The Donald Trump Thread

Have you followed the discussion on pedophilia? As insane as it might sound at first glance, it looks less and less crazy the more you read. I say that as another way to indicate the type people/stuff we're dealing with here . . . (which isn't meant to single out Hillary.)
Im going to guess no. It's interesting because pedophilia is so vile, so terrible to most of us, that the mere mention of it is enough to turn people away. Oddly, speaking out against it, exposing it, demanding something be done to stop it actually causes others to look at you like you're the weirdo. How convenient though, eh? The people that do these things can carry on doing what they're doing because it's just too despicable to even think about.

It also has this "helplessness" effect. If you have even a modicum of morality, you feel absolutely compelled to do something, anything to make it stop. But what? How? You feel helpless, sad, guilty because of the idea you're up against this machine that seems impossible to defeat. And on top of that, no one wants to know. No one wants to think about it. It's easier to deny or pretend it isn't real.
 
Trump is not a violent revolutionary. He is the legally elected president of the United States.. In this country, the law is supposed to be applied to everyone equally. It is not statesmanlike subvert the rule of law, it is treason. The riots are the only card left to the left. They are not spontaneous, they are being organized as a warning. If there are no trials, it will be to prevent widespread civil disorder not because of statesmanship.

Didn't Trump say he'd refuse to accept the results if he lost?

And some of his supporters suggested a revolution - I believe one person (Sheriff Clark I think his name was) talked about violent revolution?

Finally, it seems there is a distinction between the non-violent marches and the rioting? That said, I really hope they interview someone marching who specifically says they stayed home and didn't vote.....like Kaepernick:

When ESPN Anchor Finds Out Kaepernick Didn't Even Vote, He Teaches QB a Lesson He'll Never Forget
 
The amassing of power in the Executive Branch is particularly worrying since 9/11. I thought my fellow "liberals" were against that, until Obama expanded it and surpassed it. It's like the other side doesn't realize that the Other Side will utilize those powers. So depressing.
In think they fully understand the so-called "other side" will be wielding those same powers. I refer back to my comment about there being no real discernible difference between red and blue. Perhaps on some social issues, but where it reallly counts-war, foreign policy, the economy- they are one and the same.

But I can probably just be ignored on this. I appear to be one who is too conspiratorial for even those who bend toward the "tin foil hat territory".
 
t where it reallly counts-war, foreign policy, the economy- they are one and the same.

Conservatives generally want: judges that interpret the constitution literally, low taxes, and less regulation, less government.
Liberals generally want judges that interpret the constitution in according to current day ideas, higher taxes, more regulation, and more government.

In recent years republicans are mostly conservative and democrats are mostly liberal. In the past it wasn't always so clear cut.

I think in regards to war and foreign policy, the conditions dictate the what the government can do. Once you are faced with the real life situations (not hypothetical ones) and learn all the details that are not made public, there is not much room for personal preferences.
 
Let's not forget the Republicans blocking pretty much everything Obama wanted to do - is that democratic?
Absolutely. That's actually exactly how our democracy works. (I hope we don't have to go back through the endless list of republican reversals of democratic policies and the democratic reversals of republican policies every time party control changes occur.)
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-andrew-jackson-nationalist-politics-are-back

Trump’s Appeal to the Radical Middle Is a Wake-Up Call to Conservatives

...
Conservatives must find a way to make common cause with Andrew Jackson’s nationalist heirs.
....

Donald Trump clinched the GOP nomination by exploiting vulnerabilities few were aware existed. When the 2016 race began, almost no one seemed to have understood that a plurality of the Republican party had a fundamentally different set of policy preferences from those of doctrinaire conservatism. Trump saw this opening and took full advantage.

Trump’s positions follow the contours not of movement conservatism but of American folk nationalism, often known as Jacksonianism. As Walter Russell Mead, my boss over at The American Interest, has noted, Jacksonians characteristically emphasize anti-elitism and egalitarianism while drawing a sharp distinction between members of the folk group and those outside it. In domestic policy, this translates to tough-on-crime stances and stubborn adherence to traditional views on social issues (and, historically, opposition to civil rights), and to advocacy of government assistance for “deserving” members of the folk group. Looking abroad, they are uninterested in Wilsonian nation-building projects or promoting global order, but if they feel the nation is threatened, they are willing to fight back by whatever means are necessary. Sound familiar yet?

Jacksonians don’t fit easily into either the liberal or the conservative camp; they are the “radical middle.” They also don’t comport with regional stereotypes. Jacksonians are not synonymous with southerners or rednecks: Trump has performed best in northeastern states and prospered in cities. And while Trump is supported by racists (especially by the ugly little band of Twitter trolls known as the alt-right), Jacksonians cannot be dismissed as such en masse. In the past, Jacksonians have been found at the heart of the Confederacy, but they also formed the core of the Union Army, and later the one that defeated Hitler. Their motivations and history are too complex — and they comprise too wide a swath of the American public — to be rightly considered atavistic or a sectional rump.

When Jacksonians take up politics, they do so with a vengeance, and Jacksonian uprisings have overturned the American political order more than once. But Jacksonians tend to be quiet politically when things are going well. Much of the time, it’s easy for elites to misread them as supporters of other movements, forget them, or take them for granted.
...
 
Conservatives generally want: judges that interpret the constitution literally, low taxes, and less regulation, less government.
Liberals generally want judges that interpret the constitution in according to current day ideas, higher taxes, more regulation, and more government.

Somehow I doubt liberals would think their interpretations of the constitution are "according to current day ideas"- they likely see it as an arc of justice continuing its movement through history. Additionally I just generally doubt there are "current day ideas" that didn't exist in the past - for example my own readings of history only suggest Technocracy as a novel form of government.

In fact I've never been convinced "interpret the constitution literally" was anything more than slogan utilized as a means to an end - how does one even decide what a "literal interpretation" is when everyone is a subjective entity looking at a document written by others who also had their own subjective first-person POVs?

Of course this suggests anyone is really "conservative" or "liberal", or that those terms have much meaning beyond short hand. Unfortunately these tribal identifications lead to an avoidance of critical thinking in many cases - though admittedly not all as I doubt anyone can claim Chomsky or Feser haven't put thought into their positions.

Still I do worry when people have a position and then seek to buttress it with argument, while it's likely an impossible ideal I'd prefer if people attempted to start as neutral as possible then read up on critical thinking (especially logical fallacies) and work their way forward to positions.

Lol, gross! Just got this in my inbox (it's actually the link cause I don't want to post my email info)
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/fight_trump?t=2&akid=20479.10678560.H8aSWE

This part seems at least partially accurate? ->

“If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans. Donald Trump may not possess the capacity to assuage those fears, but he owes it to this nation to try.”

especially if this part is accurate and as a sample speaks to a larger problem:

Some of the most tragic reports have come from schools. At a school in Northern California, students passed out fake deportation orders. A bathroom at a high school in Minnesota was graffitied with “Whites only” and “Go back to Africa.” Students at a middle school in Michigan chanted “Build the wall!” over and over in their cafeteria.1 This kind of behavior is, sadly, not new, but now it’s been carried out in the name of and based on the platform of the president-elect of the United States.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The elites already don't pay any taxes...because they're smart... like Trump. If I had a lot of money I'd do the same thing... set up an offshore company, or move my industry to a country where taxes are low labor is cheap. Lowering the taxes will bring wealth and production back into the US. The elites who paid no taxes before will not be forced to jump through as many loopholes and can maybe fire a lawyer or two. The real winners will be the middle class who actually do pay taxes.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-andrew-jackson-nationalist-politics-are-back

Trump’s Appeal to the Radical Middle Is a Wake-Up Call to Conservatives

...
Conservatives must find a way to make common cause with Andrew Jackson’s nationalist heirs.
....

Donald Trump clinched the GOP nomination by exploiting vulnerabilities few were aware existed. When the 2016 race began, almost no one seemed to have understood that a plurality of the Republican party had a fundamentally different set of policy preferences from those of doctrinaire conservatism. Trump saw this opening and took full advantage.

Trump’s positions follow the contours not of movement conservatism but of American folk nationalism, often known as Jacksonianism. As Walter Russell Mead, my boss over at The American Interest, has noted, Jacksonians characteristically emphasize anti-elitism and egalitarianism while drawing a sharp distinction between members of the folk group and those outside it. In domestic policy, this translates to tough-on-crime stances and stubborn adherence to traditional views on social issues (and, historically, opposition to civil rights), and to advocacy of government assistance for “deserving” members of the folk group. Looking abroad, they are uninterested in Wilsonian nation-building projects or promoting global order, but if they feel the nation is threatened, they are willing to fight back by whatever means are necessary. Sound familiar yet?

Jacksonians don’t fit easily into either the liberal or the conservative camp; they are the “radical middle.” They also don’t comport with regional stereotypes. Jacksonians are not synonymous with southerners or rednecks: Trump has performed best in northeastern states and prospered in cities. And while Trump is supported by racists (especially by the ugly little band of Twitter trolls known as the alt-right), Jacksonians cannot be dismissed as such en masse. In the past, Jacksonians have been found at the heart of the Confederacy, but they also formed the core of the Union Army, and later the one that defeated Hitler. Their motivations and history are too complex — and they comprise too wide a swath of the American public — to be rightly considered atavistic or a sectional rump.

When Jacksonians take up politics, they do so with a vengeance, and Jacksonian uprisings have overturned the American political order more than once. But Jacksonians tend to be quiet politically when things are going well. Much of the time, it’s easy for elites to misread them as supporters of other movements, forget them, or take them for granted.
...

I wanted to like this...but he called me a racist. :(
 
I wanted to like this...but he called me a racist. :(

It's a great article though - I don't think he said all Modern Jacksonians are racists? I wish more people read Redstate and National Review, along with Think Progress and Vox.

Really I think you and I benefitted greatly from going to Christian colleges that didn't necessarily align with our own views - better to be the maverick where you have to defend your ideas than to have everyone agree with you.
 
It's a great article though - I don't think he said all Modern Jacksonians are racists?

I was referring to this:

"And while Trump is supported by racists (especially by the ugly little band of Twitter trolls known as the alt-right)"

Although I don't tweet, I suppose I'd be considered "alt-right."

Really I think you and I benefitted greatly from going to Christian colleges that didn't necessarily align with our own views - better to be the maverick where you have to defend your ideas than to have everyone agree with you.

Absolutely :)
 
The amassing of power in the Executive Branch is particularly worrying since 9/11. I thought my fellow "liberals" were against that, until Obama expanded it and surpassed it. It's like the other side doesn't realize that the Other Side will utilize those powers. So depressing.

You might "enjoy" listening to this:

RECKONING WITH A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND THE ELITE DEMOCRATS WHO HELPED DELIVER IT

"This is an extraordinarily depressing conversation. But uh…"

p.s. There's a full transcript too...you know like Skeptiko used to have....hint hint...;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really I think you and I benefitted greatly from going to Christian colleges that didn't necessarily align with our own views - better to be the maverick where you have to defend your ideas than to have everyone agree with you.

It's funny... I never thought me and my fundamentalist mom and her side of the family would agree on politics again... they are certainly not conspiracy theorists, but I just visited them and my grandmother who's in the hospital and they were all ecstatic about the results. My grandmother (who grew up in the depression and lived on a farm her whole life) stayed up till 3AM in her hospital bed watching the election results come in.

Anyway... it was a strange feeling!
 
It's funny... I never thought me and my fundamentalist mom and her side of the family would agree on politics again... they are certainly not conspiracy theorists, but I just visited them and my grandmother who's in the hospital and they were all ecstatic about the results. My grandmother (who grew up in the depression and lived on a farm her whole life) stayed up till 3AM in her hospital bed watching the election results come in.

Anyway... it was a strange feeling!

I hope your grandmother is okay or gets there.
 
Conservatives generally want: judges that interpret the constitution literally, low taxes, and less regulation, less government.
Liberals generally want judges that interpret the constitution in according to current day ideas, higher taxes, more regulation, and more government.

In fact I've never been convinced "interpret the constitution literally" was anything more than slogan utilized as a means to an end - how does one even decide what a "literal interpretation" is when everyone is a subjective entity looking at a document written by others who also had their own subjective first-person POVs?

To reinforce the point about subjective POVs, my own goes something like this.

Conservatives are more likely to: support the NRA, be nationalistic and have a US flag on the front lawn, block or reverse social welfare measures, believe in "trickle-down" economics, support ever greater funding of the military, prefer hawkish "action" to diplomacy and abandon any form of "correctness" when referring to minorities, foreigners or women.

Liberals are more likely to: support a welfare "safety net" for health and poverty, support restrictions on gun ownership, support a more even distribution of the nation's wealth, oppose the death penalty, favour international diplomacy, not see the hunting and shooting of animals as a form of entertainment, have environmental concerns.

So that's my view as an outsider and is no doubt influenced by American movies, TV and news media. FWIW, many of those personal observations apply when I think about conservatives and socialists/liberals in the UK. The big differences in the UK are the lack of powerful lobby groups for gun owners and evangelicals.
 
Or maybe they are protesting campaign promises? Haha, we all know that no politician delivers on their campaign promises!

This has always been an issue but Trump has taken it to a whole new level. He has been very clever at realising there is a large group of preposterous/stupid people out there and he has won them over by making preposterous/stupid promises.
 
Back
Top