The ‘whole’ of these places are not shit holes. Detroit is not completely shitty. And, a BIG And, the people are worthy. Trump is so ignorant that he wouldn’t know a worthy person if they were right in front of him. He is racist, bigoted and a pig, who had no respect for women, or people of color. Trump is the last name I would associate with honesty. If he told me it was raining I would look out the window before I got out my umbrella.
If I understand this question correctly, then no, it’s not an “all of the above kind of thing”. Reagan spoke about ‘80% friends’. I suspect there are not many people that subscribe to every single viewpoint that we label “liberal” in our political lexicon. If they’re at ~80+%, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call them “liberal” as a short-hand label, but it’s helpful to remember they may not endorse every single liberal position or policy. Same goes for “conservative”.
I was trying to find a diplomatic way to put this and probably did a bad job of it. I think liberals tend to emphasize race more than conservatives. Undoubtedly there are some conservatives that emphasize race as well, they’re just fewer and farther in between, at least in my experience.
Don’t you think there’s a societal advantage for conservatives (overwhelmingly white) not to view things racially, as compared to liberals (less overwhelmingly white)?
My personal analogy is that if Trump said water is wet, I’d check it first.
I’m not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by “societal advantage”?
Why would that matter?
The point was that Wolff got entry into the West Wing. As mentioned earlier, he was signed in most often by Steve Bannon, who no doubt had his own reasons for wanting Wolff reporting what was going on (a strategy that appears to have backfired; but of course that’s a separate thread). But Hicks seems to have been the first to contact him (Wolff).
What does it matter whether or not Trump liked the cover? It’s quite possible that Trump trusts Hicks’ judgment. She wrote an admiring email to Wolff and was glad to see him at the White House, and possibly that was good enough for Trump.
The one bet I’d gladly make, though, is that Trump never read the article. The fact that Hicks complimented Wolff argues strongly that she never read it, either.
White privilege. If they don’t acknowledge it, it’s easier to maintain it.
It only matters if you care to be accurate in what you post. I asked you for evidence to support your assertions, and you appear to have declined to provide any. You’ve been around here long enough to know what that means.
I don’t know. I don’t claim to be particularly well-informed about white privilege. On the surface, your last post sounds plausible.
Many parts of Appalacha and the Mississippi Delta have lower life expectancies than Nepal and Bangladesh (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-14/how-mississippi-is-worse-off-than-bangladeshsince our president seems to be intent on labeling places as shitholes, I guess he’d have to call parts of America shitholes. It might be better if we didn’t use shithole in our political discourse, but since Trump’s defenders are ok with his use of the term for other countries, I guess we’re obligated to use it for parts of America. It seems crazy for the president to say it and it seems crazier for Americans to defend him, but since they do, I guess it’s ok to point out that many Trump voters are from shitholes. I wish they where more like Norwegians.
I’d encourage you to reexamine this.
I would encourage you to re-examine your support for this unhinged president. In fact the post you quoted was just such an attempt.
LOL! No it wasn’t.
nm
I would encourage you to simply reconsider your strategy. Namely, you should:
- Call those regions “shitholes” whenever you wish.
- If anyone objects, claim you never said it.
- If they heard you say it, claim they are misrepresenting the words.
- If the representation is accurate, claim they are partisans who can’t be trusted.
- If they aren’t, say this is how real people talk anyway.
- Even if it isn’t, move on to bullshit strategy number 7, likely involving insults.
- (TBD)
I’ve been around here long enough to know how seriously to take your claim that I made “assertions” that require supportive evidence.
They don’t even like being called “flyover country”.
It’s somewhat off-topic (long-standing pattern rather than sudden worsening) but a video comparing the rhetorics of Donald Trump and Charles Manson may be of interest to arm-chair psychiatrists. The 9-minute video is somewhat tedious, but it does point out uncanny similarities between the styles and (unconscious?) rhetorical tricks of the two men.
I would refer anyone interested in pursuing the whole “remote diagnosis” issue (and indeed the nature of psychopathy) to Jon Ronson’s excellent book “The Psychopath Test”. Ronson does note that there is an overlap in personality traits between successful CEOs and sociopaths (which may explain any Trump v Manson similarities) but does not automatically jump to the obvious conclusion, and indeed questions the whole process of determining who is mad and who isn’t. Worth a read.
Which they actually complain about far more often than it actually happens, similar to Bush being accused of being a Nazi. This time around there are more people actually making the comparison and fewer people complaining about it, I guess because they don’t think the Nazis were all that bad.
It could be used as an impedes for more severe screenings or elected office.
People in the military or intelligence agencies have to undergo very intense background and medical screenings. Elected officials do not, part of that is because the founders assumed the public were wise enough to not pick someone dysfunctional.
But we the public are not. So we need to pass laws mandating full neurological and medical exams, full financial accountings, etc before someone can run for higher office.