In defence of Trump

[Swammerdami]

... That's a good point. I will back down here. I used the term conspiracy sloppily. What's a good word for it then? The non-secret power cartel of the left? What's a good expression for that?

Uh ... Reporting facts.

(I do realize that with Fucker Carlson and other liars dominating cable, and Facebook rife with Russian and Albanian trolls, many Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of "Reporting facts.")

 

[rousseau]

Dr. Zoidberg's point that American media is broken is valid. And I believe it's been loosening of regulations that have allowed the likes of Fox News to exist.

In Canada, we have tighter standards on our media and Conservative voices that aren't nearly as bad. Most of the problem now seems to be Facebook, which can go die in a hole.

 

[jab]

I suspect that Reagan was the death of the right. The idea of lowering taxes and living off credit debt is an idiotic idea. Since this became the populist war cry of the right, the entire society shifted toward the left, until the left dominated completely. And now we're in this situation, where the left is so dominant it's stopped trying to solve people's pressing problems and instead focuses on seeming being woke. Having absolute power isn't good for anyone. Not even for the people in power. It leads to decadence and complacency.

Please provide evidence of your theory that the left has dominated completely in American politics since Reagan. In evidence of the exact opposite, I give you the following:
1. George H W Bush
2. George W Bush
3. George W Bush again
4. Donald J Trump
5. Republican control of Congress, or at least the Senate, for the majority of the time in question.

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

What conservative public intellectuals do we have now? It's pretty much Jordan Petersen. That's it. Isn't there? For public intellectuals to be motivated to be public intellectuals, they need to get paid for their work. If they aren't, they're not going to put up with that bullshit. While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

public conservative intellectuals? George Will, David Frum, Bill Kristol, any economist taken seriously by the big t.v. networks in the States.

 

[jab]

... That's a good point. I will back down here. I used the term conspiracy sloppily. What's a good word for it then? The non-secret power cartel of the left? What's a good expression for that?

Uh ... Reporting facts.

(I do realize that with Fucker Carlson and other liars dominating cable, and Facebook rife with Russian and Albanian trolls, many Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of "Reporting facts.")

I would go for the term neoliberal/ neoconservative consensus in the Big media of the U. S. A.

 

[ronburgundy]

Eric Weinstein made some thoughtful comments on Trump, which I think is worth discussing.

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein?lang=en

I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.

The following strikes me.

A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.

B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.

C) The media was good calling out all the really bad things Trump did.

D) The media was bad calling out any positive thing Trump said or did and painted him evil.

E) Journalists in 2020 & 2016 unethically became activists misreporting a big blue wave or Hilary’s inevitable win.

F) Trump saw that there is actually an obvious conspiracy against him which is true. And inferred that it extends to the general election.

G) Trump simply doesn’t have the goods on this allegedly stolen election. He is in search mode. It’s more of a gut thing.

H) The left says “If you don’t have the goods, then it was completely free, fair and obviously so you sore loser.”

I) The right says “You guys aren’t fair about anything. Your unbiased commentary is a 24/7 open conspiracy to misrepresent the world.

...

Yes media is guilty of political agitation while enjoying the protection of neutral journalists. Yes they have conspired against him at every turn. But IT’S NOT FUNGIBLE. The anti-Trump media conspiracy is not a vote counting conspiracy. He can’t cash in one to win the other.

...

Which is to say this: we have a lot of unethical media people dancing and celebrating Trump’s loss. And it remains *possible* that we will learn something nefarious happened. But pretending now that a media conspiracy is an electoral conspiracy w/o proof is insane & outrageous.

I’m happier to see him go than I am sad to see Biden arrive. But he isn’t wrong that there was a media/institutional conspiracy. He’s wrong elsewhere: he doesn’t have the goods on electoral fraud. But the number of us who see the former conspiracy but not the latter is *tiny*.

For some reason, almost everyone I know either see two conspiracies against Trump or zero. I see only one conspiracy against him to date and it’s not fungible. His behavior is outrageous but those pointing it out as unethical have been compromised themselves by hatred. That’s it.

I agree with this. Trump's popularity, as I see it, came from him being a political outsider, challenging an openly corrupt system of an established elites, holding eachother's backs, supported by a corrupt leftist media that cares more about symbolism than content. I say this as a lefty. I see the problems of the left. It's not like we're are "the good guys". No matter if we have a lefty or conservative candidate in power, it's going to suck in some ways and be good in some ways. I see the merits of picking an outsider candidate challenging the status quo.

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yes, Trump was incompetent at playing the political game. Why? He wasn't a politician. He had no idea what he was doing. That's why he was elected. He ran USA like he would run a company. It turns out that your employee's are easier to push around than citizens of a nation.

While I think Trump was a horrendous human being, and the worst possible leader of a nation, his time in power did (and does) expose of lot of the rot that beset the American political system. And don't think that I think Europe is in anyway preferable. We have the same shit here. In most cases it's worse over here. So perhaps, in the long run, it was a good thing.

That said, I'm all in favour of a middle-class conspiracy of the educate elites clinging to power via nefarious manipulative ways, as is the case in all democratic countries. This is the only group of people who can actually run a country and should be in control. But if this group ever gets cocky and forgets they also need to serve the working classes, they should be challenged, and removed from power. I wonder if that is what lay at the core of why Trump was elected in the first place?

For all his evil he did expose a pretty ruthless leftist media conspiracy that was out to get him. I do not challenge this. I think it was pretty clear. While I agree with the goal (I too hate Trump) I also want a balanced media. I don't want my side to dominate the news reporting completely. While I'm a lefty, I also want accurate information, upon which to base my opinions. I don't think we're getting that now. And Trump in power did help reveal just how bad it really is.

So here's an unironical thank you to Trump, the narcissistic power hungry Twitter spasming, fake news spreading fucking idiot.

Even a cloud has a silver lining.

The claim the media is "lefty" is absurd and has been repeatedly proven false. They are corporate billionaires who care about little but more profit. MSM coverage has been analyzed in systematic studies and shown to be middle of the road by US standards, which is actually skewed heavily right relative to the full spectrum of political views.

The media didn't paint Trump as evil, his own words and actions did. Most of what the media has done is merely to broadcast what Trump himself has tweeted. His words look bad to pretty much any minimally ethical or intelligent person. The bad he has done on a nonstop daily basis is much more impact and harmful than any tiny amount of "good" he might have accidentally done. Therefore, any unbiased media simply reporting the facts even w/o any editorial opinion would constantly be reporting upon facts (including Trump's own words) that make him look like a vile, immoral, and dangerously stupid human being to most neutral observers without prior conceptions of him or what party he lead.

Deliberately trying to appeal to white supremacists, misogynists, and hateful transphobes is not a result of being "incompetent at playing the political game", but a result of sociopathic amorality and a willingness to cause real physical harm to millions for personal gain.
This trait is not something that emerged in Trump due to how he was treated while president. He has demonstrated it his entire adult and professional life. There are documented instances of him trying to destroy anyone he saw as an adversary and most of his $ was built upon engaging in fraud and acts that caused harm to countless people.

Trump conspiracy theories are also not a result of how he was treated as president. Again, it's documented he has had this pathological insecurity and paranoia his whole life. He whined about conspriacies against him in the 80's with his USFL failure. Plus, such a trait and victimization conspiracies are byproduct of his extreme narcissism and arrogance combined with incompetence that has resulted in many failures for which "they were out to get me" is the only explanation his ego is capable of accepting.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are we talking about George “it’s not climate change it’s just summer” Will??

 

[jab]

Are we talking about George “it’s not climate change it’s just summer” Will??

Yeah, he gets a lot of exposure on mainstream media in the USA, doesn't he?

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of George Will...

Trump, Hawley and Cruz will each wear the scarlet ‘S’ of a seditionist

The three repulsive architects of Wednesday’s heartbreaking spectacle — mobs desecrating the Republic’s noblest building and preventing the completion of a constitutional process — must be named and forevermore shunned. They are Donald Trump, and Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.

Trump lit the fuse for the riot in the weeks before the election, with his successful effort to delegitimize the election in the eyes of his supporters. But Wednesday’s explosion required the help of Hawley (R-Mo.) and Cruz (R-Tex.).

Hawley announced his intention to object to the certification of some states’ electoral votes, for no better reason than that there has been an avalanche of “allegations” of election irregularities, allegations fomented by the loser of the election. By doing so, Hawley turned what should have been a perfunctory episode in our civic liturgy of post-election civility into a synthetic drama. He turned this moment into the focus of the hitherto unfocused fury that Trump had been stoking for many weeks.

And Cruz, by organizing support for Hawley among other Republican senators and senators-elect gave Hawley’s grotesque self-promotion an ersatz cloak of larger purpose. Shortly before the mob breached the Senate chamber, Cruz stood on the Senate floor. With his characteristic unctuousness, he regretted the existence of what he and kindred spirits have not only done nothing to refute but have themselves nurtured — a pandemic of suspicions that the election was “rigged.”

 

[Treedbear]

Speaking of George Will...

Trump, Hawley and Cruz will each wear the scarlet ‘S’ of a seditionist

... Cruz stood on the Senate floor. With his characteristic unctuousness, ...

Now that's a great word to keep handy these days.

1. characterized by excessive piousness or moralistic fervor, especially in an affected manner; excessively smooth, suave, or smug.
2. of the nature of or characteristic of an unguent or ointment; oily; greasy.
3. having an oily or soapy feel, as certain minerals.

 

[ZiprHead]

Now that's a great word to keep handy these days.

1. characterized by excessive piousness or moralistic fervor, especially in an affected manner; excessively smooth, suave, or smug.
2. of the nature of or characteristic of an unguent or ointment; oily; greasy.
3. having an oily or soapy feel, as certain minerals.

No one ever accused George will of not being a cunning linguist.

 

[Jayjay]

Speaking of "defending Trump", I think his permanent ban from twitter is an overreaction. I think that a two-week suspension would have been sufficient, and would have served the purpose of stopping him from inciting more violence at the Biden inauguration ceremony.

On the other hand, the world will be a better place without his dumbass tweets. But he'll find some other venue to air his grievances I'm sure.

 

[AdamWho]

Speaking of "defending Trump", I think his permanent ban from twitter is an overreaction. I think that a two-week suspension would have been sufficient, and would have served the purpose of stopping him from inciting more violence at the Biden inauguration ceremony.

On the other hand, the world will be a better place without his dumbass tweets. But he'll find some other venue to air his grievances I'm sure.

If you incite violent insurrection against the US you need to be hanging from a noose, not whining about a ban from twitter.


Just checking in to see what the Trump apologists are saying here.... and to remember when skeptics used to put facts and evidence before faith.

 

[Patooka]

One of Trump's biggest fan being booed by other Trump supporters.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpDHL1n6ajQ[/youtube]

I guess Republicans are the Party of personal responsibility. They are holding their senators accountable for their actions.

 

[Trausti]

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think we just see this differently.

That is likely because you don't understand just how perverted conservative media is in America.

We can see the same "news" here. I am aware of what a shit show it is. That's why I call it low quality fake news.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

What conservative public intellectuals do we have now? It's pretty much Jordan Petersen. That's it. Isn't there? For public intellectuals to be motivated to be public intellectuals, they need to get paid for their work. If they aren't, they're not going to put up with that bullshit. While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

If you think Jordan Petersen (unless there's another that I'm not familiar with) is a fucking intellectual, I think I see your problem.

The US has a few somewhat intellectually consistent conservative writers, but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is George Will, and he pretty much fucked off the GOP ship around the time trump was nominated. Pretty sure at this point, the few who actually had principle's have long since left the 'conservative' movement in the US.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[DrZoidberg]

Speaking of "defending Trump", I think his permanent ban from twitter is an overreaction. I think that a two-week suspension would have been sufficient, and would have served the purpose of stopping him from inciting more violence at the Biden inauguration ceremony.

On the other hand, the world will be a better place without his dumbass tweets. But he'll find some other venue to air his grievances I'm sure.

I look forward to his alter account "the really really real Donald Trump".

 

[DrZoidberg]

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

What conservative public intellectuals do we have now? It's pretty much Jordan Petersen. That's it. Isn't there? For public intellectuals to be motivated to be public intellectuals, they need to get paid for their work. If they aren't, they're not going to put up with that bullshit. While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

If you think Jordan Petersen (unless there's another that I'm not familiar with) is a fucking intellectual, I think I see your problem.

The US has a few somewhat intellectually consistent conservative writers, but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is George Will, and he pretty much fucked off the GOP ship around the time trump was nominated. Pretty sure at this point, the few who actually had principle's have long since left the 'conservative' movement in the US.

This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking. The problem may be that DrZ is conflating 'conservative' with 'Republican' (specifically, the current Republican Party). Trumpism has caused a huge fracture in the party, and we are in the early days of it splitting in two. They should emerge from the split with a more sane conservative party, and with Trumpism left behind, but that is only if we emerge from the current turmoil with our country intact.

No, I don't conflate them. But conservatives are more likely to vote Republican. Isn't that so?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

What conservative public intellectuals do we have now? It's pretty much Jordan Petersen. That's it. Isn't there? For public intellectuals to be motivated to be public intellectuals, they need to get paid for their work. If they aren't, they're not going to put up with that bullshit. While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

public conservative intellectuals? George Will, David Frum, Bill Kristol, any economist taken seriously by the big t.v. networks in the States.

They're not household names as their Liberal equivalents are

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are we talking about George “it’s not climate change it’s just summer” Will??

Yeah, he gets a lot of exposure on mainstream media in the USA, doesn't he?

I don't think demagogues who routinely make false claims are intellectuals at all. That's just entertainment.

No intellectual would today question human induced climate change. No matter if they are Liberal or Conservative. Intellectuals are pursuing the truth. It's not a popularity contest. They don't play a political game.

The Conservative side is full of talking heads and witty people good at making sound bites. People like that are not intellectuals