The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brwned said:
What's the proof for that? The evidence suggests that people don't care much for facts and people are inclined to believe what they want to believe irregardless. I reckon spreading information like this is unlikely to do much good other than make people on the other side feel good about themselves.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, banning things is never a good way to get rid of bigotry. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. People should be allowed to express whatever they want, and people should be allowed to react to that. Banning it altogether just forces it underground. You need more information out there so people can make their own minds up.

If you talk to people respectfully instead of saying "um, hey feckhead, you're wrong. Maybe next time..." then you'll get a lot more people to be open minded. I think that's what a lot of the bickering between left and right is missing, and is one of the reasons why Trump did badly in the pre-election polls but ended up winning - his supporters were just either shamed or silenced instead of being asked to justify why.
 
sglowrider said:
I just dont know how you can work for a racist boss especially when a person like Gary has billions and doesnt need the grief.
Click to expand...

It'll be that Cohn is staying to make sure the tax reforms get done.

Cohn's billionaire buddies and wall street corporations wont be happy if tax reform plans fail as well.
 
Fecking hell, she looks like she just committed mass murder in that dailycaller thumbnail, dead eyes.

Should be right at home with trump I guess.
 
Fergies Gum said:
It'll be that Cohn is staying to make sure the tax reforms get done.

Cohn's billionaire buddies and wall street corporations wont be happy if tax reform plans fail as well.
Click to expand...

You are too stained by the President now. People will always remember him being associated with the Trump train number, KKK001
 
Wasn't she the one that put out the press release that could have been from North Korea about how Trump is such a great guy?
 
Rado_N said:
Wasn't she the one that put out the press release that could have been from North Korea about how Trump is such a great guy?
Click to expand...

Yep

This is what she said previously about her boss :wenger:

“President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him,” the statement said. “He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor . . . and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.”
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/30/in-...personality-and-treats-everyone-with-respect/
 
Red Dreams said:
A violent response is not helpful from the left.
These racists/Nazis need to be contained by using the law to the fullest.
Force those in power to take action to fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

Would Republicans be bothered?

Boycott said:
He's getting ripped for comparing with George Washington...........but isn't the comparison he was making that Washington owned slaves true?
Click to expand...

Afaik, it's true but Washington and Jefferson aren't famous because they owned slaves. The Confederate memorials were built precisely because they fought for slavery.

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Antifa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone posted this because there's this weird trend of acting like both sides are equally bad or even that far right extremists only exist because of far left extremists. Anti fascists are, by definition, a reaction against fascists. Not the other way around.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-antifa/537048/

So, yes, antifa is not a figment of the conservative imagination. It’s a moral problem that liberals need to confront.

But saying it’s a problem is vastly different than implying, as Trump did, that it’s a problem equal to white supremacism. Using the phrase “alt-left” suggests a moral equivalence that simply doesn’t exist.

For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do. It’s no coincidence that it was a Nazi sympathizer—and not an antifa activist—who committed murder in Charlottesville. According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent.

Second, antifa activists don’t wield anything like the alt-right’s power. White, Christian supremacy has been government policy in the United States for much of American history. Anarchism has not. That’s why there are no statues of Mikhail Bakunin in America’s parks and government buildings. Antifa boasts no equivalent to Steve Bannon, who called his old publication, Breitbart, “the platform for the alt-right,” and now works in the White House. It boasts no equivalent to Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who bears the middle name of a Confederate general and the first name of the Confederacy’s president, and who allegedly called the NAACP “un-American.” It boasts no equivalent to Alex Jones, who Donald Trump praised as “amazing.” Even if antifa’s vision of society were as noxious as the “alt-right’s,” it has vastly less power to make that vision a reality.

And antifa’s vision is not as noxious. Antifa activists do not celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery. They’re mostly anarchists. Anarchism may not be a particularly practical ideology. But it’s not an ideology that depicts the members of a particular race or religion as subhuman.

If Donald Trump really wants to undermine antifa, he should do his best to stamp out the bigotry that antifa—counterproductively—mobilizes against. Taking down Confederate statues in places like Charlottesville would be a good start.
Click to expand...
 
Rado_N said:
:lol: that was it
Click to expand...

Think she'll be around in the job for a while.

Managed to do her other job beneath the radar and doesn't do many media events, so she'll be able to avoid the limelight and stay away from controversies.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Think she'll be around in the job for a while.

Managed to do her other job beneath the radar and doesn't do many media events, so she'll be able to avoid the limelight and stay away from controversies.
Click to expand...

She also seems to be completely bought in.
 


Just in case anyone was in any doubt where Kim was from, Trump provides the geography lesson. It's just a damn shame he didn't have a history lesson and learn that Kim has done this for years, as did his father. They just want a reaction and Trump gave it to them. I don't think he deserves any credit for that.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Nothing outrageously wrong there though is there?

Who is he and what's he done?
Click to expand...

He's Trump's personal lawyer. Look at his tweets, he's always tweeting nonsense and defending Trump all the time.

He is also tweeting stuff where it says Charlotesville was caused by the left and left wing media.
 
Rado_N said:
She also seems to be completely bought in.
Click to expand...

Yep, she's been there since the beginning of Trump's campaign.

Seems to be conflicting reporting going on.

WSJ reporting she wont be communications director & NYT are claiming that she is taking the job on a temporary basis.



 
Last edited:
If you want to see a clusterfeck go and check Trump's Twitter homepage. He's just retweeting anything positive about himself, he has literally gone full loony toons. He's definitely becoming more unhinged each day and he's definitely becoming far more aggressive and hostile to the press.

It was hardly mentioned at all yesterday but I personally found his remarks to some of the press absolutely disgusting and completely disgraceful. When he said "I've watched the videos, far more than any of you have" It really struck me. How fecking rude is that? How would he know who watched them the most, and what does it matter anyway? Also when he said to the lady reporter asking him questions that "oi fake news I haven't finished yet" I also found that incredibly hostile and again disgraceful for a President to be speaking to anyone like that at all. Couple that with him mentioning the victim of the violence's mothers comments to him, and not mentioning the victim by name or even wishing the mother his condolences, well, it just proves what a disgusting piece of shit he is.

There are rumours circulating that Mueller issued subpoenas to Trump himself the day before yesterday which would definitely explain his mood. Of course, these are unverified and I have only seen people quoting "White House sources" so far, but if it is true then that was why he was so pissed off and looking for a fight.
 
Just wait for the people in those photos with him to come out and say they want nothing to do with him.
 
roseguy64 said:
There was something Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper read that indicated that the White House was shocked not that Trump could say what he said but that he did it in public. He says stuff like that in private all the time. Not sure which newspaper it was though.
Click to expand...
This is what I was talking about.


And this is the article
 
Fergies Gum said:
He's Trump's personal lawyer. Look at his tweets, he's always tweeting nonsense and defending Trump all the time.

He is also tweeting stuff where it says Charlotesville was caused by the left and left wing media.
Click to expand...

You'd expect his lawyer to do little else tbf.

Still comes across as a tit, mind.
 
langster said:
If you want to see a clusterfeck go and check Trump's Twitter homepage. He's just retweeting anything positive about himself, he has literally gone full loony toons. He's definitely becoming more unhinged each day and he's definitely becoming far more aggressive and hostile to the press.

It was hardly mentioned at all yesterday but I personally found his remarks to some of the press absolutely disgusting and completely disgraceful. When he said "I've watched the videos, far more than any of you have" It really struck me. How fecking rude is that? How would he know who watched them the most, and what does it matter anyway? Also when he said to the lady reporter asking him questions that "oi fake news I haven't finished yet" I also found that incredibly hostile and again disgraceful for a President to be speaking to anyone like that at all. Couple that with him mentioning the victim of the violence's mothers comments to him, and not mentioning the victim by name or even wishing the mother his condolences, well, it just proves what a disgusting piece of shit he is.

There are rumours circulating that Mueller issued subpoenas to Trump himself the day before yesterday which would definitely explain his mood. Of course, these are unverified and I have only seen people quoting "White House sources" so far, but if it is true then that was why he was so pissed off and looking for a fight.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with your comments.

I have no idea how the press are not up in arms about this - I know we have had this discussion before. But he just brazenly questions their inherent credibility and ability to do their jobs...and they seem to roll over.
 
swooshboy said:
Completely agree with your comments.

I have no idea how the press are not up in arms about this - I know we have had this discussion before. But he just brazenly questions their inherent credibility and ability to do their jobs...and they seem to roll over.
Click to expand...
Tbf this has never happened to them before - they don't know how to react.

Your gut instinct is to say - all media aside from State TV aka Fox News - should stop covering him. No more white house press corps. He lives for attention - so, the media should deny it to him.

But, you and I both know...that's never going to happen, it can't happen. Even though - that and only that would bring this administration into line - in terms of the shit they spew oh so smugly.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Well for starters, banning things is never a good way to get rid of bigotry. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. People should be allowed to express whatever they want, and people should be allowed to react to that. Banning it altogether just forces it underground. You need more information out there so people can make their own minds up.

If you talk to people respectfully instead of saying "um, hey feckhead, you're wrong. Maybe next time..." then you'll get a lot more people to be open minded. I think that's what a lot of the bickering between left and right is missing, and is one of the reasons why Trump did badly in the pre-election polls but ended up winning - his supporters were just either shamed or silenced instead of being asked to justify why.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to say that but where is the evidence that this is an effective approach? There's lots of evidence to suggest that it wouldn't be, so there needs to be a substantial amount of evidence supporting your suggestions for them to be anything more than just things people like to say.

Brwned said:
This is a pretty good article on why it's actually a vaguely understandable idea to do that. In this specific case you've got two relevant theories:
Motivated Reasoning Theory said:
When they asked students at each of their universities to watch video highlights from the game, 90 percent of the Princeton students said it was Dartmouth that instigated the rough play. Princeton students were also twice as likely to call penalties on Dartmouth than their own team. The majority of Dartmouth students, on the other hand, said both sides were to blame for the rough play in the game, and called a similar number of penalties for both teams. Hastorf and Cantril’s conclusion wasn’t that one set of fans was lying. It’s that being a fan fundamentally changes the way you perceive the game.

The lesson is simple: “People are more likely to arrive at conclusions … that they want to arrive at,” the psychologist Ziva Kunda wrote in a seminal 1990 paper, making the case that motivated reasoning is real and pervasive.

And there’s plenty of proof of it today. When Gallup polled Americans the week before and the week after the presidential election, Democrats and Republicans flipped their perceptions of the economy. But nothing had actually changed about the economy. What changed was which team was winning.
Click to expand...
Moral Foundations Theory said:
Moral foundations is the idea that people have stable, gut-level morals that influence their worldview. The liberal moral foundations include equality, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable. Conservative moral foundations favor in-group loyalty, moral purity, and respect for authority. These moral foundations are believed to be somewhat consistent over our lifetimes, and they may have a biological basis as well. (There’s some fascinating experimental work that shows that conservatives are more excited — as measured by perspiration — by negative or alarming images.)

Moral foundations explain why messages highlighting equality and fairness resonate with liberals and why more patriotic messages like “make America great again” get some conservative hearts pumping.

...

What both sides fail to understand is that they're arguing a point that their opponents may be inherently deaf to.

In a study, psychologists Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg had around 200 conservative and liberal study participants write essays to sway political opponents on the acceptance of gay marriage or to make English the official language of the United States. Almost all the participants made the same mistake.

Only 9 percent of the liberals in the study made arguments that reflected conservative moral principles. Only 8 percent of the conservative made arguments that had a chance of swaying a liberal.
Click to expand...

Not entirely relevant here, but this is by far the most depressing idea I've ever come across...

dehumanization_chart2.jpg


In Kteily’s studies, participants — typically groups of mostly white Americans — are shown this (scientifically inaccurate) image of a human ancestor slowly learning how to stand on two legs and become fully human. And then they are told to rate members of different groups — such as Muslims, Americans, and Swedes — on how evolved they are on a scale of 0 to 100.

Many people in these studies give members of other groups a perfect score, 100, fully human. But many others give others scores putting them closer to animals.

With the “Ascent of Man” tool, Kteily and collaborators Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill found that, on average, Americans rate other Americans as being highly evolved, with an average score in the 90s. But disturbingly, many also rated Muslims, Mexican immigrants, and Arabs as less evolved.

“We typically see scores that average 75, 76,” for Muslims, Kteily says. And about a quarter of study participants will rate Muslims on a score of 60 or below.
Click to expand...

I mean, their views on Arabs and Muslims disgust me, but when mainstream media feel comfortable enough saying this then it's hardly a surprise. The fact that they think they're more human than Icelanders though...:wenger:
Click to expand...

Brwned said:
Social values and the specific issues you're talking about are mutually inclusive. If the people talking about those messages don't embody empathy and altruism then ultimately the message won't land.
There is mounting evidence from a range of studies in cognitive science that the dominant ‘Enlightenment model’ of human decision-making is extremely incomplete. According to this model we imagine ourselves, when faced with a decision, to be capable of dispassionately assessing the facts, foreseeing probable outcomes of different responses, and then selecting and pursuing an optimal course of action. As a result, many approaches to campaigning on bigger-than-self problems still adhere to the conviction that ‘if only people really knew’ the true nature or full scale of the problems which we confront, then they would be galvanised into demanding more proportionate action in response.

But this understanding of how people reach decisions is very incomplete. There is mounting evidence that facts play only a partial role in shaping people’s judgment. Emotion is often far more important. It is increasingly apparent that our collective decisions are based importantly upon a set of factors that often lie beyond conscious awareness, and which are informed in important part by emotion – in particular, dominant cultural values, which are tied to emotion.

It seems that individuals are often predisposed to reject information when accepting it would challenge their identity and values. Campaigning approaches that rely on the provision of information may well work for people whose existing values are confirmed through accepting, and acting upon, that information. But for others, the same information (for example, about the scale of the challenge climate change presents) may simply serve to harden resistance to accepting new government policies or adopting new private-sphere behaviours. This points to the need to incorporate an understanding of people’s values into civil society campaigns.

It is inescapably the case that any communication or campaign will inevitably serve to convey particular values, intentionally or otherwise. Moreover, in conveying these values, the communication or campaign will help to further strengthen those values culturally. People’s decisions are driven importantly by the values they hold – frequently unconsciously, and sometimes to the virtual exclusion of a rational assessment of the facts. In particular, some values provide a better source of motivation for engaging bigger-than-self problems than other values.
Click to expand...

It's the short-termist thinking you're alluding to that makes it acceptable for politicians to run with the primary purpose of indulging their own selfish desires and ignoring genuine long-term existential threats. At at time when socialist politicians like Sanders and Corbyn have come closer to election than at any point in decades, it's odd to see people talking about irrelevant things like age and comparatively unimportant things like the message. Their strength is their values and their ability to communicate those values. That goes far beyond the message.
Click to expand...
 
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/16/don...e-as-death-star-had-all-the-required-permits/
Donald Trump has insisted the Rebel Alliance must take their share of the blame for the violence in the Star Wars universe after revealing the Empire had all the necessary permits to gather at the Death Star.

Speaking to reporters to clarify his position on the violent battles fought between the two sides, Trump explained that the fake news media are ignoring all the good people inside in the Empire.

“I don’t see anyone talking about the bad people inside the Rebel Alliance charging at the Death Star even though it had all the necessary paperwork in place and was allowed to be there.

“The Empire followed the rules, and went about its business within the rule of law, is that so wrong? Are we criticising people for obeying the law now?

“If we’re going to blow up Death Stars just because they’re symbols of oppression, what next? The Sith Temple on Korriban?”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.