If I were Jewish, I'd have a hard time not liking Trumps politics.
Especially since it had deteriorated under Obama to the point of funding Iran.
Let's look at this logically...
- Thread starter Been Jammin
- Start date
If I were Jewish, I'd have a hard time not liking Trumps politics.
Especially since it had deteriorated under Obama to the point of funding Iran.
It is not about hurt feelings. It is about frustration. Anyone who knows me would tell you that I am one of the most laid back individuals they have met. I like being that way. But, I get frustrated with individuals who lack the ability to listen to reason and think for themselves. There are more than a few around here.
I partake on a semi-regular basis. If I did more often, you would never see me around here. I would be too busy watching movies I have already seen 10+ times and eating ice cream.
This is a place to sharpen your knowledge and possibly realize that what you see as reason might not be universal.
That's an awfully lofty way of describing a board that is mainly people berating toon, Medic and Alf and sys flirting with each other, and Ponca Dan starting discussions and refusing to participate when some one takes the other side.
Sounds a whole lot like....
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
So you now agree with this guy...
Which is very amusing.
We are arguing with the guy who "likes" 100% of nz pokes post.
Which is it? Hillary and her “ilk” want us in a shooting war with Russia or she is/they are Neville Chamberlain when it comes to Russia.
As usual...you’re not making much sense.
Trump’s actions and statements (and therefore your “attaboy” posts) are more in line with what Obama said.
Romney was right. Russia and China are our two biggest geopolitical foes. Toss up as to which one is more concerning.
Interesting how you insulate yourself from any disagreement with a preemptive 'sycophants' jab - after you present the most simplistic possible explanation.
this would be an interesting discussion if you allowed for the possibility that you don't know what details trump actually knows about the corruption in the US IC.
Yes his statements were uncomfortable, but pretending we know the nuances of the actual summit or what message within a message was being delivered or for what purpose is just thumb sucking and security blanket stroking shallow thinking.
He might well have shit the bed yesterday, but I just really don't think that's something you know half as well as you think you do. You are really the only poster here who I wish would tap the brakes on your journey out on this limb. The rest of them, I really enjoy watching the overconfidence.
Both true. I'm not totally opposed to Trumps policies. There are some things that I like. I don't like him as a human, and have big issues with some of the things he has done/is doing. Currently, I am pretty triggered about him driving a wedge between us and our allies while slobbering all over Putin's knob.
This might be the most accurate description of this place that I can imagine. Kudos.
It absolutely is. I personally think you are capable of much deeper thought on such things. Let me ask you this simple question. Regarding Trump, how often has the simple analysis of him - the knee jerk reaction - the reasoned prediction from the punditry - been the right one?
The answer - very rarely. And there seems to be a directly inverse relationship oftentimes to the more outlandish things he says or does - eventually being not really that far off in retrospect. Is that luck, instinct, 5D chess? Not sure but am on record as believing it's a combo of all those things.
Regarding this, we shall see. The statement as presented made me uncomfortable but the transcript of the question and answer really didn't. I think it's odd how much blind trust the left now places in the intelligence institutions of the United States - people they once vilified and blamed for everything. That's kinda odd. Makes you think.
I’m not so much arguing with him as I am making fun of him.
I moved on 'em like a bitch but couldn't get there.
It's actually more genteel now than 5 years ago, if you can believe that.
Shut your whore mouth. Let's meet in a dark bowling alley and see who lands the most strikes.
That's a real feeling you have, you're worried about relationships between our allies?
I'll set your mind at ease. All the buster is to get movement on trade.
That's all. Nothing to moisten your nethers about.
Now you can sing the praises of his pivot towards Israel that undermines the last administration.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you. Maybe I do. I think it depends on who and what you are watching/reading. I'm sure you and I would both agree that Trump invokes a visceral reaction on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives (using the term as a big generalization) hear him call someone out without any concern for hurting their feelings, and they pump their fist and think "yeah, about time we had a tough leader who won't take shit from anyone". Liberals (again, a big generalization) hear the same thing and think, "Oh my god, why can't he be at least a little bit more diplomatic and respectful". It is basic human nature. Some people are crass, and think honesty is best, regardless of consequences. Some people are sensitive and are more inclined toward empathy.
Keeping that in mind, most people in media, rose up through the ranks of a large corporation. They didn't get to where they are by stepping all over the feelings of their superiors and co-workers. Most of them understand how to make a point while being diplomatic. When they see POTUS be blatantly honest, it can be shocking. Their interpretation of what he is trying to say is going to be affected by Trump's crassness. Fair or not. When he tells a blatant lie, it makes it even worse.
As a result, there are going to be plenty of negative knee jerk reactions to what he says/does. If you watch FOXnews, they are going to bend over backwards to defend him and ignore the crassness. However, if you then follow that up by watching snippets from CNN, or other outlets, their "knee jerk" reaction is going to look a lot worse because you have already seen the FOX version and think that should be the norm.
Trump has a lot of idiosyncrasies that do not conform to what Americans are accustomed to from their politicians/entertainers. He is boorish. He is a bully. His vocabulary is limited. He has no qualms about telling a blatant lie. He is overly narcissistic. To some, that makes him more endearing. To people like me, it is all a huge turn off. The majority of the media are not used to it, and react as I would expect them to. FOXnews would be reacting the same way if Obama was crass, boorish, etc. They are playing to their viewers and looking out for their bottom line.
So, I guess I agree that the initial knee jerk reaction is going to trend toward the negative, regardless of content. However, I do think that you might be attributing it to something other than what (I think) it is. I also think that you might be finding a compilation of a bunch of knee jerk reactions, that are meaningless in the big picture, but Trump supporters share them among each other and fan the flames.
I do think that Trump ultimately gets a fair shake from the majority of the media. He got a lot of praise when things went well with North Korea. He looked like a fool while standing next to Putin, and got called out on it. It was not just the media calling him out, Ryan, McConnell, Gingrich, McCain, etc also tore apart his performance. To act like it is a big media conspiracy against him is disingenuous. JMO.
"Keeping that in mind, most people in media, rose up through the ranks of a large corporation. They didn't get to where they are by stepping all over the feelings of their superiors and co-workers "
Where I'd you get this idea?
Any corporate experience to draw on to make that assumption?
Where I'd you get this idea?
Any corporate experience to draw on to make that assumption?
A lot to unpack here. And while I disagree with a bunch of it, I agree on some. I appreciate the candor and tone. Will reply in detail soon
I think "blind trust" is a bit strong. Personally, I don't think the FBI, Justice Dept, etc are infallible. I don't think they are immune to political bias*. However, I do think they are necessary. Especially in this day and age. I do not think publicly undermining them is in this country's best interest. If there are issues, they can be handled behind the scenes and the public can find out the details after the issues have been identified and fixed. Publicly undermining them, and destroying the population's faith in them is not a smart move, IMO. They are a big part of what keeps us safe and keeps us ahead of (or on the same level as) the world's other super powers.
*I do think it is easily believable for an agent like Strzok to think that Trump is a terrible person and a terrible choice for POTUS to still do his job in a professional manner and not let his personal feelings influence his actions. I think there are plenty of GOP members of Congress who don't like Trump, and don't like his behavior, yet they toe the party line and voted in favor of Gorsuch, new tax plan, etc. They don't let their personal opinion affect how they do their job. I'm not saying Strzok is immune to letting politics affect his performance, but I think it is entirely realistic.
The media is full of blunt loudmouths. That’s what sells. Not sure where he got that opinion.
Are we counting people who speak/write for public consumption or producers and camera guys?
That’s the only way your math makes sense.
The thought that corporate America’s management is filled by nice guys and gals is laughable. Saying that about media talking heads? Not sure what planet you are on.
First of all, boo koos more people from the previous administration throughout the bureaucracy should have been fired immediately after he took the oath of office. Would have saved him a lot of trouble later and even now. I knew he was making a huge mistake in failing to do this from the get-go. And the only people working to reverse the election are the politically weaponized deep state operatives he should have fired, operatives who I know concern you greatly these days.
Last edited:
I don't think they are all nice guys and gals. I do think that the overwhelming majority of them know how to pretend like they are when it is appropriate. They have the ability to control their inclinations and be diplomatic the majority of the time.
Let's look at this another way. List all of the media talking heads who say whatever they want, act like a bully, and give people degrading nicknames like Trump does.
Then you should agree that Trump earned the lion's share of criticism that he gets.
Relax sheesh.
No one acts exactly like trump. But people who make it to air/print are there because their opinions are Duke basketball/Norte dame football. Everyone loves them or hates them.
Bill oreilly was number one for 20 years. Everyone on msnbc and fox in the evening is a “bully” (except Shannon bream and Martha maccallum they are angels). Watch cnn during the day and see how smug and belligerent the hosts are.
Look how nasty the nyt opinion page is.
i think the lions share of free thinking people who look at our country
give zero effs about criticism
Been - I apologize in advance for the long reply - but I really want to address each of your points. I want to be clear in my purpose here. I strongly believe you to have political ideologies much closer to my own than to say...
...and to start with, I really want to re-ask you a question that I think you may have missed recently. Is she the new face of your democratic party? You are an entrepreneur. Are you comfortable with her platform?
I'm pretty sure you aren't a "democratic socialist" and neither am I. One thing I once was considered to be though? A liberal. It's a very different thing to be liberal than to be a leftist - and you'll never find evidence of me throwing "liberals" under the bus. Leftists? I have no use for them. One is a perfectly honorable thing to be in a constitutional republic and one is an anathema that cannot coexist with capitalism. Like it or not, at some point, you'll have a choice to make - given the direction your party is strongly taking. Your instinct is to be the loyal opposition and that is a healthy thing to be. But whom are you actually opposing and why? That's what I want to make you think about.
Trump invokes visceral reactions - yes, I agree. But as you recognize - terms like liberal and conservative are bigly generalized here... I would submit to you that they are more than that - they are outdated, antiquated 80's/90's era terms at this point that are as relevant as a VHS from the same time period. I do not consider myself to be a conservative. If I had to strictly define my political leanings, the word "liberal" would come up far sooner than conservative. Most accurately and succinctly, I am a constitutionalist.
In fact, most people you would consider traditionally to be conservatives... Bush(s), Romney, McCain, Cheney, etc etc are or were at one time - openly anti-trump. This is absolutely nothing like a R v D issue. I personally despise Republicans in general and hold absolutely zero loyalty to them.
Inversely, liberals are quickly being phased out of favor in the DNC. Cortez is being touted as the new face of your party. She is a leftist and a socialist, by her own words and admission. Leftists believe free speech can be hate speech or even violence in and of itself. I seriously doubt that's your real position. So here we are Been. Two guys in the political center who are constantly being told we are liberal or conservative. I am neither. I am both.
To me and people like me - Trump is a refreshing dose of F* You to the establishment (uniparty). Does he always make me proud with the way he says and does things? Nope. But I would be lying if I didn't say I really enjoy the carnage his banality and guy from Queens style causes when he gores the establishment's sacred cows and takes a giant shit on fake decorum. I love that. This concept of being presidential is simply a veneer to keep doing things comfortably the way both parties have been doing them for a long time.
His crassness to you says boor. To me it says, this is a guy who actually wants to keep campaign promises and hold people accountable.
The economic numbers (4.5 GDP projections as of today by the way) and the Constitutionalist judicial appointments continue to validate my point of view every day. I couldn't care less if he's crass. He is a harsh antibiotic that was needed to expose the corruption in our system that has been covered up for decades by more polished and presidential sounding men of both parties.
Perhaps @Been Jammin the next man or woman who follows him will again have the luxury of being a pleasant and moral person. Right now, we need an antibiotic.
...and to start with, I really want to re-ask you a question that I think you may have missed recently. Is she the new face of your democratic party? You are an entrepreneur. Are you comfortable with her platform?
I'm pretty sure you aren't a "democratic socialist" and neither am I. One thing I once was considered to be though? A liberal. It's a very different thing to be liberal than to be a leftist - and you'll never find evidence of me throwing "liberals" under the bus. Leftists? I have no use for them. One is a perfectly honorable thing to be in a constitutional republic and one is an anathema that cannot coexist with capitalism. Like it or not, at some point, you'll have a choice to make - given the direction your party is strongly taking. Your instinct is to be the loyal opposition and that is a healthy thing to be. But whom are you actually opposing and why? That's what I want to make you think about.
Trump invokes visceral reactions - yes, I agree. But as you recognize - terms like liberal and conservative are bigly generalized here... I would submit to you that they are more than that - they are outdated, antiquated 80's/90's era terms at this point that are as relevant as a VHS from the same time period. I do not consider myself to be a conservative. If I had to strictly define my political leanings, the word "liberal" would come up far sooner than conservative. Most accurately and succinctly, I am a constitutionalist.
In fact, most people you would consider traditionally to be conservatives... Bush(s), Romney, McCain, Cheney, etc etc are or were at one time - openly anti-trump. This is absolutely nothing like a R v D issue. I personally despise Republicans in general and hold absolutely zero loyalty to them.
Inversely, liberals are quickly being phased out of favor in the DNC. Cortez is being touted as the new face of your party. She is a leftist and a socialist, by her own words and admission. Leftists believe free speech can be hate speech or even violence in and of itself. I seriously doubt that's your real position. So here we are Been. Two guys in the political center who are constantly being told we are liberal or conservative. I am neither. I am both.
To me and people like me - Trump is a refreshing dose of F* You to the establishment (uniparty). Does he always make me proud with the way he says and does things? Nope. But I would be lying if I didn't say I really enjoy the carnage his banality and guy from Queens style causes when he gores the establishment's sacred cows and takes a giant shit on fake decorum. I love that. This concept of being presidential is simply a veneer to keep doing things comfortably the way both parties have been doing them for a long time.
His crassness to you says boor. To me it says, this is a guy who actually wants to keep campaign promises and hold people accountable.
The economic numbers (4.5 GDP projections as of today by the way) and the Constitutionalist judicial appointments continue to validate my point of view every day. I couldn't care less if he's crass. He is a harsh antibiotic that was needed to expose the corruption in our system that has been covered up for decades by more polished and presidential sounding men of both parties.
Perhaps @Been Jammin the next man or woman who follows him will again have the luxury of being a pleasant and moral person. Right now, we need an antibiotic.
I have a degree in journalism from OSU. I was once an idealist about being a writer and a reporter myself. I know the mindset of people who go into that profession, and they tend to be idealists who want to change the world for the better - just as Dan Rather said - it's hard to be a journalist without being a liberal. It's simply the culture of the business. Having said that, the business of news has become quite a problem. Corporate news giants like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo... are competing for ratings now in an entertainment industry quite unlike the days when we had 3 channels - 5 if you counted PBS and could get a UHF antenna to pick up an independent channel.
The big downside of the information age is this. We have SO many choices of what to watch, whom to read, with whom to associate on forums, that as a culture we have the luxury of seeking out source material that supports our own cognitive dissonance. Thus you see people categorically sorted into "two sides" that people incorrectly imagine others or themselves to be members of.
To remain profitable and competitive in ratings - big media has to fit into that cultural devolution by editorializing on - not reporting on - the news of the day. And they have to specialize and cater to specific markets of people who want to be told things that reinforce their own pleasant beliefs about themselves and their superior political knowledge.
@Been Jammin - Donald Trump upsets that balance. During the primaries, even FOX was no friend of Trump because he threatened the neocon establishment. Today, FOX is clearly part of Trump's information network - for good or ill, and MSNBC / CNN etc. are clearly established as part of the Resistance. This is a central truth that you need to understand if there is to be a fruitful conversation about the media and it's role in the current animosity in this country.
The deliveries may be different, but imagine for a moment - what would the reaction have been if a hot mic had caught Trump telling Putin this week that he could be more flexible after the mid-terms? The way these things are handled are not comparable and it has nothing to do with Trump's distasteful (subjectively speaking) style. It has to do with the existential threat his success inversely presents to the uniparty/establishment.
His style may turn some people off viscerally, but strong antibiotics also can have unpleasant side effects. His style is intentional and specific while being masked in verbiage and actions that specifically are designed to keep his adversaries in a constant mode of underestimation and catch-up, reducing them to a collective identity of "resistance" - to something.
Fire is sometimes cleansing, and I admit - it's good to watch corruption burn to the ground. I don't really care who the fire takes with it so long as it leaves the Constitution intact. Trump is an agent of chaos - but I believe, mostly as a tool rather than as an ideology. We can debate his style all we want, but the hard cold numbers of his economy and the results of his foreign policy to this point are self evidently high performing. And for those like me who value constitutional originalists in the judiciary, I couldn't care less how many porn stars he screws or how many derogatory nicknames he comes up with for uniparty statists like Jeb and Hillary.
He doesn't get a fair shake by the majority of the media. I totally disagree with this. But I do agree he looked bad in his Putin presser. Again however - pretend for just a second that he's right about the rampant corruption in the US intelligence community, that the collusion probe is a witch hunt and that the IC was weaponized against him first as a candidate, then as a president elect by the Obama administration. You don't have to agree just yet, but just imagine it as true for this thought exercise.
How would you feel about the IC if you were him and you and your family had been constantly demonized, set up and attacked and your presidency was under constant threat of usurpation ("inpeach 45!") by tools of the system?
Would you - a newbie to politics like Trump - be Obama/Reaganesque in your measured statements to the press or would you perhaps inadvertently step on your own dick sometimes as the human irritation at the UC IC corruption bubbled to the surface?
I know I would've said much worse. We all probably would.
The list of things the US IC has lied about, manipulated and undermined in this country and others just since WWII is mind boggling. The list of things a simple google search would reveal is enough to make any truly thinking person at least give pause and think about the possibility that there is rot within these agencies that needs to be cleansed.
Taking it a step further - Trump says outlandish things. Often in retrospect these things seem to simply be said by a boorish guy who knew more than we did at the time. Perhaps @Been Jammin there is a method to his madness on this point. Maybe not. Time will tell.
Regardless, I just don't think it's as easy to read and analyze as you might originally have stated. I do appreciate your willingness to engage me on this. We need more of that in this country.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
90 Million Shady Transactions from Over 4 Million Government Credit Cards- Latest: OctaviusRexLTH1
-
