste your time complaining about his personality type, or rather just focus your energy on disagreeing with his positions?

Um yeah, you can, because you supported a person who bragged about sexually assaulting women, among other things.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Yes, of course. Since he wouldn't be a molester.

OK, so you're saying if Trump was just a smoother operator, more diplomatic and more charming he could pursue the same policies he currently does, and be more popular at the same time. So his façade needs to be better, is what you're saying. I think you have a valid point.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, I just found it interesting. I am not invested  in Trump. If they get rid of him tomorrow, no big deal. He is not a likeable person. I just think it is a waste of energy to focus on his character traits, rather than just sticking to the fact that you hate his politics. If he was as polite as Jimmy Carter, but still pursued the same policies he currently does, would you like him more?

I would dislike his policies as I think they are wrong and premised on a bunch of nonsense. And I would certainly be critical of those polices. But, yes I'd find him more palatable if he wasn't outright dishonest(beyond that of a normal politician) and didn't make racist comments or be willing to play footsy with the alt right.

[Mexal]

In news that has already been reported when Gary Cohn held his CEO forum but reiterated today by Bloomberg, CEOs say that tax cuts will go to investors, not wage growth. I wish this was screamed from the mountaintops in every medium there is. Trickle down economics is the biggest fucking lie there is and CEOs aren't ashamed to admit that. They want this tax cut because it makes them wealthier and secures their job. They give no fucks about wage growth for their employees.

Quote

Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class.

The president has held fast to his pledge even as top executives’ comments have run counter to it for months. Instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies say they’ll first increase dividends or buy back their own shares.

Robert Bradway, chief executive of Amgen Inc., said in an Oct. 25 earnings call that the company has been “actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback and I’d expect us to continue that.” Executives including Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio and Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer have recently made similar statements.

 

“We’ll be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback” after a tax cut, Kramer said in a Nov. 16 interview.

 

U.S. voters disapprove of the Republican tax legislation by a two-to-one margin, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Nov. 15, and corporate promises to return any windfall to investors aren’t helping the White House sales effort. The Trump administration has appeared flummoxed. At a Nov. 14 speech to the Wall Street Journal CEO Council by Trump’s top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, the moderator asked business leaders in the audience for a show of hands if they planned to reinvest tax cut proceeds. Few people responded.

“Why aren’t the other hands up?” Cohn asked.

 

[Morpheus]

Trump is now sharing anti-Muslim videos from the fascist group Britain First. But, hey, what do the president's personal views and endorsements matter, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/trump-account-retweets-anti-muslim-videos-of-british-far-right-leader

[denstorebog]

In today's edition of "Is this The Onion?", Trump retweets anti-muslim videos from Britain First ...

... then fucking InfoWars tells him that he's gone too far.

I mean, is this really happening?

[Mexal]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, I just found it interesting. I am not invested  in Trump. If they get rid of him tomorrow, no big deal. He is not a likeable person. I just think it is a waste of energy to focus on his character traits, rather than just sticking to the fact that you hate his politics. If he was as polite as Jimmy Carter, but still pursued the same policies he currently does, would you like him more?

He is the President. He represents America, all those who live in America and our interests to the world. His character traits should be an issue. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

26 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting argument. Does it really cover all Americans though? Including  the MS13 guys? Including illegal aliens who are not American citizens?

 

Ethically yes.  I believe that the President has a duty to all Americans. This includes making sure that people who are accused of being gang members get a fair trial.  If we start saying some Americans are somehow "better" Americans than others, we end up in a situation where 110,000 American citizens whose parents or grandparents happened to be Japanese end up in internment camps. 

The argument about migrants who are in America extra-legally is a non sequitur to the proposition.  The proposition was that the President's constituency is the United States of America.  I believe that is correct. 

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

OK, so you're saying if Trump was just a smoother operator, more diplomatic and more charming he could pursue the same policies he currently does, and be more popular at the same time. So his façade needs to be better, is what you're saying. I think you have a valid point.

It's not a facade, although I don't deny that every public person would have on to some extent.

It's more, in the simplest terms, if somebody gave me $50 and then walked away, I'd be happy. If somebody gave me $50 while they were, with the other hand, fondling a woman's breasts, then I'd scream for the police and never accept anything from him again.

Suggesting that somehow his polices can be divorced from his policies is also disingenuous. A central feature of his platform is the racist and sexist dog-whistling he does for the worst in America. His refusal to condemn a KKK endorsement, claims Obama isn't American, boasts about fondling women being locker-room talk, endorsement of a child molester in Alabama, frequent bravado against North Korea - these aren't slip-ups, they are the cause of his success. He validates the people who marched with torches chanting, "Jews will not replace us," and is the last bastion of the Confederacy who never gave up slaves by choice. He is the literal angry white man crying about how hard life is when everybody else is jealous of his privileges.

If you remove those parts of his personality, he has no policies. He hasn't made any efforts to argue for anything much at all in terms of policy. Even his stupid wall was nothing but a racist dog-whistle, and once in power it went out the window like everything else. He has no policies beyond reversing what he sees as the tide of whites-no-longer-winning in America. Make no mistake, he believes white people are superior to others, which is why he was criminally convicted of discrimination in his hotels earlier in his life.