U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[Morpheus]

12 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Please explain. When I search for "Rusher" in Google News I just get all sorts of articles about "pass rushers" in American football. 

Forgive my lack of embed skills, I am on mobile and it never seems to work. Play vid.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thr/status/862803504926081024?lang=en

It is when Trump admitted he fired Comey because of The Russia investigation

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

To get the Tweet to appear and not just the link:

1. Click the icon on the top right corner of the Tweet

2.  Select “Copy link to Tweet”

3. Paste

4. A black bar will appear at the bottom of you post after you paste it. Click on “Paste as plain text instead"

5. :

@Ormond,

If you don’t want to watch the video, “Rusher” is a reference to Trump slurring his speech and saying rusher instead of Russia.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd say he was a very good manipulator that understood how to play to the worst elements of the German Psyche in the 1920s and the 1930s and then combined it with utter ruthlessness to obtain power.  He was like the Trumpster in that he was able to appeal to various myths, often grounded in outright delusion and the nastier side of human nature. Just like the Trumpster was able to hint at "those people" are taking all the good shit for themselves, when in reality, that's primarily the Republican Party donor class, Hitler was able to appeal things like the old "Stab in The Back" theory, which blamed Germany's loss in WW1 on the Jews, and believed by many Germans, unable to cope with the reality of the situation, which was that Germany was simply bled white after 4 years of fighting and starved into submission when the German Imperial Fleet was unable to challenge British naval hegemony after Jutland.

But, Hitler's lethargic and poor management style and his disregard for details and reality undermined his own stated policy aims (evil as they were). And ultimately he brought his country to disaster along with the rest of Europe.

Basically, yes. However I feel inclined to point out, that anti-semitism wasn't an early 20th century German invention. Anti-semitism had been around continental Europe for centuries. Just look at some writing of Martin Luther for instance. Or look into French history, one of the key events there was the Dreyfus affair. Eastern Europe wasn't a particularly happy place either. But there somebody with a more sound understanding of local history can probably give better examples for that. On a semi-related note, particularly the pretty blatant anti-semitism of Luther (and the holocaust) is something that I always have to think of, when I hear politicians use the phrase Judeo-Christian values/ethics/whatever, and it kinda makes me cringe a bit.

 

[Kalbear]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

It was certainly not the only way a generic Republican could win, but I can't see another that would allow somebody like Trump to win. Remember, at the time he ran, there had never been a President without either military or political experience at a fairly high level. Also, he had done things which would ordinarily disqualify any candidate outright. For example, he cheated on his wife and his "locker room talk" comments go far beyond contemporary political incorrectness (the latter was the core of his strategy) and well into a violation of much older and more universal mores.

Right. One interpretation of these facts is that there must be something very special about Trump to win.

Another interpretation of these facts is that the deck was stacked very heavily in favor of a generic Republican to win the election regardless of who it was, and further events stacked it even more in favor of a Republican. 

 

[Toth]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Steel and aluminum tariffs go on at midnight!

Just have to highlight this again, because it is all over the news here. Yikes, open trade war between USA and EU. Apparently the last attempt of reasoning by the OECD failed, cause Trump is gonna Trump. Who needs allies, right?

It's so strange seeing all these economists on TV with hanging heads and arms, going "Why? No matter how you look at it, this is just dumb and self-destructive. So why?!?" They all look like they have given up on reality.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, Bush II also tried his luck with tariffs on steel, if my memory is correct. He abandoned that experiment after a short time. So I see this as an opportunity to compare how fast the Orange one learns in comparission to Dubya.

[Zorral]

There are so many precedents of a demagogue - celebrity, who appeals to those who think they are smarter than the people who think they are educated and smarter, who was not part of the traditional political apparatus of previous campaigns and elections getting elected to high office.  The most obvious ones that are part of this era include, of course, Reagan (though he did do governor before POTUS) -- and very particularly, Jesse Ventura, whom Minnesota voters bought in haste and regretted also in haste, not leisure -- but they bought him for the same reason this 30-40 percent bought the dumbster.

But Reagan was controlled and Minnesota didn't run the US.  This man is a full out peril not just to the USA but the entire world, and those who vote for him are as well, in everything from the environment, the economy, social and civic responsibility and value, to war.  What he had that nobody else had was a full out, sophisticated campaign, mostly organized by Russia on social media to elect him, that had many, many fronts, and still does. The point IS to divide the US in every possible way, and they are doing a really good job.

Just for one see Malcolm Nance's book, The Plot to Hack America, about the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

[maarsen]

When it comes to tests of idiocy, all I can say is stupid is as stupid does. 

Damn but Trump does so many stupid things, just like Hitler using an astrologer to help plan his war.

[Morpheus]

Today in made up controvesy, Samantha Bee called Ivanka a “feckless cunt” on her show and now the right is pretending it is equivalent to Roseanne’s statements. They feel if she is not fired there is a double standard. Some of these same dipshits defended Roseanne with the old “free speech” chestnut, guess i doesn’t apply if their princess is a target. I hope there is no apology.

[aceluby]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean……..

 

JFC, does he not realize he admitted this on live TV?  There's videotape of him saying exactly that.

He's a fucking lunatic that shouldn't be anywhere near the nuclear codes.

[aceluby]

5 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Today in made up controvesy, Samantha Bee called Ivanka a “feckless cunt” on her show and now the right is pretending it is equivalent to Roseanne’s statements. They feel if she is not fired there is a double standard. Some of these same dipshits defended Roseanne with the old “free speech” chestnut, guess i doesn’t apply if their princess is a target. I hope there is no apology.

All name calling is the same!  Unless it's calling women fat, liberals 'libtards', anyone ugly, or making fun of disabilities.  I'm sure there's more exceptions, but all name calling is the same!  See!  You're the racist!

[Morpheus]

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

All name calling is the same!  Unless it's calling women fat, liberals 'libtards', anyone ugly, or making fun of disabilities.  I'm sure there's more exceptions, but all name calling is the same!  See!  You're the racist!

Vulgar descriptions of female genitalia are only to be used when describing what one likes to do with them, you know, regular locker room talk.

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

All name calling is the same!  Unless it's calling women fat, liberals 'libtards', anyone ugly, or making fun of disabilities.  I'm sure there's more exceptions, but all name calling is the same!  See!  You're the racist!

Well, I think what Roseanne said was worse than what Samantha Bee said, but that doesn't mean I approve of Bee. In the American context, calling a woman a "cunt" is an unfair sexist way to refer to someone you don't like. (I realize that in Britain "cunt" is often used as an insult to men as well as women, but it is very rarely applied to men in the USA.)  

I don't think any woman (or man) should be reduced to a single body part in public discussion. 

P.S. And no, it doesn't matter to me that Bee is herself a woman, and certainly doesn't matter to me that the narcissist in the White House uses the term regularly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Shryke]

It just means "asshole" or the like in this context. And I've definitely seen to thrown at men.

It's just standard right-wing bullshit attempts to "both sides" the issue.

Roseanne said something horrible racist. Bee said something mean.

[Shryke]

Also tariffs against US allies and trading partners and retaliatory counter-tariffs by them are out.

WOO trade war. Trump is such a fucking idiot.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, aceluby said:

JFC, does he not realize he admitted this on live TV?  There's videotape of him saying exactly that.

He's a fucking lunatic that shouldn't be anywhere near the nuclear codes.

If you recall, he first apologized for the Access Hollywood comments and then later it was reported that he was telling people that he never said what he said. I read an interesting article the other day that argued Trump isn’t lying as much as he is actually believing his lies. That’s scary.

[IheartIheartTesla]

34 minutes ago, aceluby said:

JFC, does he not realize he admitted this on live TV?  There's videotape of him saying exactly that.

He's a fucking lunatic that shouldn't be anywhere near the nuclear codes.

Now, now, how can you call him a lunatic when he managed to get himself elected President and none of the other non-lunatic candidates couldnt manage that?

[mankytoes]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

This, and so many other posts, are classic examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Trump won, therefore the things he did in the process of winning must have been deliberate, planned, intended, and must explain his victory. 

Falling into that fallacy does not represent learning from history. Quite the reverse.

Even then, Trump is not an 'overt' bigot, at least not in the eyes of his supporters. The veneer of plausible deniability is a lot thinner than is usual even in the Republican party, but he (usually) acknowledges just enough of the forms that his voters can persuade themselves that the things he says aren't really racist. For these voters, this is a louder, less subtle dog whistle, but still a dog whistle. 

Except that isn't my reasoning. I thought the same as you for a long time, but when you look at the evidence, there's too much that he did right. You consider the alternative, and it makes way more sense. 

I know I seem to put this argument to you every time I reply to you, but again, bigotry, racism, these thing are not absolutes. Almost everything can be scaled. You can be a bit racist. Someone who wants to kill me for who I am is more racist than someone who doesn't want me marrying their daughter, is more racist 

9 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

If it makes you feel better, I tend to think of most of them more as fragile contemptibles.  Or as bigotry-accepting profiteer contemptibles for the Repub elites that were looking for corporate handouts.

What are you seeing as the left mocking Trump at the expense of getting their own house in order?   Maybe more to the point, what are you seeing as "mocking?"

There's an element of the left who are still completely unwilling to acknowledge any failings, and focus on identity politics- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/pr-boss-jennifer-palmieri-we-reduced-hillary-to-a-female-facsimile-of-a-male-president

I mean that is ridiculous. The UK elected a female PM in 1979. We aren't forty years ahead of America on gender. No doubt if Obama had lost people would have said "America isn't ready for a black President". Minorities are still sadly reduced to nothing more than their identities- but the fucked up thing is many of the people doing this are on the left. 

Do I really need to define mocking to you? He's a big dumb orangutan with stupid hair, he talks stupid and does stupid hand gestures, etc. And I'm not saying not to do that, that would be hypocritical. But it's just the quantity. 

9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd say he was a very good manipulator that understood how to play to the worst elements of the German Psyche in the 1920s and the 1930s and then combined it with utter ruthlessness to obtain power.  He was like the Trumpster in that he was able to appeal to various myths, often grounded in outright delusion and the nastier side of human nature. Just like the Trumpster was able to hint at "those people" are taking all the good shit for themselves, when in reality, that's primarily the Republican Party donor class, Hitler was able to appeal things like the old "Stab in The Back" theory, which blamed Germany's loss in WW1 on the Jews, and believed by many Germans, unable to cope with the reality of the situation, which was that Germany was simply bled white after 4 years of fighting and starved into submission when the German Imperial Fleet was unable to challenge British naval hegemony after Jutland.

But, Hitler's lethargic and poor management style and his disregard for details and reality undermined his own stated policy aims (evil as they were). And ultimately he brought his country to disaster along with the rest of Europe.

He also double talked in a way you can't get away with now- he spoke to workers and business owners and said totally contradictory things, but with less pervasive press coverage you could get away with that a lot more. No one can really know, but I don't think he was cynically trying to use anti semetism to his own ends- I think he really believed in it. 

 

[Week]

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I mean that is ridiculous. The UK elected a female PM in 1979. We aren't forty years ahead of America on gender. No doubt if Obama had lost people would have said "America isn't ready for a black President". Minorities are still sadly reduced to nothing more than their identities- but the fucked up thing is many of the people doing this are on the left. 

The is some weak shit out of conservative talking points opposed to identity politics -- all the while disregarding the pandering to white, christian, straight, patriarchal identity by Trump and the GOP (white supermacist if you prefer).

[mankytoes]

1 minute ago, Week said:

The is some weak shit out of conservative talking points opposed to identity politics -- all the while disregarding the pandering to white, christian, straight, patriarchal identity by Trump and the GOP (white supermacist if you prefer).

How am I ignoring that? Because I didn't mention it in that single post? Two wrongs don't make a right. Look at how Obama ran. He didn't make a big deal out of his race, he didn't need to, no one was going to forget he was a black man, just like no one would have forgotten Hilary was a woman. 

Trump played her. He baited her into presenting as the "woman candidate". This whole idea of reducing people to their race, their gender, their sexuality- this is what the right wing have always done, not the left wing. Rule of politics- never let your opponent set the agenda. 

If the right appeal to majorities, and the left appeal to minorities, who is going to win elections?