Trump Consciousness

[David Bailey]

Laird and Alice, let me try to get your position straight.

If a candidate for head teacher (say) is accused out of the blue of molesting a girl 30 years previously, would you:

a) Choose another head teacher.

b) Try to look for evidence, and if none turned up, let the man take up his new post.

c) Something else.

Note that the Kavanaugh case corresponds to case b.

I mean nobody seems to be taking the question seriously - what exactly do you do with accusations like that - what procedure would you follow?

David

 

[Chester Hunter]

Gosh, people. I'm reading this thread and I'm ashamed of our whole forum (both its pro-Trump and anti-Trump sides of fence). Well, at least of its larger (American-British) section of populace.

Here, I want to say a thing - not even as a sitter of a Trumpian fence, but as a foreign (Russian, to be precise) and thus relatively impartial observer, looking from a distance at two crowds furiously shouting at each other from the different sides of this fence: Trump Derangement Syndrome is obviously real, and affects a whole specter of American and British people, both supporters and opponents of Trump - including even the (generally) intelligent and decent human beings. I can see it, when I look at how the polylogue of usually very smart, self-reflective and quite knowledable people (this is, all of you) has fallen to a level of a angry and pointless schoolyard cliques' clash.

People, please. Leave this thread and calm yourself.

P.S. Michael Prescott has written a very insightful post on the recent American political divide reaching the level of intence, teeth-gnashing, mentally blinding mutual animosity:

https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2019/10/civil-war-part-deux-.html

Civil war may indeed be coming, if the current level of two-sided political enmity will continue to grow (and it likely will).

I agree with you 100% (except...) This isn't (to me) TDS. It is what I call APO - "American Politics Obsession" and I admit I suffer from it greatly. A part of me understands this is most likely a sick form of "distractotainment." I say this in relation to the views I posted earlier with regards to Carroll Quigley's information from the 1960s.

Meaning, I should know better than to get worked up about it. I should know even better not to post my views as I am just feeding the monster. I should know better than to even read this thread because I seem not to be able to help myself.

 

[Larry]

I am with you entirely - that sort of thing should not happen.

However now imagine if Christine Margaret Blasey Ford had actually brought a case against Kavanaugh (she hasn't) and you were sitting through it. She would turn up with no evidence, unable to remember where or exactly when the offence took place, and no corroborating evidence of any kind. Would you decide to convict?

David

No of course not but it wasn't a trial. It was valid information to consider within a pattern of behavior when nominating someone to such an important life long office. I actually have mixed feelings about the whole debacle but I think it was rushed through and a lot of testimony wasn't allowed to be aired.

 

[Chester Hunter]

I think that you are painting in brush strokes too broad. The majority are not (as typically defined) "Left" or "Right", and, to the extent that they are, they are looking for Something Different, not Driving On As Usual.

And unicorns exist also, right? I have not found a single "left" leaner that fits into the group once known as "moderate democrat." I have not found one single person that publicly aligns with what they call "The Right" who is not either an establishment Republican and/or a "never Trumper" OR a Trumpublican through and through. There are a few Libertarians who I appreciate and appear to hold true to their values. These are the folks I find actually sharing their honest views on all major political issues where in specific cases, they are loathed by at least one of the three above mentioned primary groups. But they have no power and never will. The game is fixed.

They are all dug in and so each of us is left with the requirement to make the best, worst choice if the voting is actually legitimate (and I have no confidence it is). So why do I bother reading, getting worked up, responding, sometimes provoking? Because I truly believe in all my heart that if anyone of the current "Left" gets into power in the US (and I mean all three branches), the US as the founders created it to be and as I was taught in school it was supposed to be where ever since WWI (the Federal reserve and the Federal Income Tax) WWII (the decision to engage in constant regional wars) there's been a concerted effort to destroy the US... that US will be gone forever.

Though the game kicked off over 100 years ago, public notice was given November 22, 1963.

IMO the elites won long ago. Yes, I am foolish to get involved.

 

[Silence]

Laird and Alice, let me try to get your position straight.

If a candidate for head teacher (say) is accused out of the blue of molesting a girl 30 years previously, would you:

a) Choose another head teacher.

b) Try to look for evidence, and if none turned up, let the man take up his new post.

c) Something else.

Note that the Kavanaugh case corresponds to case b.

I mean nobody seems to be taking the question seriously - what exactly do you do with accusations like that - what procedure would you follow?

David

Definitely not a or b as the school administrator would be morally repugnant for not going with c: reporting the allegations to local law enforcement.

 

[Laird]

Gosh, people. I'm reading this thread and I'm ashamed of our whole forum (both its pro-Trump and anti-Trump sides of fence).

Here's my position for the record, Vortex:

I think that politics - at this level - should be banned from the forum. Politics at the level of conspiracy is fair game, because that's part of Alex's level X discussion.

Political discussions of this nature are often fraught and contentious, and destroy the otherwise goodwill established between forum members. I don't come here to discuss politics at this level, and it's not within the remit of the forum.

And I'm not really interested in discussing Donald Trump. In my view, the man is radically unsuited to office, but so be it. I tend not to bring him up in conversation myself, at least here on Skeptiko, because I don't see any point to discussing him. He is what he is, and that's that.

The problem is that certain people on this forum insist on shoving him in our faces. You know who these people are. They seem to have a need to advocate for and/or fawn over him, and either bring him up out of the blue in contexts in which he is irrelevant, or start threads devoted to him like this one.

My view is that this, as well as Donald Trump's obvious (in my view) unfitness for office and appalling character, should be called out, including, as the occasion merits, with humour and/or mockery, lest it appear that the forum as a whole is too milquetoast to stand up to these members and their Trump Obsession Syndrome.

 

[Laird]

Laird and Alice, let me try to get your position straight.

David, in post #589, I asked you a couple of direct questions to clarify your position. Could you please answer those? I will then address your own question.

 

[Laird]

I truly believe in all my heart that if anyone of the current "Left" gets into power in the US (and I mean all three branches), the US as the founders created it to be and as I was taught in school it was supposed to be where ever since WWI (the Federal reserve and the Federal Income Tax) WWII (the decision to engage in constant regional wars) there's been a concerted effort to destroy the US... that US will be gone forever.

Yeah, I think you're just parading your partisan bias, Sam. There are a few points to make:

1. The "US" is imperialist, having stolen another group of nations' land, and so its being "gone forever" would be rightful, not wrongful - but, of course, the manner in which it "goes" matters, and, obviously, the manner in which you suggest it might "go" is inimical to the well-being of its First Nations.
2. The current Left has, along with irrational radicals, many sane voices, and its getting into power could well be the best thing that could happen for your country - but a real Left, not just a talking voice.
3. As I wrote previously, I don't think that most citizens of the USA are on either the Left or the Right in the extremist terms in which you present them. I think that most US citizens just want sanity returned to the political sphere.

 

[Aliceinunderland]

The Left is driving it all... the msm media is 90% Left.

Unless I'm completely mistaken here and the US has a different meaning for 'the Left' than I do..I think you'll find the mainstream media is decidedly 'Right' i.e. owned by a few billionaires with 'invested interests' at stake, and has been for a long time. This is true in the UK as well as the US.

Yes, its all a game and the average Mary or Joe in the US is getting crushed

Aren't we always..but the Left comprises a diverse range inc artists, greens, students, the young, the middle-class and upper-lower income, indigenous and minority cultural groups. And we must now add the, inadvertently or not, maniacal war-mongering duo Obama-Clinton also, who I suspect are 'establishment' puppets 'covering' the 'other side' while the Right pretend to govern and play out their bullshit repertoire of 'troops home, no wait, they're not' etc.

BUT, some. like myself, have an escape route...

Good for you, and I'm safely miles away, but I tell you, there may come a time when it will be impossible to 'escape' the Dark State (Demiurge?) that is behind this and pulling the real strings of each well-paid dangerous dilettante who'll do a term or two, while we try to have a life, or don't -at their hands or not.

 

[Aliceinunderland]

Meaning, I should know better than to get worked up about it. I should know even better not to post my views as I am just feeding the monster. I should know better than to even read this thread because I seem not to be able to help myself.

But it is serious, we are all passionately involved in this outcome (and there is an election coming) if we have the open minds of true Skeptiko's. This issue is big: we're looking at the future, which is already unstable on a number of fronts -climate, pollution and population numbers, while both sides advocate and/or maintain a costly (in lives as well as cash) series of wars. Just think of the mess when it does finally stop, not forgetting the longterm, possibly genetically-descendant ptsd. Meanwhile this forum outlet gives us opportunity to vent the emotional charge, and speaks through us in diverse ways -sad, serious, silly or irrational. It's not a monster, it's just our emotions, which have been treated as unruly elements to be frowned upon. But they are pointers and deserve a voice, so we must keep talking. It is our civil right and duty not to 'switch off'. Ideally towards a collaborative and truly just solution to the current global 'mess' - or b) it's all utterly pointless, as none of us will have any effect, so let's just give up now?

 

[Aliceinunderland]

Though the game kicked off over 100 years ago, public notice was given November 22, 1963.

IMO the elites won long ago.

:(

 

[Aliceinunderland]

lest it appear that the forum as a whole is too milquetoast to stand up to these members and their Trump Obsession Syndrome.

nice, 'milkytoast'... floppy (white) bread?, which the West does eat a lot of..

 

[Michael Patterson]

And unicorns exist also, right? I have not found a single "left" leaner that fits into the group once known as "moderate democrat." I have not found one single person that publicly aligns with what they call "The Right" who is not either an establishment Republican and/or a "never Trumper" OR a Trumpublican through and through. There are a few Libertarians who I appreciate and appear to hold true to their values. These are the folks I find actually sharing their honest views on all major political issues where in specific cases, they are loathed by at least one of the three above mentioned primary groups. But they have no power and never will. The game is fixed.

Hey Sam. I think that US politics has become intensely polarised to the point that honest expressions of views simply invites attack. Its a perilous situation and a signal to the rest of us. A powerful problem is the reliance on social media and opinionists, rather than actual news.

There is abundant evidence that via social media foreign agents are influencing domestic political opinion. Some observers say that the intent is to generate distrust to the point of dysfunction - and that the US is the prime, but not only, target. Trump has pushed back against this perspective because he fears it invalidates his election - and he may be right [nobody knows for sure but the seeds of doubt are valid]. As a result the US is less responsive to the risks than is sensible.Just recently Facebook identified a substantial number of sites that were designed as political influencers by foreign agents - including Russia.

Trump has urged his supporters to disparage domestic security and intelligence services, and that means that legitimate warnings about foreign interference are less likely to be heeded. This is actually a huge problem for you and us in Australia. We talk it down at our peril.

Sober assessments of Trump's victory in 2016 show a bunch of factors. Clinton did herself no favours and she ran a flawed campaign. But the Russian influence is unmistakable. Was that which tipped the scales? We will never know. But Trump is alert to the risk it may have, and so seeks to diminish the risk.

It is evident that the US has straddled bitter polarisation for years [as we have - not to the same degree tho]. It is also evident that the hardening of the polarisation tracks the rise of social media. It is, in my view, toxic on its own account. But add to that mix the malignant acts of foreign agents [not just Russia] and you maybe can see how dangerous the situation is.

Russia isn't happy being knocked off its status as a world power. It cannot compete with the US in terms of conventional weapons, so it has taken the conflict into the realm of hybrid warfare. The ability to invade and control another country's internet is a major strength, and the US is vulnerable to a huge degree - internet linked utilities, governments and so on are profoundly vulnerable.

There's a reason Trump bangs on about Chinese theft of US intellectual property. He is right. But why the Chinese were able to plunder the intellectual fruits of so many US businesses is something too few Americans understand. What is less understood is how vulnerable your whole system is - just like ours.

The fact that the US is now polarised in a destructive way is partly historical reasons and partly because the vulnerability via FaceBook and Twitter exposes so many Americans to manipulations from very pissed off, but very adept foreign agents. The uS has been attacked at a low level for a long time, and the impact is not some spectacular catastrophe like 911, but a slow corrosion of cultural cohesion. One day you will wake up, but you will pay an awful price in the meantime.

 

[David Bailey]

There is abundant evidence that via social media foreign agents are influencing domestic political opinion. Some observers say that the intent is to generate distrust to the point of dysfunction - and that the US is the prime, but not only, target. Trump has pushed back against this perspective because he fears it invalidates his election - and he may be right [nobody knows for sure but the seeds of doubt are valid]. As a result the US is less responsive to the risks than is sensible.Just recently Facebook identified a substantial number of sites that were designed as political influencers by foreign agents - including Russia.

We have an internet that is open to the rest of the world. Whatever did or did not happen on social media can't invalidate the election - that is the real point. If we want to stop this kind of 'interference' we first have to define in advance what it is that is illegal, and more importantly what is legal.
We then have to find an effective way to stop the interference happening. You can't really rely on one 'side' complaining that it must have lost because of interference. It is like complaining that you lost the election because the other guy looked more handsome - that may be unfair, but there isn't anything you can do about it!

David

 

[Michael Patterson]

But it is serious, we are all passionately involved in this outcome (and there is an election coming) if we have the open minds of true Skeptiko's. This issue is big: we're looking at the future, which is already unstable on a number of fronts -climate, pollution and population numbers, while both sides advocate and/or maintain a costly (in lives as well as cash) series of wars. Just think of the mess when it does finally stop, not forgetting the longterm, possibly genetically-descendant ptsd. Meanwhile this forum outlet gives us opportunity to vent the emotional charge, and speaks through us in diverse ways -sad, serious, silly or irrational. It's not a monster, it's just our emotions, which have been treated as unruly elements to be frowned upon. But they are pointers and deserve a voice, so we must keep talking. It is our civil right and duty not to 'switch off'. Ideally towards a collaborative and truly just solution to the current global 'mess' - or b) it's all utterly pointless, as none of us will have any effect, so let's just give up now?

Alice, please remember that so long as the US claims the POTUS is "the leader of the free world" we all have a deep stake in the proceedings. We live, last time I checked, in a free country. Despite what some Americans claim, we are stakeholders in their domestic drama. Indeed if they seriously say POTUS is LOTFW I think we should have a vote too. Else how is it a matter of freedom?

I have had the debate before on this forum. Supposedly we do not understand US politics. Maybe not, but so often it is demonstrated that most Americans have a naive, of not lousy, geopolitical insight. We are not they, and they are not us. And yet, as we are now seeing so awfully with Trump, the POTUS can turn a bad situation into utter shit with one phone call. That matters. Who the hell is he going to call next?

You guys like being LOTFW? You gotta that on merit, not might. Maybe it was once might, but those days are gone - save our spineless politicians will still go to US heel with their tails between their legs - but not for long.

 

[Michael Patterson]

We have an internet that is open to the rest of the world. Whatever did or did not happen on social media can't invalidate the election - that is the real point. If we want to stop this kind of 'interference' we first have to define in advance what it is that is illegal, and more importantly what is legal.
We then have to find an effective way to stop the interference happening. You can't really rely on one 'side' complaining that it must have lost because of interference. It is like complaining that you lost the election because the other guy looked more handsome - that may be unfair, but there isn't anything you can do about it!

David

It aint about invalidating an election. Social media is part of the ecology. But it changes the rules unless the rules are changed. FaceBook is policing sites now and taking down those that are apparently election trolling sites. But that can be circumvented, and no doubt will be. The internet gives us porous border in ways not well understood. Its one thing to rage against thousands of illegal people for fear their will cause havoc. But what about millions of ideas and messages?

Nobody outside Trumpworld and Foxland doubts that the Russians had presence in, and an influence upon, the 2016 US election. The only debate is to what degree was that influence instrumental in the final outcome.

The motives to interfere vary. The Russians were [and remain] desperate to have sanctions lifted so they can get on with exploiting their oil and gas resources. Other nations are motivated by revenge and hatred, rather than prospects of profit.

I think there is a simple rule. If you are going to piss people off badly these days, make sure you have a multilayered defence - not just a useless conventional military. If the uS had invested as much into protecting its election processes as it does building weapons way in excess of actual need the US would not be in this stupid situation.

 

[Steve]

A powerful problem is the reliance on social media and opinionists, rather than actual news.

What do you see as ‘actual news’ Michael?
Social media is the only true friend we have, there is tons of dross mixed in with gold, but I for one think we must be very careful and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Michael Patterson]

What do you see as ‘actual news’ Michael?
Social media is the only true friend we have, there is tons of dross mixed in with gold, but I for one think we must be very careful and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

By actual news I mean information delivered with a reasonable degree of objectivity - not opinion. I acknowledge that all news is curated - what is in or out on any given day is determined on criteria that vary from audience appeal to advertiser tolerance. But it has ever been thus. News has never been 'free'.

But I draw a powerful distinction between reportage and interpretation and opinion. Granted the bulk of our population lacks the sophistication to interpret 'news' of a political nature. That is an inherent risk in any large community.

Opinion is the danger area. This is especially so when the audience lacks the capacity to asses the opinion. Hence the ignorant and not so smart imbibe opinions from people they like. So you get people Hannity and Carlson on Fox spewing unfettered and uncontested opinion to a vulnerable audience. Its good for profit and its good for Trump. But it corrodes democracy. Here in Australia we have a noxious critter called Jones who preys on the ignorant and stupid. Ego meets gullibility and ego wins. Politicians love these egos because they deliver votes.

In one respect the situation is hopeless. The bad guys are going to win, as they have done with sufficient vigour to create our cultural norms. But the question isn't about idealism, just keeping the really freaking jobs away.

Trump won because he wasn't expected. Now he is expected, the question as to whether he survives to challenge for a 2nd term is down to whether sufficient Americans are alarmed and informed enough to ensure he does not endure.

Impeachment is a matter of news and opinion- what is real and what it means. I notice that Fox has dug foxholes from which to fire denials and distractions. The 'Fake News' is loading up on reasoned and informed opinions and solid reportage.

Fox claims that MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the Fake News is plotting against Trump. In a way that's true. They are determined he has to go, and they are adding their weight to the cause.

Fox paints Trump as a hero and the rest say he is a villain. What are the chances that Fox alone is right, along with the mostly ignorant, under educated or religiously doctrinal? The Fake News rolls out the leading lights of middle class attainment - well educated, highly skilled and accomplished? The Fake News adds opinion - intepretation of the news. It is biased - lett of centre at least.

You can't have pure news beyond the familiar stuff of car accidents, assaults and murders. Once you get into politics you need interpretation and you need opinion. But if you haven't a clue how to choose the best you are prey to the highly motivated and highly paid. Any illusion of freedom you may have had dies here - but you will be told otherwise - you are free to agree.

Social media is a huge advantage and a huge threat so long as it is controlled as a profit maker. The means to connect is powerful and a real good. The content that is then distributed actually can place a nation at risk if it has not figured out how to manage risks. China has done so and we are induced to condemn it.

China understands that what the government sees as rights and duties is not shared by its population, which may be motivated by other things, not always in the collective interest. Now I am not pro China so much as aware of what drives some of its policies. Given the exposure the US has undergone and is undergoing I don't think that the pre-internet rules are proven to have an enduring validity. They well may do. We have not had that debate in any balanced form.

The issue is way more complex than is usually presented - the debate is poor and the arguments weak. I have no conclusions, I simply see the problems and ponder the consequences.

 

[Jim_Smith]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186982948404449280

 

[Aliceinunderland]

Granted the bulk of our population lacks the sophistication to interpret 'news' of a political nature. That is an inherent risk in any large community.

It's because social, moral, ethical and political education is not part of the usual curriculum in mainstream schools.

So you get people Hannity and Carlson on Fox spewing unfettered and uncontested opinion to a vulnerable audience.

I remember a survey on the issue of known news reporters being employed to 'report' on 'opinion' talk-shows and a high % of people watching were unable to tell the difference between real and really fake news. Sorry I can't supply a link to that hearsay.

The 'Fake News' is loading up on reasoned and informed opinions and solid reportage.

Real reporting aka 'Fake' is denominated 'fringe' and seems to carry a higher than usual risk of death. Those reporting from within military manueveres are bound to know very little except the inside of a jeep or soldier-posse. But they don't get killed so much.

We can't talk about social issues without being 'socialist' and 'opposite' to those who prefer to keep the wealth and power among a select few.