Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Donald Trump and the Coronavirus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Well obviously all media outlets are biased to at least some degree. And there are a bunch of ways they can (intentionally or sometimes, not) manipulate or influence our perception of what's happening. I'll use Trump as he's the one in the news a lot right now. But others get similar treatment.


    What gets reported at all is one big way news media can distort our perception of things. An example I saw once was in a political campaign where one party accused another of something that made them look bad, and the media ran with that and never acknowledged the rebuttal. But it could be a simple as reporting lots of negative news about a politician's policies, and not reporting positive news. Result - -we think the politician is doing a bad job.

    Another way commonly used is various techniques in presenting a viewpoint - cutting in someone talking about their policy (for example) with an expert pointing out problems etc. This makes the first person look a lot less credible, and lacks the balance of allowing them to respond to the expert, or call on other experts who support their position.

    In the same vein, use of lighting, music, framing the item by the presenters (using negative or skeptical language to introduce the piece), portraying the person in a negative light 'right-wing nationalist/ mysogynist / racist / homophobe / sexist' using simplistic labels that don't encompass the complexities of a person's beliefs and so on can influence our initial perception of someone before we've heard what they have to say.

    Something commonly used in print media online is the negative language headline, that creates a perception before we've seen the article ' Trump rants...' 'Press Secretary storms out..' , 'As death toll reaches X thousand, Trump does Y' when there is no actual logical connection between the death toll and Trump doing whatever. It's simply a way of making Trump look bad.


    Actual 'fake news' events include the reporting of the Covington kids thing; the reporting of Trump's comments on Charlottesville; the thing about Trump releasing carp in Japan or something (I forget the exact details); the 'drink Clorox' thing off the top of my head are 'events' where sections of the media persisted in a false narrative.

    I'm fairly confident that you have also seen things reported - on topics where you have personal expertise or direct personal knowledge - that are plainly false or simply extremely sloppy, lacking basic fact-checking. An example from long ago that springs to mind is an article published in a newspaper about the danger of the 'MRSA virus' - when MRSA is a bacteria, and the journalist had interviewed a doctor - a medical microbiologist - about it. At the time I was working in the field and personally knew the doctor interviewed. It's the equivalent of a journalist talking about the new "Ford pickup helicopter" having engine problems - an error so basic that to make it shows no familiarity with the field, and not even a minimum effort to understand or get the facts correct...

    I've also seen news media publish and use damaging material obtained under completely false pretenses by a third party in an 'ambush interview' right before an election. The interviewee was invited on, ostensibly to talk about his novel policy in an area where he had considerable experience and expertise, and instead the 'interview' was him being attacked with 'quotes' from a long-ago off-the-record interview by people who misrepresented themselves to him. The whole thing was simply a mendacious smear attack to discredit a politician the media disliked.

    So, yeah, I don't take anything important reported by the media at face value.
    There is no doubt that these things exist - but I don't think it has anything to do with what the media does or does not like. I remember listening to an answer John Stewart once gave on this topic when asked if he saw a difference between the MSM and outlets like Fox and Brietbart. He noted that the media, in general, is after eyeballs. So they will follow stories, jump politicians, and word headlines in ways that they think will get them the most eyeballs. That motivation differs widely with the media outlets that have an obvious and clear political agenda/bias - and that intentionally push a false narrative. Neither motivation is particularly good for a media outlet, but the latter, IMO, is far worse than the former.

    And sometimes, the perception about the media is skewed by the "MSM bad" narrative. Take the "drink bleach" narrative. I did a bit of checking, and I don't find a single news source that reports that the president encouraged people to "drink bleach." They do report that he suggested exploration of the idea of injecting disinfectants as a coronavirus cure/preventative. Comparatively few of us have access to the paraphernalia for injections, or are comfortable with the idea of injecting ourselves. So if we are going to get something internally - ingestion is likely. Most of the articles I read went on to say that injecting or ingesting disinfectants is a dangerous thing to do. Shortly after Trump's very stupid comments, medical outlet after medical outlet published blogs, updated their home page, or went to local news outlets to get the word out "don't do this!" Somehow, that has been received as "accusing Trump of encouraging people to drink bleach/Clorox."

    Personally, I was glad to see the warnings come out fast and furious. If the President of the U.S. makes that kind of suggestion (i.e., that it is even possible that injecting disinfectants might possibly be helpful) publicly, there are going to be some people who decide he must know and act on the implication. It is why it is so important that a president be judicious in their use of language when speaking publicly, something Mr. Trump has no patience for and no desire to do. It is one of the many, many reasons that man is so thoroughly unfit for that office.

    I highlighted the part of your post that I absolutely agree with you on. None of us should ever be taking anything coming from any media outlet "at face value." When you read something, read it from multiple diverse outlets before coming to a conclusion.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      There is no doubt that these things exist - but I don't think it has anything to do with what the media does or does not like. I remember listening to an answer John Stewart once gave on this topic when asked if he saw a difference between the MSM and outlets like Fox and Brietbart. He noted that the media, in general, is after eyeballs. So they will follow stories, jump politicians, and word headlines in ways that they think will get them the most eyeballs. That motivation differs widely with the media outlets that have an obvious and clear political agenda/bias - and that intentionally push a false narrative. Neither motivation is particularly good for a media outlet, but the latter, IMO, is far worse than the former.

      And sometimes, the perception about the media is skewed by the "MSM bad" narrative. Take the "drink bleach" narrative. I did a bit of checking, and I don't find a single news source that reports that the president encouraged people to "drink bleach." They do report that he suggested exploration of the idea of injecting disinfectants as a coronavirus cure/preventative. Comparatively few of us have access to the paraphernalia for injections, or are comfortable with the idea of injecting ourselves. So if we are going to get something internally - ingestion is likely. Most of the articles I read went on to say that injecting or ingesting disinfectants is a dangerous thing to do. Shortly after Trump's very stupid comments, medical outlet after medical outlet published blogs, updated their home page, or went to local news outlets to get the word out "don't do this!" Somehow, that has been received as "accusing Trump of encouraging people to drink bleach/Clorox."

      Personally, I was glad to see the warnings come out fast and furious. If the President of the U.S. makes that kind of suggestion (i.e., that it is even possible that injecting disinfectants might possibly be helpful) publicly, there are going to be some people who decide he must know and act on the implication. It is why it is so important that a president be judicious in their use of language when speaking publicly, something Mr. Trump has no patience for and no desire to do. It is one of the many, many reasons that man is so thoroughly unfit for that office.

      I highlighted the part of your post that I absolutely agree with you on. None of us should ever be taking anything coming from any media outlet "at face value." When you read something, read it from multiple diverse outlets before coming to a conclusion.
      Well, I think it pretty clear, that in full context, (1) what Trump meant was 'inject' into the lungs (where the infection was) something that could kill the virus (light and disinfectant were the two things being discussed when he asked the question); and (2) he wasn't telling 'people, go so this' but asking his advisors to look into the possibility. But there was a media determined to put the worst possible light on what he said, so there was not even an attempt at an impartial analysis, or a clarification on the spot at the time. Even the 'Trump says people should inject bleach' kind of headline was an uncharitable misrepresentation (and I'm being kind).

      I think expecting any President never to say anything that could be misunderstood by the most idiotic American and lead them to do something dangerous to themselves is a completely unrealistic and unfair expectation. I consider it plain simple common sense that you don't swallow or in any way just go put bleach into your body - it's usually written right there on the bottle - and if someone is really that stupid, well, they're going to die of their stupidity sooner or later. Kids know this stuff, even kids who can hardly read yet. But we are talking about Americans, so maybe you have a valid point. If there is anyone to blame for dumb people doing dumb things in this case, apart from the dumb people themselves, it's the media, IMHO.


      Imagine if, instead, the media there had asked a neutral immediate follow-up question to clarify: "President Trump, do you mean that you think people could inject themselves with bleach to kill the virus? Isn't that dangerous?" ; or failing that, presented some possible interpretations of what he said, covering a number of possibilities. That would be actual journalism and reporting, in the midst of a pandemic.

      Instead, they seized with glee on something Trump said that could be distorted to make him look dumb, out of his depth, and foolish. That becomes a self-reinforcing lens, eventually. People don't exercise critical thinking, are ready to assume the worst, and read that assumption in to something about Trump. So instead of putting the best possible light - exercising charity and graciousness to an 'opponent', or avoiding creating a strawman caricature of his position - they interpret him in the worst possible way. When presented with an alternative interpretation they reject it, because 'I know Trump is a blowhard, bullying idiot' - but that 'knowledge' is based on ingesting a stream of negative and strawman caricatures of Trump. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen posters here succumb to it. Please don't add yourself to that group, Carpe.

      Trump has his faults, no doubt. But if you have intellectual integrity then you should attempt to address him when his statements are put in the strongest possible way - that is, when reading him most charitably, rather than most uncharitably. If you (general) do that, then you show that even his best possible positions are flawed or wrong. If you (general) don't do that, then people can easily reject your opposition to Trump because it's based on what they can feel is strawman misrepresentations - which allows them to escape the full force of your objections.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Well, I think it pretty clear, that in full context, (1) what Trump meant was 'inject' into the lungs (where the infection was) something that could kill the virus (light and disinfectant were the two things being discussed when he asked the question); and (2) he wasn't telling 'people, go so this' but asking his advisors to look into the possibility. But there was a media determined to put the worst possible light on what he said, so there was not even an attempt at an impartial analysis, or a clarification on the spot at the time. Even the 'Trump says people should inject bleach' kind of headline was an uncharitable misrepresentation (and I'm being kind).
        Max - I think most of us know what he meant. The discussion was about light and the efficacy of disinfectants. He suggested that they should explore/examine the possibility of using light/disinfectants inside the body to kill the virus. The light proposition is just laughable on the face of it (though I can imagine not a few people spent more time in the sun as a result). The disinfectant suggestion was, IMO, moronic and dangerous. Even a passing suggestion that it is possible that using disinfectants inside the body might work and should be investigated suggests significant idiocy on his part, and a dangerous message to the populace and anyone as poorly informed as he apparently is. That is not apparently just my opinion, since almost immediately after we saw widespread jumping on this by medical experts across the country, as well as the manufacturers themselves!

        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        I think expecting any President never to say anything that could be misunderstood by the most idiotic American and lead them to do something dangerous to themselves is a completely unrealistic and unfair expectation. I consider it plain simple common sense that you don't swallow or in any way just go put bleach into your body - it's usually written right there on the bottle - and if someone is really that stupid, well, they're going to die of their stupidity sooner or later. Kids know this stuff, even kids who can hardly read yet. But we are talking about Americans, so maybe you have a valid point. If there is anyone to blame for dumb people doing dumb things in this case, apart from the dumb people themselves, it's the media, IMHO.
        I don't believe I set the standard you imply here. I recognize mistakes will be made. This one was, IMO, criminally stupid.

        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Imagine if, instead, the media there had asked a neutral immediate follow-up question to clarify: "President Trump, do you mean that you think people could inject themselves with bleach to kill the virus? Isn't that dangerous?" ; or failing that, presented some possible interpretations of what he said, covering a number of possibilities. That would be actual journalism and reporting, in the midst of a pandemic.
        Yes - that would have been ideal. If you go back to the video, Philip Rucker attempts to raise a question about what was just said and is cut off before he even gets to the end of his question, with an accusation of being "fake news."

        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Instead, they seized with glee on something Trump said that could be distorted to make him look dumb, out of his depth, and foolish. That becomes a self-reinforcing lens, eventually. People don't exercise critical thinking, are ready to assume the worst, and read that assumption in to something about Trump. So instead of putting the best possible light - exercising charity and graciousness to an 'opponent', or avoiding creating a strawman caricature of his position - they interpret him in the worst possible way. When presented with an alternative interpretation they reject it, because 'I know Trump is a blowhard, bullying idiot' - but that 'knowledge' is based on ingesting a stream of negative and strawman caricatures of Trump. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen posters here succumb to it. Please don't add yourself to that group, Carpe.
        Max - Trump IS a blowhard, bullying idiot. The news isn't making him that. He makes reveals himself to be that every time he bullies another person on camera or by tweet, every time he makes a moronic comment from the bully pulpit or (again) by tweet. He is the quintessential blowhard. I don't need the news to tell me this. I get it directly from his mouth when I watch his rallies or other public engagements. I follow him on twitter and see the constant stream of this. The news isn't making him that - they are simply reporting on the reality.

        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Trump has his faults, no doubt. But if you have intellectual integrity then you should attempt to address him when his statements are put in the strongest possible way - that is, when reading him most charitably, rather than most uncharitably. If you (general) do that, then you show that even his best possible positions are flawed or wrong. If you (general) don't do that, then people can easily reject your opposition to Trump because it's based on what they can feel is strawman misrepresentations - which allows them to escape the full force of your objections.
        Trump's base has already shown itself to be immune to any discussion that might suggest their leader is flawed, never mind dangerous. And I certainly am not going to try to paint Trump to be something he is not. Even the most charitable interpretation of most of what he says is still pretty foul. He occasionally mouths the "appropriate" words, usually on formal occasions and usually from a script. But shortly thereafter the "appropriate" sentiments are undercut by his own tweets and words and actions in other contexts, and sometimes in that context.

        My days of giving Trump the benefit of the doubt are gone. My days of hoping that members of his base can be reasoned with are likewise gone. The true battle is going to be fought for the hearts and minds of those nearer the center. Frankly, I probably wouldn't even be on this forum anymore were it not for Covid-19 and long days.

        But I'll put a challenge to you: find one thing that Trump has done that you think was well done (i.e., done as a statesman) and good policy (i.e., put in place for the betterment of our country and its citizens). I think you could probably find several things that meet the latter description that we agree on. I think it will be hard find much of anything that meets the former description.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Max - if there is one thing I suspect we CAN agree on, it is the pointlessness of this kind of reporting. Someone posts a tweet with a video of Trump standing less than perfectly still and speculates on why, and suddenly it is news that someone posted this tweet? It's ridiculous and does exactly what you are talking about: cheapening the conversation and undermining the case against Trump.

          But I do not put this in the same category as his behavior in the coronavirus briefings, his bullying, his vengeance-seeking, his chronic lying, his enrichment of himself via his office, his attempts to engage foreign powers in our elections, and all of the rest of the unscrupulous things he has done.

          And I hold these separate from policy issues like eroding the protections for our ecology and giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy while handing a sop out to the middle and lower classes. I have disagreed with many presidents on policy issues without outright rejecting them as "my president." Part of the cost of being in a democracy is recognizing that sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. Policy will change from president to president - and that's life.

          But putting such a vile, unscrupulous man in the highest office in the land is a travesty - and would be a travesty if it was done by either the Republicans or the Democrats. In other words, I would find Trump just as vile and unacceptable if he had run as a Democrat and won and was pushing forward policies that 100% aligned with my political, social, and fiscal leanings. I could never cheer a man who says and does what he does. And I would be equally scathing to the Democrats if they had acted as unpatriotically as the Senate Republicans (less Romney) did in the impeachment trial.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Max - if there is one thing I suspect we CAN agree on, it is the pointlessness of this kind of reporting. Someone posts a tweet with a video of Trump standing less than perfectly still and speculates on why, and suddenly it is news that someone posted this tweet? It's ridiculous and does exactly what you are talking about: cheapening the conversation and undermining the case against Trump.
            Please tell this to DivineOb here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post741551

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I read the article. I agree with carpedm that articles mocking Trump's medical condition are unhelpful. Fortunately I didn't do that, I merely pointed out how the evidence for his medical condition is growing.

              Now back into your cage.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Happy to!
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                  I read the article. I agree with carpedm that articles mocking Trump's medical condition are unhelpful. Fortunately I didn't do that, I merely pointed out how the evidence for his medical condition is growing.

                  Now back into your cage.
                  What medical condition?
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    What medical condition?
                    Trump's worsening dementia. As noted in that other thread it killed his father.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                      Trump's worsening dementia. As noted in that other thread it killed his father.
                      Hmmm...
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Max - I think most of us know what he meant. The discussion was about light and the efficacy of disinfectants. He suggested that they should explore/examine the possibility of using light/disinfectants inside the body to kill the virus. The light proposition is just laughable on the face of it (though I can imagine not a few people spent more time in the sun as a result). The disinfectant suggestion was, IMO, moronic and dangerous. Even a passing suggestion that it is possible that using disinfectants inside the body might work and should be investigated suggests significant idiocy on his part, and a dangerous message to the populace and anyone as poorly informed as he apparently is. That is not apparently just my opinion, since almost immediately after we saw widespread jumping on this by medical experts across the country, as well as the manufacturers themselves!
                        Well, light is used as a treatment for some conditions, so it's not completely out of the question, and it was being discussed in the briefing. It's not like Trump asked about the possibility of using light or disinfectant internally completely out of left field, both were being talked about as ways to kill the virus, he just asked his science advisor if he could look into the possibility of using those internally. Another way of looking at this would be "Hey, isn't it great that we have a President who gets his people looking at every possible solution when we're in a major crisis".

                        That the media, and manufacturers jumped on it is IMHO mainly (a) media following the first reports lead, because that frames the narrative: 'Trump thinks people can inject bleach to kill coronavirus'; and (b) because American manufacturers have to be extra careful to avoid lawsuits by idiots who misuse their products.

                        But, yes, it was not a realistic idea. Nonetheless, he ASKED his science advisor to look in to it. Presumably he got some kind of 'Not remotely possible' answer later on.



                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        I don't believe I set the standard you imply here. I recognize mistakes will be made. This one was, IMO, criminally stupid.

                        Only if you're addressing the congenitally stupid. I tell my students all kinds of crazy stuff, on purpose, because I want them to learn how to think critically. Not a big skill here, and kids here are not encouraged to question anything a teacher tells them. I want them to learn how to do that, intelligently.


                        One of my personal favourites - the school hall was demolished...

                        I told my students a story about how in WW2 the Japanese had had soldiers in this area, and had built a secret underground testing lab under the hall. A student had only recently discovered the entrance, by chance, under the stage. The school had realised that the Japanese had been experimenting to make "zombie banzai soldiers" to fight in the war, and there were still chemicals etc left there. Of course the school had to demolish the hall, but couldn't tell the real reason - what parent would send their child to school where the canteen was right next to the now-demolished hall? "Students, please keep this a secret, and if you suspect any of your classmates are exhibiting zombie-like behaviour, tell me right away, OK?"

                        The smartest picked up on it pretty quickly - before I'd even got to the less believable parts. But quite a few of them bought it for a few moments. The best student response? "Teacher, I think you've been watching too many movies" .


                        Here's what I was responding to:

                        If the President of the U.S. makes that kind of suggestion (i.e., that it is even possible that injecting disinfectants might possibly be helpful) publicly, there are going to be some people who decide he must know and act on the implication. It is why it is so important that a president be judicious in their use of language when speaking publicly, something Mr. Trump has no patience for and no desire to do.
                        There's simply no way, even if judicious in speech that a President so scrutinised by a media that largely despises him, is going to be able to avoid saying something that can be misconstrued in a dangerous way. Sure, Trump isn't very judicious. But I can't see how he wears all the blame, all the time. I suspect if he was 'judicious' he would get harrassed for that.



                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        Yes - that would have been ideal. If you go back to the video, Philip Rucker attempts to raise a question about what was just said and is cut off before he even gets to the end of his question, with an accusation of being "fake news."

                        Shame it was never followed up on, and no-one AFAIK even suggested other, more sensible, interpretations.


                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        Max - Trump IS a blowhard, bullying idiot. The news isn't making him that. He makes reveals himself to be that every time he bullies another person on camera or by tweet, every time he makes a moronic comment from the bully pulpit or (again) by tweet. He is the quintessential blowhard. I don't need the news to tell me this. I get it directly from his mouth when I watch his rallies or other public engagements. I follow him on twitter and see the constant stream of this. The news isn't making him that - they are simply reporting on the reality.
                        Yes, Trump is a loud-mouth New Yorker businessman type.

                        (1) The news makes him look worse than he actually is. They've seized on an aspect of his character and manner that they can blow up to caricature proportions. Which they do, smartly, because it's a believable caricature.
                        (2) Why can't it be BOTH? Trump is a loud mouth, does say dumb and outrageous things etc, AND the media also lies, distorts and misrepresents him.

                        I encourage you to weed out the doubtful or distorted items and focus on the ones you can really nail down if you want to convince skeptics (like me) to see Trump as you do.



                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        Trump's base has already shown itself to be immune to any discussion that might suggest their leader is flawed, never mind dangerous.
                        I think that's partly on them (being hard-headed / easily led / stubborn etc) and partly on the politicians and media who despise, demean and insult both them and the things they hold dear. Going back to Clinton's 'basket of deplorables'. The insults and attacks are pretty hard not to take personally, I think a lot of them support Trump because he doesn't do that to them, and they feel he understands them and what they value.

                        Piling on the 'Trump is evil, and you are evil for supporting him' is never going to convince someone. It's futile and counter-productive, even if true. It pushes people who used to be left / liberal towards Trump, especially when the issue being targetted is not crystal clear 'Trump is wrong'. There have been so many fake, distorted and half-true attacks on Trump that a very high burden of proof has been built up before people who support Trump are even going to begin to listen.

                        I think you listen to me (I'm flattered) because I (mostly) treat you and your opinions with respect, even when I disagree. I try and use reason and evidence with you. You don't (I suspect) listen to some other posters because they don't treat you with respect, and use rhetoric to attack you more than evidence to convince you. It would take a LOT before you would begin to take a contrary opinion form them at all seriously.

                        Now imagine that you're someone who voted for Trump because you felt - despite his faults and your doubts - that he at least might move things in the directions you want. I know there are posters here who are like that. Now, since before the inauguration even, there has been nothing but a constant stream of attacks on you, your values, Trump (as your representative). Attacks that range from personal insults, to incitement to violence against you (for daring to want your values and policies enacted in a democracy), and include dodgy, long-winded conspiracy theories by political opponents and supposedly neutral government employees. Conspiracy theories that amounted to nothing in the end.

                        Simply for publicly expressing your support for the legitimately elected President you voted for you risk insult and violence. This since the election. Not after two years or something, when everyone could now see 'how bad Trump is', and even his supporters are feeling let down. From before he even did anything as President.

                        No wonder there is a just about unbridgable divide. 'Trump at all costs' supporters have to be responsible for their part, but 'Trump is the most evil...' people have a big part in the divide, too.



                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        And I certainly am not going to try to paint Trump to be something he is not. Even the most charitable interpretation of most of what he says is still pretty foul. He occasionally mouths the "appropriate" words, usually on formal occasions and usually from a script. But shortly thereafter the "appropriate" sentiments are undercut by his own tweets and words and actions in other contexts, and sometimes in that context.

                        My days of giving Trump the benefit of the doubt are gone. My days of hoping that members of his base can be reasoned with are likewise gone. The true battle is going to be fought for the hearts and minds of those nearer the center. Frankly, I probably wouldn't even be on this forum anymore were it not for Covid-19 and long days.

                        But I'll put a challenge to you: find one thing that Trump has done that you think was well done (i.e., done as a statesman)

                        (1) I don't care how 'statesmanlike' a President is. He's not there to make people like him , or say that he's a nice guy. The Republicans have had a stream of Presidents like that, and the left has largely been way more effective in getting their policies enacted. That's a big part of why people voted for Trump - 'he fights back' - and not someone they thought would be nice but ineffective (Hello Jeb Bush). Given that - and it's something I have come across - attacking Trump on tone and manners is counter-productive.

                        (2) I'm not an American, so I'm not well placed to assess what Americans might think was 'well done' because my interests and American interest are not the same

                        (3) The 'lessons' that the Democrats have taught the Republicans in the last decade or so, and especially the last few years, are that winning and power are what count in politics. Nice guys don't get anything done. It's a war, we will take away everything you have and everything you are if it goes against our values. There will be no 'live and let live'. Hence Trump, and hence someone more extreme than Trump, some day, if a political balance is not restored, if the people who support Trump now aren't listened to, but are derided and vilified.

                        (4) Trump has done well to get as much (although I think his supporters want more) done as he has. Kavanaugh. Progress on border issues. Pushback on leftist media. Better trade deals for America. More jobs back in America. Pushback on China. Now you can argue that he hasn't actually done that much in these areas - but his supporters feel that he has, or that at least he is trying. And that's all that matters - how they think (rightly or wrongly) he's doing. That's what they will vote on.


                        Originally posted by Carpe
                        and good policy (i.e., put in place for the betterment of our country and its citizens). I think you could probably find several things that meet the latter description that we agree on. I think it will be hard find much of anything that meets the former description.
                        Yeah, but it's perception, and taste, and all that stuff. It doesn't matter to everyone 'He's not presidential' has to be just about the most ineffective objection I've heard.

                        This is how I think a lot of Trump supporters see things:
                        Republicans have had a bunch of 'Presidential' Presidents and leaders, and look how far the left agenda has advanced (in their perception). Trump gets things done because he's 'not Presidential'. He talks their language. He gives it right back to the leftist media that attack him. Etc.

                        So 'You shouldn't support him because he's not presidential' sounds to them like 'You shouldn't support him because he does things that you want done. Because he fights for you and your most valued institutions and principles. You shouldn't support him because he's dirty and vicious and mean, and he hurts us, and he's in your corner, fighting for you.'
                        Last edited by MaxVel; 05-28-2020, 08:26 AM.
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Max - if there is one thing I suspect we CAN agree on, it is the pointlessness of this kind of reporting. Someone posts a tweet with a video of Trump standing less than perfectly still and speculates on why, and suddenly it is news that someone posted this tweet? It's ridiculous and does exactly what you are talking about: cheapening the conversation and undermining the case against Trump.
                          Agreed. Also see SeanD's new thread about news reporting hypocrisy on facemask wearing. It's the kind of thing that casts doubt on everything that that media organisation says.


                          Originally posted by Carpe
                          But I do not put this in the same category as (A) his behavior in the coronavirus briefings, (B) his bullying, (C) his vengeance-seeking, (D) his chronic lying, (E) his enrichment of himself via his office, (F) his attempts to engage foreign powers in our elections, and all of the rest of the unscrupulous things he has done.
                          Sure. But I see that quite differently than you. We're dealing with a successful politician (got elected President). Ergo someone of dubious moral character and few scruples. I don't expect a genuine nice guy, they don't get far in politics as a rule.


                          The very little I've seen of (A) I'm OK with - I don't have a TV, not American or in America.
                          (B) Partly true, but also overblown / case of perception / pushback / attacking people who attacked him
                          (C) See (B). Also why not support a President who attacks people who are your enemies?
                          (D) Mostly false. Trump uses a lot of hyperbole, exaggeration, bull (something both him and his listeners know is false, and he knows they know), and 'sales talk' (loosely 'true', designed to get a deal done). Not great, not what we want in an ideal world, but that world won't come until Jesus returns.
                          (E) AFAIK, debatable. Maybe legit, even if a bit dodgy. So far, not as obviously corrupt as the Clinton's, Biden, and, I suspect, Obama. Not great, but not a deal-breaker so far, given the alternatives.
                          (F) AFAIK Fake news. There was that excerpt from an interview a while ago, but my analysis of it in fuller context is that he wasn't doing or saying anything wrong there unless you apply a very uncharitable and out of context interpretation.

                          Russiagate - so far looks like an attempt by Democrats and Democrat-supporting government officials to illegally take down an elected President. IOW a soft coup attempt. IMHO an absolute outrage and probably the biggest danger to the state of American democracy. Completely unjustifiable given the timing (starting during the campaign) no matter how 'bad' Trump has been since. Probably no-one major will even serve any time for it, but frankly, people should be facing life w/o parole or the death penalty.

                          America is in a seriously bad state. I can't see things NOT trending towards widespread social breakdown and 'tribal'-based violence, barring a miracle. Or a losing war with a major rival. Or both and worse. And I take no pleasure at all from that prospect.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                          16 responses
                          84 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Mountain Man  
                          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                          53 responses
                          281 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Mountain Man  
                          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                          25 responses
                          109 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                          33 responses
                          195 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Roy
                          by Roy
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                          84 responses
                          355 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post JimL
                          by JimL
                           
                          Working...
                          X