No, not at all. What really is going on is that the establishment doesn’t want Trump in office. So the media and celebrities have engaged in an astonishing non-stop Trump bashing 24/7 since even before he won the election. They have sought to whip up every “minority group” into a frenzy, trying to get them thinking they are in danger and Trump and his supporters hate them. But there is no truth to this (aside from the fact that any sufficiently large group will have a small percentage of haters). Try this little exercise: resolve to dismiss any idea that “minority groups” are under attack for a few hours, and read about the real issues in such a mindset.
I’m glad you have explained “what’s really going on.” I thought we all hated Trump for our own reasons, but I see it’s not that simple.:rolleyes:
I am not a member of any minority group. I’m a rich older white guy. I’m not the “Establishment” (I think) but I don’t want Trump in office. He’s an incompetent ignorant asshole. I don’t want him sweeping my streets. He actually is doing bad things, but it’s not about that. Most Republicans would do things I don’t like. What makes Trump different is that he’s divisive and dangerous, and elevates the worst characteristics of humankind to the highest office in the land. He’s an embarssment of biblical proportions. The fact that anyone thinks it’s a good idea for him to be President boggles my mind. The fact that 10s of millions of Americans support him depresses me significantly.
You say this almost like you’re proud of it, but if I agreed with you that this is how America is, then my NUMBER ONE goal would be to do whatever I could to get America to be less disgustingly EVIL.
If I dismiss the idea that minorities are under attack, then spend a few hours reading about real issues, what do I do once I come to the logical conclusion that minorities are under attack through my research? Do I need to dismiss the idea again?
Simply a statement of fact. If you want to hate me for it, that’s your prerogative.
You said, and I quote, “Was CBF assaulted? She most definitely was.” I’m asking, if she was definitely assaulted, how is it that she’s wrong about it being Kavanaugh that assaulted her? Memory is, indeed, a funny thing and not rock solid believable, but, again, this isn’t a case where she was assaulted by a stranger and later thought she saw a guy that looked like him. She knew Kavanaugh before he assaulted her. She knew him after he assaulted her. At what point do you contend that this faulty memory took root? Was she not able to distinguish between Kavanaugh - who, again, she knew personally - and some other random rapist when she was invited into that bedroom? Or was it at some later point, when she’s sitting around, and is thinking, “Goshdarn it, who was that kid who committed a traumatic sexual assault against me in high school? Rhett? Jet? Amet? Brett? Probably Brett.”
And contrary to your movie quote, what you believe is exactly what I’m trying to understand. What you can prove doesn’t matter, because this case is never going to be tried before a court of law.
Trump supporters see the mainstream media and celebrities (except Kanye) as divisive and dangerous. We look at the ORIGINAL SOURCES OF INFO about topics and are astonished at the “Twilight Zone” spin the mainstream media puts on it to get people to hate Trump. I could see how someone who only watches cable news and/or late night comedy shows and/or celebrity social media could be living in a delusional world.
Can’t you just look at Trump and realize he’s an ignorant ass, without need to watch cable news or late night comedy? It’s not that complicated.
Please, give me one solid example of a story that happened one way (link the “ORIGINAL SOURCES OF INFO” please) and then link the “Twilight Zone” media spin.
Do you watch his entire speech (or read a transcript as I prefer), or just the soundbites cherry picked by the mainstream media/celebrities/late night “comedy” hosts?
I watch his entire speeches (or if I’m in a hurry I read the transcript). Now will you answer my question?
I’ve read his tweets. I’ve seen him debate in the primary and general elections, and I’ve watched enough of his speeches to form an opinion. I really can’t believe this is controversial; the guy is unhinged and deplorable.
Trump’s speech to the UN:
There was a brief moment of laughter in the beginning, and Trump wasn’t joking, and the media ran with “Trump is a laughingstock”. There is a short blurb in the link above before the transcript calling it "word salad’. But go ahead and actually read the full transcript of his speech. It isn’t word salad, and the place where the audience laughed is no big deal. And I happen to think his foreign policy decisions he talked about are significant steps in the right direction.
Seriously? First of all, the article you linked isn’t calling him a “laughingstock”, and I’d like a cite for that, because the “Mainstream Media” sources I’ve seen aren’t nearly that critical. The consensus seems to be that it was a rather uninspiring speech, but better than last year’s “Fire and Fury” Daenerys Targaryen cameo.
Also, the article does use the words “patriotic word salad”, and then proceeds to quote the part of Trump’s speech that the Vox writer considered to be a “word salad”:
Obviously “word salad” is a loaded and opinionated term. But the Trump quote doesn’t seem to mean much of anything – it’s just a series of vaguely patriotic terms. That’s what they mean by “word salad”. They could also have used a term like “empty platitudes” or “vaguely patriotic gestures”. Not seeing this as some Grand Conspiracy against Trump.
EDIT: And before you accuse me of being biased against Trump, his foreign policy is probably the one area where Trump hasn’t been THAT horrendous. I don’t agree with everything he did but there’s also some good there, unlike his social or fiscal policy. So his UN speech is where I’d be most likely to defend him.
Hi, late to the thread here and there’s much too much to respond to. But there’s one thing that’s really troubling me about the theories presented by senoy and sleestack on the difference between liberals and conservatives: couldn’t you use those models to form a pretty cogent defense of Osama bin Laden as a conservative?
Was he promoting traditional values? Yep.
Did he clearly value the community (ummah) over a broader more liberal notion of society? Yep.
Did his moral foundation encompass loyalty and authority? Yep and yep.
Was his way of life under threat? You betcha!
So, he was a disenfranchised conservative pushing back against against liberal society that couldn’t understand and refused to accept him, in a way consistent with his moral framework. Right?
No wonder Obama wanted him dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure, and, on top of all that, if he didn’t knock down the twin towers, he’d probably still be alive today.
I think most people hold beliefs that, if taken to radical extremes, could result in some pretty bad shit. That’s why extremism has kind of a bad connotation.
I think this is spot on. Democrats predictably lost strength in the South as a result of their support for for Civil Rights, but they were competitive in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Not anymore. As you adroitly point out, the Democrats took civil rights beyond boundaries that rural folks were comfortable with and people in rural white America perceived it as an attack on the social structure. Their getting into bed with corporate America didn’t necessarily help either.
On some level, I think rural Trump supporters understand that Trump is a deeply flawed person, but he’s forgiven because he’s doing things that ‘nicer’ conservatives wouldn’t have dared: he’s channeling their frustrations and there’s a certain level of catharsis that comes with that. It sometimes reminds me of how people where I grew up scream at the tops of their lungs when their favorite professional wrestler body slams or suplexes an opponent they can’t stand.
Umm… I think it’s obvious that bin Laden was a conservative in many senses.(If you’re trying to approximate a progressive-conservative divide in the Middle East. Their politics aren’t the same as ours. For instance, a Royalist in the UK would likely be on the conservative side of the spectrum, while a Royalist in Saudi Arabia might not… or they might be. Trying to push our political spectrum on Saudi Arabian politics is difficult. Bin Laden as an example was an environmentalist, maybe for its own sake and maybe because environmentalism would weaken the Saudi monarchy, who knows? He was also a wealth redistributionist, but not in favor of democracy, so liberal, but not classically liberal?)
Much of the global south though is ‘community’ in its social structure though. It’s one of the big differences between the industrialized west and the more agrarian south. We conceive of our social structures very differently and I think that that is one of the major issues that we have had there. We’re busy setting up ‘society’ style laws and systems and the global south largely doesn’t relate to social structures that way and rather than understanding how they do relate to social structures, we just think that if we set up the right ‘society’ things will fall into place and I think that is an error.
I don’t know what this means.
Was it really that extreme? His way of life was under threat. What was he going to do, write an op-ed for the New York Times? The liberals would never be able to understand his suffering because they lack the moral foundation. So he acted out of a cri de coeur. His methods were flawed, but what choice did he have?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I daresay part of that is your death grip on religion (likely the most divisive concept in history) but I’m not sure it’s a specifically American thing. If you took the population of Europe and said “okay, you’re all one country now”, I can imagine getting the same kind of internal antipathy.