The Trump Presidency: Part 29

[Trebuchet]

The next thread after this one a minute ago was "Out of town on a rail". My first glance saw it as "Trump out of town on a rail".

If only!

[shemp]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I'm pretty sure trolls don't really care about such nuance.

"Nuance" is one of them foreign Frenchy commie words.

[Cain]

At 71c a share, I bought 100 shares of "No" for Trump winning the 2024 presidential election.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I just watched a very interesting program on Trump including interviews with mental health professionals about his mental disorders and why and how he appealed to so many people. Historians compare his rise to how Mussolini was 'invited in by the ruling elite" and how they thought they could control him (think 2016 and today's GOP leadership) and with Hitler and his use of scapegoats (think immigration). They discuss how he uses the same techniques as Mussolini and Hitler in fostering a sense of victimization and fear and by removing a certain element (the scapegoat), it will make the country better and their lives better. He repeats things 3 times at rallies and gets the audience to repeat it. It then becomes fact to them. Interviews with those who know him reveal who he really is. It was made when Trump was still in office 2018) but is still relevant considering the grip he still has on the GOP. Although they focus on his control of nuclear weapons, etc., we know his real dangerousness was/is his attack on our democracy. It's fascinating and I highly recommend it.

Unfit: The Psychology of Donald Trump (about 1.5 hours)

Available on Youtube (in 7 parts) and Amazon Prime.

Trump himself is no longer that interesting, but the nationalism he brought up in elections and being president is something to note. The psychology of Trump voters.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

Trump himself is no longer that interesting, but the nationalism he brought up in elections and being president is something to note. The psychology of Trump voters.

That is what was so interesting about this video. It goes into all that.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That is what was so interesting about this video. It goes into all that.

OK, got thru part 1.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

OK, got thru part 1.

It actually becomes more interesting in the later parts when it's not focusing so much on Trump's malignant narcissism but on how he affects others and the historical perspectives.

[JoeMorgue]

I did a deep dive into "A Very Stable Genius" and "I Alone Can Fix" by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig over the late fall, binging the Audible Audiobooks on my commute over the course of a few weeks. Terrifying look behind the scenes.

[Horatius]

Oh, it's soooo sad, looks like Trump and Alex Jones are finally breaking up for real.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jone...042605103.html

Quote:

“In fact, maybe—you know what—to get Trump’s attention,” he continued, “maybe I should just dish all the dirt—you know what, you know what—I am going to dish it all on Trump next hour.”

Jones added: “It’s not to hurt Trump, it’s so people can know how pathetic he is when you think he is playing 4D chess, going to save you and he’s not!”

I'm hoping fearing it's a sex tape.

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh, it's soooo sad, looks like Trump and Alex Jones are finally breaking up for real.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jone...042605103.html



I'm hoping fearing it's a sex tape.

So Alex Jones has been holding out on his followers. Interesting.

[Stacyhs]

Alex Jones is a POS.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Alex Jones is a POS.

How much that he actually has nothing and all this is just empty bombast?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Susheel

How much that he actually has nothing and all this is just empty bombast?

The only way anyone who knows Alex Jones would take that bet is if they were one of his Troo Bleevers. Not too many of them around here.

[Fidelio]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh, it's soooo sad, looks like Trump and Alex Jones are finally breaking up for real.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jone...042605103.html



I'm hoping fearing it's a sex tape.

Two Vienna sausages in a fight to the death...I'd pay to see that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Fidelio

Two Vienna sausages in a fight to the death...I'd pay to see that.

I'm sure they'd accommodate you as long as they got paid.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The only way anyone who knows Alex Jones would take that bet is if they were one of his Troo Bleevers. Not too many of them around here.

Which begs the question...does Jones still have much of a following?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Susheel

Which begs the question...does Jones still have much of a following?

This country has no shortage of extreme right wingers. But Jones is going to have to pay out the bucks to some Sandy Hook parents who sued him:

Quote:

Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was found liable Monday for damages in lawsuits brought by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which Jones claimed was a hoax.

Judge Barbara Bellis took the rare step of defaulting Jones in the defamation lawsuits for his and his companies’ “failure to produce critical material information that the plaintiffs needed to prove their claims.” The default means the judge found in favor of the parents and will hold a hearing on how much Jones should pay.

Lawyers for the parents claimed Jones and his companies, including Infowars and Free Speech Systems, violated court rules by failing to turn over internal company documents showing whether Jones and Infowars profited from talking about the attack in Connecticut and other mass shootings.

“Their pattern of defying and ignoring court orders to produce responsive information is well established,” lawyers for the family wrote in a court brief in July.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ax/8627160002/

[bruto]

I suspect, though, that though he will whine plenty hard, Jones, like so many corporate thieves and violators, will pay what looks like a large amount to us but is bearable to him and his supporters, and will go on with his nonsense. I hope I'm wrong, because I think he deserves to be ruined - fired and bankrupted. Millions of people better than him live in slums and work menial jobs. Let him live in a little flat and find work stocking grocery shelves or cleaning airport toilets, or wander the street with disconnected wires buzzing, yelling his wisdom to the pigeons. He needs more than just to feel a sting.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Meh. If people are willing to escalate hatred, but then whine when it exceeds their personal threshold of acceptability...I say, **** 'em. Give them what they peddle, and in spades.

You are literally saying that a bad thing isnt bad because someone else who disagrees has said something a fraction as bad. Then you go go ahead and state openly that any bad thing said by the other side , regardless of the severity, means that your side can escalate the bad.

How adorable

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

You are literally saying that a bad thing isnt bad because someone else who disagrees has said something a fraction as bad. Then you go go ahead and state openly that any bad thing said by the other side , regardless of the severity, means that your side can escalate the bad.

How adorable

Not exactly.

I am saying, you can't start throwing stones and think you can put a limit on their size, mid-battle.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not exactly.

I am saying, you can't start throwing stones and think you can put a limit on their size, mid-battle.

You are saying that one side can choose a size, escalate, and the other side are horrible if they retaliate in any way

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

You are saying that one side can choose a size, escalate, and the other side are horrible if they retaliate in any way

No, not at all.

The topic was about someone whining about very mean phone messages that conservatives left for a Dem. I don't have a problem with it, because many Dems don't seem to have a problem harassing conservatives. Hell, I recall people getting assaulted for wearing MAGA hats. So, I don't want to hear people cry about mean phone messages.

There is no, "your hate is worse than my hate", in my book. There is no, "please, keep your hate civil". There is no, "you must play by my rules".

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not exactly.

I am saying, you can't start throwing stones and think you can put a limit on their size, mid-battle.

To take stock here - Step 1: Right wing side throws stones at people for their lack of sycophancy while actively working to benefit a few at the cost of notable harm to many.
Step 2: Right-wing sycophants take note and actively work to intimidate and hate on those who are not enamored with this.
Step 3: People form negative opinions of such as they see this happening and state them on this forum.
Step 4: Warp12 actively works to invert cause and effect to try to portray the people in Step 3 as the ones who started throwing stones and thus being at least just as guilty and bad.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

No, not at all.

The topic was about someone whining about very mean phone messages that conservatives left for a Dem. I don't have a problem with it, because many Dems don't seem to have a problem harassing conservatives. Hell, I recall people getting assaulted for wearing MAGA hats. So, I don't want to hear people cry about mean phone messages.

There is no, "your hate is worse than my hate", in my book. There is no, "please, keep your hate civil". There is no, "you must play by my rules".

Inverting cause and effect can make for quite the defensive mechanism.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Aridas

To take stock here - Step 1: Right wing side throws stones at people for their lack of sycophancy while actively working to benefit a few at the cost of notable harm to many.
Step 2: Right-wing sycophants take note and actively work to intimidate and hate on those who are not enamored with this.
Step 3: People form negative opinions of such as they see this happening and state them on this forum.
Step 4: Warp12 actively works to invert cause and effect to try to portray the people in Step 3 as the ones who started throwing stones and thus being at least just as guilty and bad.

I don't think that is what I have expressed, at all. Your expression is more in partisan terms than even mine. You are characterizing "right wing" as the aggressors, when the reality is that both sides engage in hateful rhetoric.

The whole idea that Dems are somehow more virtuous is comical to me. And, as I say, you don't get to change the rules and set limits in the middle of the game. If you are engaged in a battle of rock-throwing, you better come prepared for the big rocks.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Fidelio

Two Vienna sausages in a fight to the death...I'd pay to see that.

Nommed!

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think that is what I have expressed, at all. Your expression is more in partisan terms than even mine. You are characterizing "right wing" as the aggressors, when the reality is that both sides engage in hateful rhetoric.

Both sides do it! Yep, that's as far as you care to go, nevermind all the rest of the things that are highly relevant in any objective consideration of the subject.

Originally Posted by Warp12

The whole idea that Dems are somehow more virtuous is comical to me.

Of course it is. You've made your level of understanding and objectivity perfectly clear, so that's no surprise at all.

Originally Posted by Warp12

And, as I say, you don't get to change the rules and set limits in the middle of the game.

Change rules in the middle? Pfft. You're illuminating a serious issue of group liability with only very vaguely defined groups, especially when those like you are plenty happy to stay superficial and absurdly broad so that you don't feel compelled to acknowledge that certain groups that you identify with really are demonstrating significantly worse conduct.

It's one thing to condemn bad behavior, whoever does it. It's something a little different, but still quite justifiable, to condemn people being utterly hypocritical about their "condemnation" of bad behavior that they egged on or engaged in. It's another to laugh at those who condemn bad behavior based on wishful thinking and fallacious rationalization. Warp12, the behavior that you're demonstrating is very much the last of those.

Originally Posted by Warp12

If you are engaged in a battle of rock-throwing, you better come prepared for the big rocks.

Oh yes, that seems like a great plan. Time to get out the really big rocks and mass murder everyone who disagrees with you, if that was actually reasonable, rather than the dangerous cop-out that it is.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Change rules in the middle? Pfft. You're illuminating a serious issue of group liability with only very vaguely defined groups, especially when those like you are plenty happy to stay superficial and absurdly broad so that you don't feel compelled to acknowledge that certain groups that you identify with really are demonstrating significantly worse conduct.

It's one thing to condemn bad behavior, whoever does it. It's something a little different, but still quite justifiable, to condemn people being utterly hypocritical about their "condemnation" of bad behavior that they egged on or engaged in. It's another to laugh at those who condemn bad behavior based on wishful thinking and fallacious rationalization. Warp12, the behavior that you're demonstrating is very much the last of those.

Again, you are finger-pointing at conservatives as the real "bad guys". You should just accept the reality: the game is already afoot. It is too late to impose rules. Both sides are guilty, and this is a war of escalating attacks.

While you speak in terms of "condemning bad behavior", that is not what we are seeing, here. It is, as tired as this expression is, "only bad when Republicans do it". At least within this venue. Other, less partisan groups may see things differently.

Perhaps take a broader look at the situation.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Again, you are finger-pointing at conservatives as the real "bad guys".

Not quite, but it's telling that you are plenty happy to interpret it that way.

Originally Posted by Warp12

You should just accept the reality: the game is already afoot. It is too late to impose rules. Both sides are guilty, and this is a war of escalating attacks.

Civil War time! As long as people treat the state of things as superficially and absurdly broadly as you are, generally with a mix of fallacy inserted, of course that sounds quite reasonable.

Originally Posted by Warp12

While you speak in terms of "condemning bad behavior", that is not what we are seeing, here. It is, as tired as this expression is, "only bad when Republicans do it". At least within this venue. Other, less partisan groups may see things differently.

Perhaps take a broader look at the situation.

Sorry, your wishful thinking and hurt feelings aren't actually reflective of reality. It's certainly true that *this thread* contains a very significant amount of "Republican bad" in response to Republicans doing and causing bad. If you have a real problem with that, though, you have a rather remarkable power at hand. You can... post "Republican good" things in response to Republicans doing and causing good things. You can... post "Democrat bad" things in response to Democrats doing and causing bad things. You have that power!!! And, remarkably enough, it's not actually hard to get agreement on such things, when they actually deserve such and sometimes even when they don't actually deserve such.

Going further, "only bad when the Republicans do it" is a laughable excuse and rationalization, and even moreso when you expand the area under consideration into more relevant threads to address whichever particular subject is preferred. It's also quite laughable when you consider the overall behavior and values of the members of the two parties. To poke at some of the science available, self-identified conservatives value loyalty at least as highly as truth on average and are far more prone to positive self-delusion. On average, self-identified liberals value truth far above loyalty, on the other hand. Given the general self-segregation of the groups in our current political system, Democrats are very willing to criticize other Democrats, when they feel that such criticism is accurate - and it quite shows, even on these forums.

Really, YOU are the one who should be taking a broader, less biased look.

[bruto]

I think a problem might arise when things escalate beyond a "game." It is one thing to hurl insults, but death threats, incitements to murder and destruction might just go beyond the tit-for-tat of gaming. There is, I think, a difference not just of style but of substance between calling a person deplorable, for example, and advocating that they should be killed. I am not sure that difference is being appreciated here.

The line between generalized wishes and hatreds and violent rhetoric and incitement might be fuzzy and hard to define, but it also is too often defined after the fact.

In any case, I still think it's possible to make a distinction between saying nasty things (and that includes things that should not be said) and a level of vileness that no sane person could countenance.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Really, YOU are the one who should be taking a broader, less biased look.

That you would post that after engaging in an ultra-partisan rant...well, it is expected. Around here, at least.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That you would post that after engaging in an ultra-partisan rant...well, it is expected. Around here, at least.

No substantial response, eh? As empty and superficial as usual.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Cain

At 71c a share, I bought 100 shares of "No" for Trump winning the 2024 presidential election.

Terrible bet. Those odds will improve.

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh, it's soooo sad, looks like Trump and Alex Jones are finally breaking up for real.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a more perfect illustration of desperation than referencing Alex Jones like that.
______________

And shouldn't this thread be entitled "Trump's Interregnum" rather than presidency, since he's between stints?

[a_unique_person]

I've got my napkin on. Where's my dish of dirt?

[Aridas]

On that note, incidentally...

Man threatens Presidents Biden, Obama, tells Secret Service he made one-way journey from California to die at the White House
Kuachua Brillion Xiong told the U.S. Secret Service he would “do whatever it takes” to kill those in power in Washington.

To highlight a little bit of that...

Quote:

“When concluding the interview, Xiong stated that nothing would stop him from carrying out his plan of gaining access to the White House and killing the persons on his ‘hit list,’” the criminal complaint read.

“He added that if released from custody he would immediately resume traveling to the White House in Washington, D.C. and ‘do whatever it takes’ to complete his plan.”

Investigators said the man worked at a local grocery store in Merced, Calif. until about two months ago. He is now held in the Pottawattamie County Jail in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on a single federal charge of making threats against a former president.

Both sides! Bigger rocks! War of escalation!

Yes, though, I'll certainly agree with Warp12 that we are certainly seeing escalation, at least, even if his expressed reasoning is fallacious and his attempts to justify and rationalize it are deeply problematic.

[Horatius]

Quote:

Xiong stated that nothing would stop him ...

“He added that if released from custody

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, isn't the same.....

"Damn, they found my one weakness: being stuck in jail!!"

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Both sides! Bigger rocks! War of escalation!

Yes, though, I'll certainly agree with Warp12 that we are certainly seeing escalation, at least, even if his expressed reasoning is fallacious and his attempts to justify and rationalize it are deeply problematic.

There will always be some crazy extremists. But, once you start characterizing them as belonging to only one party...you are well on your way to extremism, yourself.

Quote:

At a June 18, 2016, rally for presumptive-nominee Donald Trump's presidential campaign in Las Vegas, Nevada, Michael Steven Sandford attempted to grab the pistol of a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officer providing security for the event.[2] Upon arrest and after waiving his Miranda rights, Sandford claimed that he had wished to kill Trump to prevent him from becoming president

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D...rally_incident

Quote:

MANDAN, N.D. — A North Dakota man has pleaded guilty to plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump, in part, by using a forklift to flip the presidential limousine while Trump was inside, federal court documents show.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-...mpt/887175986/

Quote:

Law enforcement earlier this week intercepted a package addressed to President Trump containing the poison ricin, according to two officials.

Two tests were conducted to confirm the substance in the package was ricin, CNN reported.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...essed-to-trump

See how easy that was? Now, I could say that this is evidence that Dems are the party of wickedness and evil. But I'm not saying that. The basis for this debate was conservatives leaving mean messages for a Dem. That is to be expected, and this assigning a profile of virtue to Dems, and one of evil to Republicans is laughable, at best. It's not say that the messages are in good taste, or something I would personally do. But it is hardly shocking. Hell, even the guy who recently insulted Biden has received threatening messages.

I mean, look around this forum. There are plenty of deplorable statements being made about GOP members, including wishing death upon them, right here. Including comments about their families, and wishing them harm. All is fair in that arena, as I see it. If that's the game people wish to play, I don't want to hear them cry about the results.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Sorry, your wishful thinking and hurt feelings aren't actually reflective of reality. It's certainly true that *this thread* contains a very significant amount of "Republican bad" in response to Republicans doing and causing bad. If you have a real problem with that, though, you have a rather remarkable power at hand. You can... post "Republican good" things in response to Republicans doing and causing good things. You can... post "Democrat bad" things in response to Democrats doing and causing bad things. You have that power!!! And, remarkably enough, it's not actually hard to get agreement on such things, when they actually deserve such and sometimes even when they don't actually deserve such.

Warp12 has made it clear that he thinks criticising bad people for doing bad things automatically makes good people who do good things just as bad, and deserving of having bad things said about them in return. So don't hold your breath for such a response.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Warp12 has made it clear that he thinks criticising bad people for doing bad things automatically makes good people who do good things just as bad, and deserving of having bad things said about them in return. So don't hold your breath for such a response.

You've strengthened my resolve to ignore the toxic crap that's infested this thread lately, so accept my sincere thanks.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

There will always be some crazy extremists. But, once you start characterizing them as belonging to only one party...you are well on your way to extremism, yourself.

First, I'll acknowledge a point of agreement. There fairly certainly will always be some crazy extremists. To stop examination there, however, is nothing but negligence, regardless of what political "side" the "crazy extremists" in question are on. By attempting to do so, you're continuing the very superficial "both sides do it" logic and stopping there, while you are also attempting to claim that I'm saying that only one side's doing it. There are serious problems with both these positions.

Originally Posted by Warp12

See how easy that was? Now, I could say that this is evidence that Dems are the party of wickedness and evil. But I'm not saying that.

Taken alone, it's poor evidence, of course. That doesn't mean that it should just be hand waved away without more proper examination and context.

Originally Posted by Warp12

The basis for this debate was conservatives leaving mean messages for a Dem.

Basis? Not quite. That's a twisted and partial description of the post where this general tangent started, but there's been pretty much no debate about it. Just you trying to score a cheap shot at anyone who finds such behavior to be completely unacceptable under fallacious pretenses and other people taking issue with that and things that proceeded from there that you've occasionally wrapped around to that. As such, your claim here doesn't work very well.

If you wanted to actually have more of a debate on what you claim, though, I think that it's worth raising the point that said "mean messages" aren't limited to Democrats and that plenty of Republicans, especially those who showed any sign of not being sycophantic to Trump, have received similar - to the point where a number of Republicans have been reported to have been intimidated into voting one way or another. It's not limited to that, of course. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are an easy example, but even public servants of various kinds like election officials have been getting lots of "mean messages" that have led to quittings. As a general rule, I'm not enamored with campaigns of intimidation, regardless of who is doing them. That certain elements on the right-wing are engaging in such tactics at a rate dramatically higher and more effectively than left-wing equivalents means that my attention is focused far more on the right-wing simply because they're much more of a threat to our country.

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is to be expected, and this assigning a profile of virtue to Dems, and one of evil to Republicans is laughable, at best.

Says the person who is continuing to try to twist a post noting ongoing after-effects of Trump actions being posted on a thread about Trump actions into a cheap shot personal attack on most of the posters here. Admittedly, I'm not entirely surprised by your reaction, though. It's not an accident that Fox, to poke at an obvious example of right-wing media, has quite the history of implicitly claiming a profile of virtue for Republicans by trying to assign a profile of evil to Democrats, even if they have to make up the bad things wholesale and are not at all consistent when it comes to the principles invoked. Their audience of "conservatives" tends to be much more likely to try to divide things and people up into good and evil, us versus them, rather than being as willing to deal with complexity.

Originally Posted by Warp12

It's not say that the messages are in good taste, or something I would personally do. But it is hardly shocking. Hell, even the guy who recently insulted Biden has received threatening messages.

And?

Originally Posted by Warp12

I mean, look around this forum. There are plenty of deplorable statements being made about GOP members, including wishing death upon them, right here. Including comments about their families, and wishing them harm. All is fair in that arena, as I see it. If that's the game people wish to play, I don't want to hear them cry about the results.

Ahh, the joys of group liability, where everyone you feel like is guilty and playing said game. Nevermind that it just isn't the same game in the first place.