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

[Week]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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

The right does not appeal a majority. White, christian, straight, patriarchal identity is not a majority.

I'm disgusted by the portrayal of Trump's misogyny as a thoughtful tactic. "Grab 'em by the pussy" indeed.

[Shryke]

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

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? 

Plase. Trump didn't play anything. He just went out and yelled racist anti-establishment shit and a bunch of people love both those things. And also manipulated the press and, you know, colluded with foreign governments. On top of the standard GOP voter suppression and other anti-democracy tactics the party pushes.

And then only won because of the idiotic technicalities of how the US counts votes for President.

[Mexal]

2 hours 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.

I mean, the whole saying for Trump during the campaign was "Trump that Bitch" so not entirely sure they have much of a leg to stand on. It's completely different than racist comments like Roseanne's.

 

[mankytoes]

29 minutes ago, Week said:

The right does not appeal a majority. White, christian, straight, patriarchal identity is not a majority.

I'm disgusted by the portrayal of Trump's misogyny as a thoughtful tactic. "Grab 'em by the pussy" indeed.

The last one isn't a social group. White, straight and Christian are all majority groups. 

Spare me your false outrage. If anything, tactically using misogyny is more disgraceful than being genuinely misogynistic. I have no idea why you've quoted that.

[Morpheus]

Rod Blagojevich and Martha Stewart are also getting pardons. He is really signalling to Cohen and others that he will be loose with the power. Big surprise that his concept of great legal injustices always revolve around people who are some combination of rich, famous, and racist.

[Week]

22 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

The last one isn't a social group. White, straight, and Christian are all majority groups. 

The intersection of all 3 -- that is the GOP base and not a majority. 

22 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Spare me your false outrage. If anything, tactically using misogyny is more disgraceful than being genuinely misogynistic. I have no idea why you've quoted that.

Hard eye roll.

[GrimTuesday]

Kind of bugs me that Samantha Bee apologized, though I understand why she did it. I get that cunt is generally frowned upon in the US, so I understand why some might be offended by its usage regardless of the context, but I still don't like it. By apologizing, it has legitimized the argument that her language and the blatantly racist language that Rosanne used were in any way equivalent. What she did was take a shot at someone for their actions that they have control over, what Roseanne did was take a shot at someone based on their race, which they have zero control over.

I know that we can't die on every hill, but sometimes it feels like every time someone give in to these people, it just makes things worse.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours 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.

Well I think the appropriate rebuttal would be that if Roseanne had called Valerie Jarrett a "feckless cunt" in her tweet instead of calling her a non-human primate her show would not have been cancelled.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I know that we can't die on every hill, but sometimes it feels like every time someone give in to these people, it just makes things worse.

Agree 100% -- I suspect it was due to pressure from TBS and advertisers. 

The message was clear and correct, though the platform was not for something sustainable (i.e. well within rights of advertisers to pull ads if they choose).

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

It has been your reasoning.   You seem to be arguing the following:

1.  You need intelligence (and a deliberate plan) to win public office in the US, especially the presidency.

2.  Trump won the presidency.

3.  Ergo, he must be intelligent, and could not have bumbled into it.

The only evidence of Trump's intelligence you've given is the fact that he won this office, which is what Mormont pointed out there.   The only other example of his intelligence you've given is a vague appeal to how he "manipulated his opponents and the media," something a number of posters have pushed back on that you didn't really respond to that I could tell (but maybe you did and I missed it).  

So what is it, other than the fact that "he won so he must be smart," that makes you believe he isn't as stupid as we're all saying he is?

Quote

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. 

Ok, so first things first.  R-leaning white people are the most prodigious peddlers of "identity politics."   

Secondly, you're using "identity politics" the same way right-wing pundits do to invoke some frightening boogeyman.  Can you unpack what you mean by how identity politics reduces people to nothing more than their identities?

Thirdly, you seem to scoff at the idea that bigotry-- specifically sexism-- played a tremendous role in Trump's victory (I assume this is the takeaway you're appealing to in that Guardian piece you linked).   Are you of the belief that sexism did not contribute significantly to Trump's win/ Hillary's loss?   Because if it did contribute, then people are right to talk about it as an issue.

Quote

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. 

Well, yea, because I don't get what you're referring to, and now I'm even more skeptical.  You were remarking about how leftists need to stop mocking him and get their own house in order instead.  I'm not sure who you're referring to about that.  Journalists and democratic politicians?   There's a lot of work the Dems need to do internally, but they aren't really mocking him.   Like, comedians and people on an ASOIAF forum need to spend less time making fun of him and more time building the party?  Or randos on twitter?  It just kind of feels like you're building a stawleftist to scold.

[Yukle]

57 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I know that we can't die on every hill, but sometimes it feels like every time someone give in to these people, it just makes things worse.

I completely agree! This is exactly why Trump keeps getting away with stuff!

He's overtly racist, but it's treated as the same as Hillary calling them "deplorables"! Stop this crap, this is what happened to Michelle Wolfe! The difference is that she handled exactly as she should: a huge middle finger to them for being so touchy.

[mankytoes]

15 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

It has been your reasoning.   You seem to be arguing the following:

1.  You need intelligence (and a deliberate plan) to win public office in the US, especially the presidency.

2.  Trump won the presidency.

3.  Ergo, he must be intelligent, and could not have bumbled into it.

The only evidence of Trump's intelligence you've given is the fact that he won this office, which is what Mormont pointed out there.   The only other example of his intelligence you've given is a vague appeal to how he "manipulated his opponents and the media," something a number of posters have pushed back on that you didn't really respond to that I could tell (but maybe you did and I missed it).  

So what is it, other than the fact that "he won so he must be smart," that makes you believe he isn't as stupid as we're all saying he is?

Ok, so first things first.  R-leaning white people are the most prodigious peddlers of "identity politics."   

Secondly, you're using "identity politics" the same way right-wing pundits do to invoke some frightening boogeyman.  Can you unpack what you mean by how identity politics reduces people to nothing more than their identities?

Thirdly, you seem to scoff at the idea that bigotry-- specifically sexism-- played a tremendous role in Trump's victory (I assume this is the takeaway you're appealing to in that Guardian piece you linked).   Are you of the belief that sexism did not contribute significantly to Trump's win/ Hillary's loss?   Because if it did contribute, then people are right to talk about it as an issue.

Well, yea, because I don't get what you're referring to, and now I'm even more skeptical.  You were remarking about how leftists need to stop mocking him and get their own house in order instead.  I'm not sure who you're referring to about that.  Journalists and democratic politicians?   There's a lot of work the Dems need to do internally, but they aren't really mocking him.   Like, comedians and people on an ASOIAF forum need to spend less time making fun of him and more time building the party?  Or randos on twitter?  It just kind of feels like you're building a stawleftist to scold.

No I haven't, I've posted a link to a video which shows how precise his use of language is, amongst other things. you ignoring my evidence isn't the same as me not presenting it. Yes, they pointed it out, but it's factually untrue. 

Idiots can't manipulate language like that. 

Exactly! That's exactly my point! Identity politics isn't our thing. It's their thing. You're playing their game. You can't criticise me for not arguing with right wing people, there are hardly any on here. Trust me, I come from a conservative area, I spend most of my life arguing with right wing people. You say identity politics is largely a white, conservative thing, so do you support it?

Well most people want the same thing. Good education for their children, access to modern healthcare, safe streets, opportunities in work, etc. None of this depends of whether you're male, female, black, white, gay, straight, whatever. I know it sounds awfully twee, but we're all human beings first and foremost, and I think that principle is absolutely core to the philosophy of liberalism that I support. I felt Bernie expressed this well. If you take people out of poverty, you will be disproportionately helping black people. 

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not American. Trump obviously used sexist language as a tactic to demean Hilary. How successful was it? I don't know. Sexism is difficult. Women are referred to as a minority, but they aren't a real minority. If you equally annoy black people but appeal to white people, you lose one vote and gain three. With gender, it's 50/50, and a lot of conservative people appeared to genuinely dislike his rhetoric. And a lot of male liberals genuinely wanted to see a female President. But I'd like to learn more about this issue. What I am sure about is that the USA could elect a female leader. Pakistan have done it, the Americans can do it. Sexism may have contributed significantly to his win, but there is no way I'm buying the line that she was doomed from the start based on her gender. 

I'll admit, it's a bit of a vague point I'm making there. It's the overall impression I get from across the pond. What I want to hear, from all the groups you mention, is "oh shit, what a terrible situation we're in, I can't believe we've lost, we've got to do better". It feels complacent. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Looks like Congressional Republicans are growing a spine, even if it's only as thick as a toothpick:

Quote

Washington (CNN)Republicans on Capitol Hill were fuming after the White House abruptly announced it would begin imposing steel and aluminum tariffs Friday on US allies Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

The move Thursday came after Republicans tried to convince the administration for months to target China with tariffs rather than US trading partners, and it could trigger Republicans on Capitol Hill to consider taking action against their own President on trade.

 

One Republican senator, who asked not to be identified, complained Thursday about President Donald Trump's decision to impose the tariffs, 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports.

 

"I don't like trade wars. There are no winners in trade wars. And this scares me," the senator said.

 

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady released a statement that said the tariffs "are hitting the wrong target."

 

"When it comes to unfairly traded steel and aluminum, Mexico, Canada, and Europe are not the problem—China is. This action puts American workers and families at risk, whose jobs depend on fairly traded products from these important trading partners. And it hurts our efforts to create good-paying US jobs by selling more 'Made in America' products to customers in these countries," the Texas Republican's statement said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/republicans-gop-react-tariffs-trade-trump-aluminum-steel-imports/index.html

[Shryke]

Quote

One  Republican senator, who asked not to be identified

is not a spine.

Nor is it new.

[DMC]

14 hours ago, mankytoes said:

No, not at all. I believe in rule by the best, not rule by "an average guy like me". Trump is not a suitable person to be President, for several reasons. 

But this isn't just about Trump. We all know the people who say he's "just an idiot" also think that about all his voters. That's more of a problem. Like most people on here, I'm guessing, I'm fairly academic, I got pretty good grades. But that doesn't make me see other people as idiots. A lot of the time less academic people can still be smart in different ways. I often struggle to read and understand people. That's an important aspect of intelligence. 

I wouldn't say elitism, but I do feel that there is a general undercurrent of smugness, not from you in particular, but from leftists generally. Maybe left wing Americans should spend less time mocking Trump and more time looking at the state of their party.

31 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'll admit, it's a bit of a vague point I'm making there. It's the overall impression I get from across the pond. What I want to hear, from all the groups you mention, is "oh shit, what a terrible situation we're in, I can't believe we've lost, we've got to do better". It feels complacent. 

Since you agree that Trump is not fit to be president, your argument seems to boil down to whining about how leftists are mean, smug, and complacent in their whining about Trump.  And that leftist groups need to be more introspective.  Ok, first, attacking Trump's actions and behavior - even when using superior or dismissive language - is a part of politics in emphasizing his actions and behavior are not legitimate.  Second, virtually every institutional left group has said exactly "oh shit, what a terrible situation we're in, we've got to do better" since 2016.  It's just not a very useful sustained public message.  Your "overall impression" seems to be informed by the discussion in these threads, which is obviously a forum to blow off steam and express (albeit sometimes overblown) outrage. 

I do agree though about not painting all Trump voters as idiots or anything else.  Have had the argument many time on here.

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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

Considering the GOP candidate has won the majority (or plurality, for that matter) exactly once in the past seven presidential elections, it would seem the Dems' problem is institutional rules rather than the fact the right has increasingly appealed solely to white people.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

is not a spine.

Nor is it new.

Indeed. It is just the call of another master.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Shryke said:

is not a spine.

Nor is it new.

Well, it's pretty clear that plenty, if not a majority, of Republican MCs disagree with Trump's tariffs.  But obviously it doesn't mean shit because their caucus can't get together on anything - even before they had a lame duck Speaker.

[Martell Spy]

This is why Trump won the Republican nomination.

This televangelist is asking his followers to buy him a $54 million private jet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/us/jesse-duplantis-plane-falcon-7x-prosperity-gospel-trnd/index.html

Quote

 

A prosperity gospel televangelist from Louisiana says Jesus has asked him to buy a new private jet. And wouldn't you know it, Jesus has real nice taste in planes.

Jesse Duplantis, leader of Jesse Duplantis Ministries and the owner of three other private jets, is asking his followers to chip in so his ministry can purchase a brand new Dassault Falcon 7X, which runs about $54 million.
In a video recently published on his website, Duplantis says the planes get him closer to the Lord -- both literally and figuratively -- and he had a divine conversation in which Jesus asked for the new aircraft by name.
"It was one of the greatest statements the Lord ever told me, he said, 'Jesse do you want to come up where I'm at?'" the minister says. "'I want you to bleed me for a Falcon 7X.'"
By "bleed," Duplantis -- er, Jesus -- apparently meant "ask for donations."

 

 

[Yukle]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Considering the GOP candidate has won the majority (or plurality, for that matter) exactly once in the past seven presidential elections, it would seem the Dems' problem is institutional rules rather than the fact the right has increasingly appealed solely to white people.

Gosh, it's pretty stark to be reminded of that. Republicans have served three Presidential terms in that time, of which only 1 was with the blessing of more voters than any other candidate.

What a world we'd live in if Gore had beaten Bush (okay he did, I mean if he'd done it and it actually counted). Turns out that environment thingy was pretty important and Iraq didn't have those weapons after all.

[mankytoes]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Since you agree that Trump is not fit to be president, your argument seems to boil down to whining about how leftists are mean, smug, and complacent in their whining about Trump.  And that leftist groups need to be more introspective.  Ok, first, attacking Trump's actions and behavior - even when using superior or dismissive language - is a part of politics in emphasizing his actions and behavior are not legitimate.  Second, virtually every institutional left group has said exactly "oh shit, what a terrible situation we're in, we've got to do better" since 2016.  It's just not a very useful sustained public message.  Your "overall impression" seems to be informed by the discussion in these threads, which is obviously a forum to blow off steam and express (albeit sometimes overblown) outrage. 

Considering the GOP candidate has won the majority (or plurality, for that matter) exactly once in the past seven presidential elections, it would seem the Dems' problem is institutional rules rather than the fact the right has increasingly appealed solely to white people.

I don't care if they're mean, I care that they lost, and aren't remedying what happened. They fail, people like Trump get in, that affects people all over the world. I do follow American politics fairly closely, so my impression comes from a lot more sources than this forum, but I can't debate this point much, because it's so vague, it's just my impression. Right after the election I was arguing with Hilary fans, who basically refused to acknowledge any fault in her or her campaign, and purely blame Trump, the media, sexism, Russia, anything but themselves, their media, their party. So it's good if they are saying that, but it isn't my experience. 

I mean, it is an issue. I haven't actually heard anyone defend the system of electoral college. It's a relic of when America wasn't a proper modern nation state democracy. So many democracies have been influenced by the USA, and not one has adopted this system. The conservatism in the American mindset that leads to things like keeping this system and the metric system is so annoying I'm genuinely winding myself up a little even thinking about it. 

The thing is, if you only talk about this issue when it negatively effects you, you just look like an opportunist. An American will have to tell me how invested the Democrats were in electoral reform before the last election. I know that it's always a fucking nightmare trying to get the public interested in it as an issue.

But again, proportionality is important here. Yes, the system is bad, and yes, sexism was an issue. But I have no doubt that, despite those factors, this election was there to be won. I mean Trump never had good approval ratings. I've had a google and can't find them, but polling at election time showed he scored very low on public perception of honesty, ability, knowledge, temperament, pretty much everything. Hilary didn't score well on many things either, but she was higher. The only thing that he scored really well (and Hilary really low) on was people thinking he'd bring change. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, declaring war on Canada would bring change. This was there to be won. If you have a problem, you should focus more on the factors you have the most ability to control. 

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

This is why Trump won the Republican nomination.

This televangelist is asking his followers to buy him a $54 million private jet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/us/jesse-duplantis-plane-falcon-7x-prosperity-gospel-trnd/index.html

 

I hope I'm wrong, and there is a God, and a just God, and these fucking parasites burn for eternity.