In an effort to ease tension and reach a better understanding of positions between the Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump factions, I’m proposing we lay down our arms and try to find, if at all possible, some sort of common ground on whatever issues (no matter how small) the two sides can find agreement on.
The only thing I will ask of everyone choosing to participate is to keep hostilities and animosity at bay. Please try to go out of your way to understand the position of the other side through polite inquiry and response.
It’s not my intention to play junior mod or referee in this thread. This is simply in the interest of seeing if there is even any possibility for the two sides to agree on anything in this political climate.
While no subject of discussion is off the table, I’d like to begin with something relatively topical and invite responses from Pro-Trump supporters on the following:
I find it difficult to understand the position being offered by the White House and its officials that President Trump didn’t mean “wire tapping” when he accused the former administration of wire tapping. It seems to me that this kind of denial of what the president claimed can only be interpreted as gas-lighting. Can anyone offer me a plausible alternative narrative?
I don’t see how there can be any legitimate “common ground” when one side so blatantly and pervasively promotes and accepts gross distortions, outright fabrications, and baseless assertions, much less hypocritical interpretations of the past and present credibility of independent measurements of economic indicators strictly to favor purported “successes” that cannot plausibly be credited to the current administration. The accusation that the Obama administration surveilled communications in Trump Tower prior to the election–which, if true, should be readily demonstrated by the current administration–is not only gross libel but also serves to undermine public confidence in law enforcement agencies. I’ll point out that these are exactly the same tactics used by the Nazi propaganda machine to undermine the confidence by the German public in the institutions of the Weimar Republic and resulted in arms of the Nazi party taking over essential government functions, completely almost completely without regard to law or public interest.
This is not to overlook the normal hyperbolicism that is present in partisan politics. Trump critic Charles Schumer has been long noted for his drama queen proclamations of questionable veracity. But the actions by the Trump administration in promoting completely baseless conspiracy theories, totally unfounded complaints undermining confidence in democratic institutions (e.g. the alleged three to five million illegal voters), and the utter hypocrisy in championing the elimination of corrupting interests (“draining the swamp”) and the promotion economic and vocational well-being (claims of bringing back manufacturing jobs), then turning around and packing the cabinet-level positions with billionaire bankers, lobbyists, and people with deep financial and business conflicts.
Talking about a common ground or detente with such a deeply deceptive and divorced-from-reality movement is like playing three card monte with a street huckster writ large. Until one side makes the effort to police itself against its most extreme elements (particularly its most prominent leader) constantly and pervasively lying, there is no point in a supposed “honest dialogue”.
I am not a Trump supporter, but a plausible alternative narrative could be that the term “wire tap” is being used colloquially to refer to any type of data gathering on communications. In that sense, it could be construed to encompass NSA monitoring.
I’d guess that Trump’s penchant for off-the-cuff commentary is a product of him not having held any kind of previous public office and thus not developed the skills that professional politicians have (but often get criticized for, i.e. “everything he/she says is rehearsed and/or focus-grouped”) for making measured if annoyingly vague statements.
Regarding the “tapp” comment, I wouldn’t assume it was due to some kind of mental illness, but rather that it borrows from the well-established and clearly successful Limbaugh/Coulter model - say something zany. When called on it, ignore the calls and say something zanier. Like Limbaugh and Coulter, Trump has no obligation to explain himself, though it’s mildly amusing to watch the struggles of the underlings whose job is to explain the president. In Trump’s case, I’d ignore what he clearly wants the world to concentrate on and resume studying the various corruption and/or Russian influence issues, and the ongoing health care “repeal/replace” process, i.e. things that are actually important and will affect the lives of many Americans. It looks to me like a fairly crude form of misdirection, but it also looks to me like it works pretty well.
I can recall a time when I was much younger when I thought a successful businessman/industrialist would make a good president (I suppose I was thinking someone like Lee Iacocca), so maybe this was an experiment that was worth trying, once, though I’m sure there were many many better possible choices than Trump.
I don’t think I would have understood Trump’s tweet to be limited to the connecting a device to his telephone or telegraph lines to record activity. Much as the NSA “warrantless wiretapping” program (and controversy) likely was not limited to wire tapping. I have no trouble expanding it to include other forms of surveillance (particularly, when it was put into scare quotes).
The tougher explanation is the claim that Obama did the wiretapping. I don’t think he necessarily meant that Obama personally installed the communications monitoring device. But it’s a hard sell that it includes any action taken by the administration, whether or not Obama knew about it.
Ah, but, you see, Bryan Eckers, a Lee Iacocca type was a CEO who was accountable to a Board and to stockholders and creditors. Trump never felt accountable but to Trump.
And yes, their relationship to the truth looks like a form of gaslighting. They apparenly seek to make it so NOBODY can credibly say “that’s not what you said/what happened”, and everyone is in doubt as to whether they are remembering right, so whatever they say today can’t be disputed.
I voted for Trump and I can agree on Bone’s plausible alternative narrative. I think Falchion’s first paragraph explained it elegantly. His second paragraph offers a stickier point for people on “my side”.
This technique is actually used a lot in Russian politics. Say A. Deny saying A. Say A actually meant B. Deny you ever said B. Say A, again. Repeat.
It’s actually very clever and effective. As was, never speaking in complete sentences during the campaign. If your sentences are all open ended, no one is really certain if you meant this, or maybe that.
It’s all been very adroitly applied. By a master.
The issue, it seems to me, is why people don’t see through it. He’s about as clearly a slick profiteer as they come, and makes no apologies about it.
It’s like the guy has magic powers. He’s bullied contractors and refused to pay, gone bankrupt numerous times, yet people still line up to deal with him and work for him.
I wouldn’t trust the guy to watch my dog, so I’m left gobsmacked y’all gave him the big job. And it’s not like he didn’t show you who he was all along!
I submit it’s a two way street and that Stranger On A Train has some valid reasons for his position. Is there anything to what he said with which you can find agreement or at least understanding?
Okay. I’m willing to grant the possibility that the term “wire tapping”, as used by the president, included the various agencies and methods available to the US intelligence community to listen in on communications of US citizens and foreigners.
However, neither Spicer nor Conway, alluded to those methods, nor did they offer a the more nuanced alternative. They left it to people like you and I to try to infer what the president said and what they meant by their explanations of what he said. Do you see that as highly problematic and why Trump opponents are reluctant to grant them the benefit of the doubt in this case, and many like it?
I don’t think it’s that hard of a sell. Saying Obama did X or Bush did Y or Trump did Z is shorthand for their administration did something. It’s imprecise but plausible. Consider if the NSA was monitoring 80% of the communications including phone and internet (even if only metadata) coming from Trump Tower over the time period in question, would that satisfy the claim? I think it would.
At the risk of junior modding, we already have a thread on the wire tapping controversy. What I’d like to accomplish with this thread is to get the two sides to demonstrate the genuine capacity to view the other side’s position on the subject (and whatever other topics are raised).
I’m not buying the “Trump really meant Obama ADMINISTRATION” narrative that’s suddenly being crammed down our throats. If he had meant the Administration, he wouldn’t have called Obama a bad (or sick) guy. Or he would have at least used a plural pronoun.
i actually agree with most of what he says. i just find it tiresome that the trump deniers find it necessary to stand on their chairs and scream at the top of their lungs every time his name is mentioned. and the hillary and obama haters do the same thing. its not helpful or productive. i, like you, still have hopes that we can maybe talk to each other like, i dunno, people.
eta: and now i see that a few are actually trying discourse, maybe there is some hope.
Ok, sure. You kind of started off asking for a plausible explanation of the ‘wiretapping by Obama’ claim though. If there’s other points of contention you’re interested in plausible explanations for, I’m all ears.