But can the media ever get back to normal? I mean the "normal" of everything's abnormal with Trump in the White House.
Maybe the people don't want the President relentlessly kicked around when he might have something to do with helping all the people struggling in the wake of Hurricane Harvey? Maybe people won't tune in to hear descriptions of problems that don't show up in vivid pictures with crying mothers and soaking-wet puppy dogs. Maybe we won't sit still to hear about scary, burdensome problems that need to be described in complicated words and that can instantly evaporate if we just stop believing they exist.
I'm seeing signs that the answer to my question — will the news media ever find its way back to the hate-Trump story? — is no.
Sign #1. This is a story on the front page of nytimes.com: "Pumpkin Spice Glut Arrives Earlier Than Ever," by Tiffany Hsu:
Think Christmas creep, but orange: A slew of pumpkin-flavored products inspired by fall are turning up earlier each year, arriving in July and August as a harbinger of a season that this year doesn’t officially begin until Sept. 22.From bikinis to beanies... Is that the shift you make in the fall? Off with the bikini, on with the... beanie! We're not just into fashion. We're into tiny, cutesy fashion. Bikinis-n-beanies. Beanies! And the tiny, cutesy problem is: the return of pumpkin spice getting into everything.
And there are stirrings of a pumpkin spice pushback among many consumers who say they aren’t ready for a shift from bikinis to beanies.
Sign #2. The NYT has a story on how young people coming to New York City do not go to the traditional tourist attractions but to things they've seen as backdrops in other people's Instagram pictures. They want to Instagram from the same place, like these pink doors to the restaurant Sel Rrose and the candy display at Metrograph. The tiny, cutesy problem is that the kids only drop by to get a photograph and don't experience what the business is trying to sell, such as candy and other food.
Sign #3. Melania's shoes. "Melania Trump, Off to Texas, Finds Herself on Thin Heels" — that's the "most-viewed" story at the NYT right now. M's stiletto's symbolize where everyone wants to go if we ever wade out of that floodwater. It's on to fashion, fashion, fashion. What does it mean?! Well, isn't there some chance that the shoes are a bridge back from the flood to Trump-hating? She was so out of touch! What a symbol! She doesn't care! No empathy! Trump lacks empathy! He's rich and narcissistic and crazy as exemplified by the shoes on that wife he took to Texas. But I don't think that will get us back to good, old-fashioned Trump hating. I think it showed we were maxing out on trouble and ready to contemplate the familiar, miniature, lightweight-feminism problem of women's shoes:
Now, let's put on our sneakers 'n' beanies and sip on a Pumpkin Spice Java Chip Frappuccino and position ourselves in front of a pink door so the people of Instagram can know we are happy.
पोस्ट्स
२३५ टिप्पण्या:
235 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Attacking a woman over her shoe choice is a sign things are back to normal.
I think you're right.
Ann Althouse, "I'm seeing signs that the answer to my question — will the news media ever find its way back to the hate-Trump story? — is no."
Disagree. TDS is in their bones. It is who they are. The thought of impeachment is too tantalizing.
Melania Trump is amazingly agile on those spike heels. She's a supermodel, sure, but she makes it look easy, and I can't believe it is easy. I trip in bare feet on the way to the bathroom.
There are a few small signs the Dems are starting to recover from their nervous breakdown.
The biggest is the Dems led by Pelosi distances themselves from the AntiFa and BLM violent thugs. Of course the GOPe didn't get the email. So the GOPe is reduced to standing around with their cucks in their hands.
Sad. CNN had such a wonderful group of analysts trained in group chanting, " Kill the Trump." You couldn't find that kind of trained talent, at least since The Gong Show ended.
The thing about those shoes is that you have to look as though you're feeling comfortable and relaxed and you just carelessly slipped into them to go about your business. The only person who can look like that is someone whose business IS looking just like that. No one can wear those shoes and have the experience M can make you believe she is having. It's a lovely trick, like dancing and making it look easy.
"Disagree. TDS is in their bones. It is who they are. The thought of impeachment is too tantalizing."
I think they will TRY to find their way back, but they won't be able to reestablish what they had going. The break in the relentless drumbeat wrecked their game.
They will see where the ratings are and if people don't tune in for the overbearing Russia!!!! discussions, they won't be able to do it. They can't go back alone. They need the audience. I'm looking for signs that they are readjusting and looking for something new. My hypothesis is that they will never get back (not that they won't do some trying).
"No one can wear those shoes and have the experience M can make you believe she is having."
That plow horse Hillary sure couldn't.
For every person snarking about Melania's shoes, there are at least five thinking "OMG, She looks so good. How does she do it? I should wear heels more often. I want those heels. I have GOT to get a pair of those heels."
At LEAST five.
Suddenly, it's fall and everyone's into orange... and the President is orange! Just add cinnamon and nutmeg and cloves and everyone will love him.
"President is orange!"
Orange is the new black.
"Now, let's put on our sneakers 'n' beanies and sip on a Pumpkin Spice Java Chip Frappuccino and position ourselves in front of a pink door so the people of Instagram can know we are happy."
Just have to say that was a great line.
"The People of Instagram" are like the boys/girls in "Lord Of The Flies" if they lose their iPhones.
I am Laslo.
Pumpkin Spice Trump.
God, copyright that this instant.
"Maybe the people don't want" What do deplorable desires have to do with anything?
Anyway, "the people" are divided. A large segment has TDS, and the MSM will be happy to cater to them, even if some nicer people in Madison are sick and tired of the whole charade.
Appreciate your comments about Melania--her "trick" takes skill and grace.
I knew a millennial who lost his phone for three hours. He's already got a book deal.
Dream on, Trump will take us back...he just can't help himself...he's a classic martyr...blaming others and feeling sorry for himself
They sure let up on Reagan and Bush after a while.
sunsong said...
"Dream on, Trump will take us back...he just can't help himself...he's a classic martyr...blaming others and feeling sorry for himself"
You have detached yourself from your conscience.
Next week we'll be on to Irma which looks to be a monster.. If we want to pivot back to Trump eiter move fast or wait till October.
Media hysteria may also be reduced because they succeeded in removing Flynn, Bannon and Gorka. Ryan and McConnell have proven incompetent, unable to deliver on years of promises to end Obamacare. Plenty of DC Republicans happily joined media declaring Trump a racist. The swamp is winning, they can relax a bit.
"God, copyright that this instant."
I think there have been many pumpkin spice Trump jokes. Didn't that happen last year?
The "Get-Trump" crowd suffers from a mass psychosis. They still haven't reached "acceptance" on Kubler-Ross stages of grief. All those polls showed Hillary was gonna win, dammit!
So they're trying to drag everyone down. The Russian-collusion hoax story is slowly ending with a whimper, not a bang. Maybe, they'll nail Manafort for tax evasion, then lecture us that "No man is above the law."
Or maybe, the epic rains in Houston will wash away their fears and anxieties, caused by Trump's Twitter - who knows?
I shoulda studied psychology.....
That was some textbook projection by Sunsong.
Remember, if AntiFa beats up a cameraman, it's only because he's a Nazi. Sunsong assures us.
For example, last September: "Trump Launching New Pumpkin Spice Version of Himself to Woo White Women Voters."
And on November 1st:
Ways Trump is like a Pumpkin Spice Latte:
1. Orange-ish
2. Liked by too many white people
3. Will hopefully go away after November
Funny or Die, last September: "Theory: Trump Rising in the Polls Because Voters Think He’s Pumpkin Spiced." "With kids heading back to school and the first hints of an autumnal nip in the morning air, there is something about Trump’s rich cinnamon-orange skin, with its artificial hues of nutmeg, an ample yet airy frosting of whipped sugary golden-white strands sitting on top of it all, that just feels comfortable to certain folks as fall’s shorter, crisper days approach. It’s like a warm cup of cider. Or a comfy sweater. Or, yes, like delicious, delicious pumpkin spice. That’s right—Voters must think Donald Trump is pumpkin spiced."
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Suddenly, it's fall and everyone's into orange... and the President is orange! Just add cinnamon and nutmeg and cloves and everyone will love him.
I can definitely picture the Trump face that the barista will create with the froth.
"But can the media ever get back to normal?"
If the fNYT isn't covering this story: "Kill all white people", then it's back to normal.
sunsong,
In what other ways does Donald Trump control your emotions?
When, precisely, did you lose your agency?
@ BayAreaGuy "The Russian-collusion hoax story is slowly ending with a whimper, not a bang."
I'm not sure where you get that information from. I mean, you may be right, but I certainly haven't read anything that would suggest that. Everything I read and hear suggests that Mueller is moving ahead with his investigation, steadily, carefully, but not particularly slowly. In other words, he is not behaving in a manner that would suggest he found nothing.
May I ask you: if it were true that Trump colluded with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?
I can't warm up to Melania. She very accomplished and good looking but it's more like she's in a different dimension than at a higher level. I've never known anyone like Melania.
The media needed the break, Trump was winning the both sides argument.
After sunsong punches Jenny, he blames that son of a hitch Johnson and war.
May I ask you: if it were true that Trump colluded with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?
May I ask you: if it were true that Trump did not collude with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?
History started yesterday.
The democrats go right back to disobeying federal law.
It has been not so long since we had to send the national guard in to slap around a bunch of racist democrats operating an illegal plantation and taking advantage of poor minorities.
But history started yesterday. Or this morning...
It seems like yesterday they were calling Bush Chimpy McHitler.
Ann Althouse said...
"God, copyright that this instant."
I think there have been many pumpkin spice Trump jokes. Didn't that happen last year?
That would be Trumpkin Spice.
I mean, you may be right, but I certainly haven't read anything that would suggest that.
Undoubtedly true. I'm pretty sure you strictly limit your media intake to sources you can trust to not bother you with inconvenient facts.
Conservatives try to do that too, but we can't tune out the onslaught of liberal media.
"Trump is insane, he's working for the Russians, he's got his finger on the button, he's a racist...can the media ever get back to normal? I mean the "normal" of everything's abnormal with Trump in the White House."
Professor Althouse, in a recent comment responding to something I wrote, you explained that you are fascinated / interested (I can't remember the exact words you used) by Trump because he represents something so new: a new way of communicating, a new approach to the Presidency.
In this post (and many others) however, you imply that seeing Trump as something new i.e. not normal is somehow barking up the wrong tree. Your point here seems to be that the news media and various thinkers and commentators who insist on describing Trump as "abnormal" are getting him wrong (the implication is they are getting it wrong deliberately, because they don't like him).
Could you explain that some more? It's really interesting!
(By the way, you write that list at the top of the post as if it's a ridiculous list. But for me only the first post "he's insane" is ridiculous. Like many observers, I think there's a good chance that he's at least in some way involved with the Russians, as President who threatens "fire and fury" he certainly does have his finger on the button, and I have no problem describing him as racist.)
Colluded with Russian intelligence to release an accurate story about Democrats?
It would certainly lower my opinion of the media even more. Why should I hold telling the truth against him?
At 7pm EDT last night I flipped through the channels, Fox: Harvey; CNN: Harvey; MSNBC: Russia - Putin admits Trump asked for help.
When I see the first piece of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia that goes beyond innuendo and sniping from un-named Obama holdovers who have created a movement to destroy his presidency, my opinion of him will change. That's how rational people respond to new information.
My guess is that when nothing is found, you will kerp griping about a cover-up.
And from the NY Post: Mueller reportedly teams up with Schneiderman in Manafort probe. Story also in Politico and HuffPost.
KittyM has moved the goalposts so that basically any business dealings with Russia would vindicate her.
Someone should tell her that we are not, and don't want to be at war with Russia.
”Pope Francis, who has a strong belief in the science of climate change, called upon world leaders on Wednesday to "listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer most because of the unbalanced ecology." “
“…"There has never been so much turmoil on our planet, but there has never been greater opportunity for communication, cooperation and dialogue. Basic human rights such as access to water, clean air and sufficient food should be available to everyone without distinction or discrimination. We are convinced that we cannot separate our concern for human dignity, human rights or social justice from the concern for ecological preservation and sustainability."…”
Pope Francis
Ehh, Twitter still full of Nevertrump wishcasting...pssst! word is he'll be out in a month! Ahh!
What's your evidence that he is a racist?
Blogger KittyM said...
@ BayAreaGuy "The Russian-collusion hoax story is slowly ending with a whimper, not a bang."
I'm not sure where you get that information from. I mean, you may be right, but I certainly haven't read anything that would suggest that. Everything I read and hear suggests that Mueller is moving ahead with his investigation, steadily, carefully, but not particularly slowly. In other words, he is not behaving in a manner that would suggest he found nothing.
The Catholic Church and its popes have a great record in the area of scientific controversy, Sunsong might add.
I am not sure that reporting on Trump tweets and replaying extensive video of his rallies as well as covering the Russia investigation, the pardon is a sign of hate so much as an attempt to keep some balance against the spin and fake news of the WH. I admit the high heel story is hardly news that needs repeating about the gilded gold world of Trump and number three, and best be left to the National Inquirer.
@KittyM asks: "May I ask you: if it were true that Trump colluded with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?"
What a silly hypothetical question! Why on earth would you care what my opinion is?
But I will answer. The problem is with your use of the term "colluded". It is ambiguous.
You want it to mean "did something illegal"
So, Yes, if Trump "did something illegal" with Russia to alter the election results, it would negatively effect my opinion of him. I am generally against law breaking.
If only we could discover what the "something" was.
KittyM said...
@ BayAreaGuy "The Russian-collusion hoax story is slowly ending with a whimper, not a bang."
I'm not sure where you get that information from. I mean, you may be right, but I certainly haven't read anything that would suggest that. Everything I read and hear suggests that Mueller is moving ahead with his investigation, steadily, carefully, but not particularly slowly. In other words, he is not behaving in a manner that would suggest he found nothing.
Before when they had something they thought would hurt trump it took less than a day for it to leak.
What changed between then and now?
The fact that the DNC hack has been conclusively shown to be an inside job and the whole investigation is based on a lie?
If they talk about it more ignorant tools like you will learn the truth and be subject to even more cognitive dissonance.
May I ask you: if it were true that Trump colluded with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?
How did he collude? What benefit did he gain? How did it hurt the country? These are questions I as a thinking person would ask.
After you found out Hillary sold north American uranium to Russia for donations to the Clinton foundation and the democrat party lied to you and rigged their primary would it affect what you think?
@tcrosse "May I ask you: if it were true that Trump did not collude with Russia, would it affect your opinion of him?"
I asked first! Just joking - happy to answer...
I don't like Trump as president for a lot of reasons, so in that sense, no, it wouldn't. I would still be critical of his Charlottesville response, for example, which had nothing to do with Russia, I would still be very worried about his nearness to the alt-right, I would still believe that he wants to cut taxes for the rich and would still not be convinced that he cares about the lower middle class. I would still find him "unpresidential" - I don't like the aggressive tweeting, for example, because it seems undignified and not fitting to the office. I don't like it when the head of state attacks the press and the judiciary and all that would still be true without anything to do with Russia.
But I would definitely have to admit that I had been wrong, because I am very convinced that he had inappropriate dealings with the Russian government. So it would affect my sense of *myself* and my judgement, rather than my idea of him.
I suppose the difference between my question and yours, though they seem the same, is that I don't like Trump as president for lots of reasons, so if one reason "disappears", it still leaves all those other things I don't like about him.
Whereas for some commenters here who do like Trump as president, it is because (as I have understood it) they think he is a great guy, honest, straight-talking etc etc. So if Russia is true, that is (possibly) a big change to their picture of him.
I get the sense though, that many of his supporters here are "all in". That there is nothing that Trump could do or say that would rattle their conviction that he is a good thing for the country.
For me, that conviction is fascinating. I have never ever had that feeling for any politician or statesman or woman. There are people in politics I admire, think are doing a good job, etc. But nobody for whom I experience such extreme support. Anyone I like I could discuss with others, and if they told me something negative about that person, it would affect my view (though I might think something like, "Well that's awful, but I still think looking at the bigger picture, I support him or her").
The passion - or wholehearted support - for Trump in these comments is therefore quite amazing to me and really interesting.
"There has never been so much turmoil on our planet."
Popes are infallible. WWI, WWII, Seven Years War, nothing but bug tussles compared to today!
Scott Adams says it's mass hysteria and the bubbles always burst.
Althouse @7:58
You could be correct. My concern is that the TDS drumbeat the first 8 months was cumulative and if the Dems nominate Howard "Blank Slate" Schultz, they have a real chance. The Starbucks guy vs. Pumpkin Spice Trump. I'm not kidding. Howard would be the perfect candidate.
@Achilles "Before when they had something they thought would hurt trump it took less than a day for it to leak...What changed between then and now?"
To my outsider's eyes, it seemed to change when Mueller came on board. He seemed to be very professional and shut down the leaks.
"After you found out Hillary sold north American uranium to Russia for donations to the Clinton foundation and the democrat party lied to you and rigged their primary would it affect what you think?"
There are two points here:
I am one of those people who think that the uranium thing is nonsense. So that is not a good example.
But I *do* think the primary was rigged, or at least something not straight went on behind the scenes and it VERY MUCH affects the way I think of the party. Absolutely.
Let me give you another example. I thought the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky thing was blown up out of all proportion. But at the same time, he was a total sleeze. And the Rich pardoning was unforgivable. Totally awful and corrupt. And it affected very much what I thought of the Clintons.
My Facebook feed is packed with the usual Trump hysteria, now it is photos of the other much better presidents (including Bush!), hugging flood victims and Trump giving a Nazi salute. They are loathe to give up their impeachment dreams but I hope the Althouse analysis is correct.
I need some new friends.
@ BayAreaGuy "What a silly hypothetical question! Why on earth would you care what my opinion is?"
I am interested in the conversation here and in understanding other viewpoints, that's all. Thanks for your answer.
I get the sense though, that many of his supporters here are "all in". That there is nothing that Trump could do or say that would rattle their conviction that he is a good thing for the country.
It's always about the certain knowledge of the things we deplorables are secretly thinking with liberals.
You admit yourself that the only "evidence " you have is how a Democrat donor, the prosecutor, is acting.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A grand jury used by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has heard secret testimony from a Russian-American lobbyist who attended a June 2016 meeting with President Donald Trump’s eldest son, The Associated Press has learned.
The Press has not quit reporting on the Trump Russia story. To think so is wishful thinking.
sunsong said...
”Pope Francis, who has a strong belief in the science of climate change, called upon world leaders on Wednesday to "listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer most because of the unbalanced ecology." “
A bunch of stupid crap spewed by leftists so they can justify taking peoples money and controlling their lives.
“…"There has never been so much turmoil on our planet, but there has never been greater opportunity for communication, cooperation and dialogue. Basic human rights such as access to water, clean air and sufficient food should be available to everyone without distinction or discrimination. We are convinced that we cannot separate our concern for human dignity, human rights or social justice from the concern for ecological preservation and sustainability."…”
Pope Francis
More leftist boilerplate designed to turn the people they disagree with into slaves. Everywhere you people go spewing this garbage you leave death and misery behind you.
You merely pretend to care. If you actually cared you would see that free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and socialists like the pope just push them right back down. Over 100 million people are dead because of socialism and government sponsored murder.
Looks like Fox news is still hating on Trump and had the nerve to publish the findings.
Fox News Poll: Voters' mood sours, 56 percent say Trump tearing country apart.
You talk like Trump isn't an eager, willing, and equal partner in this mutually abusive relationship.
I think they will TRY to find their way back, but they won't be able to reestablish what they had going
sunsong is the perfect example of this. BTW, when did sunsong transition from a young African American female to an elderly white person?
To my outsider's eyes, it seemed to change when Mueller came on board. He seemed to be very professional and shut down the leaks.
How long did it take for the grand jury enpanelment take to leak? Totally profesional.
Also Inga just demonstrated above there are leaks still going on and the only goal is to hurt trump. So again you are completely wrong.
And you still won't deal with the core issue that the whole investigation is based on a lie. The DNC hack was an inside job. The thing trump supposedly colluded with Russia about is a fiction.
I am one of those people who think that the uranium thing is nonsense. So that is not a good example.
No wonder you are worried that strong and well documented evidence of collusion with Russia won't change any minds! Hillary taking tens of millions of dollars from Russia and then doing Putin a solid on the Uranium One deal means nothing to you!
How would you feel about a righty saying, after, hypothetically, as well documented a case of money changing hands, and official positions being used to do favors for the givers of said money came out against Trump, as well documented as the evidence against Hillary on Russia and the Uranium One deal, I mean, and the Trumpist said "The Russian thing is nonsense"?
You guys have zero self awareness. If you could hear yourself the way others do, you would be embarrassed.
It appears that the anti-Trump stories are not going away anytime soon. There's just too much to report and the rest of the nation wants to know about it.
Trump makes policy pledge to senator investigating son's Russia meeting. President promises federal support for ethanol to industry backer Chuck Grassley a day after reports that Trump Jr will meet with Grassley’s committee.
Unknown said...
"Looks like Fox news is still hating on Trump and had the nerve to publish the findings.
Fox News Poll: Voters' mood sours, 56 percent say Trump tearing country apart."
Trump has no path to 270. Stupid is as stupid posts.
@tim in vermont "It's always about the certain knowledge of the things we deplorables are secretly thinking with liberals."
I hope this is not too annoying but I honestly don't understand your point, especially in answer to what I was saying. I was simply honestly pointing out something I have noticed here: that many of the commenters are very passionate supporters of Trump, much beyond what I personally have ever felt for a politician.
Can you explain what you mean?
I thought one of the signs tending to support the theory that our culture has decayed is that no one dresses up to fly anymore. WE schlep onto the plane in our raggedy clothes as if we'd just finished cleaning out the garage. So when I first saw the picture, I thought, oh look, Melania dresses up to fly, kudos to her. but I guess not, I guess she was ignorant of how to do things or maybe she doesn't know that looking so glamorous makes the rest of us feel (and act) even more grubby than usual. Maybe if she went by Melanie, she'd be more of a slob.
ou talk like Trump isn't an eager, willing, and equal partner in this mutually abusive relationship.
Trump is taking on the fight. You act like the press hasn't been actively attacking his presidency since before the inauguration. Good.
What's "tearing the nation apart" is one side refusing the accept the result of a free and fair election.
@tim in vermont
Yeah, I was worried the conversation would get derailed when I mentioned that! Shall I try and find a link to something that explains why I think the Russian-Uranium thing is nonsense?
But - my key point is about trying to understand what - if anything - it would take to shift opinions on Trump amongst the very vocal and loyal supporters here. As I said, this kind of loyalty is not at all my thing.
I can put it simply - if the uranium thing was real, it would *totally* affect my judgement of Hillary (and actually I am very critical of both her and Sanders.)
"I am one of those people who think that the uranium thing is nonsense. So that is not a good example."
That just makes you ridiculous.
"I thought the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky thing was blown up out of all proportion."
Sure.
But the fact that he lied in a deposition in a case where he was credibly accused of rape and paid a very large settlement admitting culpability was not.
The only place that I saw any stories about Melania Trump's heels has been Fox News. And of course Fox has been beating the story to death, in a reversal play. For Fox, the big story is that anyone in media ever mentioned the shoes to begin with.
I'd actually like to read a story about this story. Exactly who was it, who first objected to Melania's heels? Which edited news stories highlighted the fashion issue? Which news outlets ran it as a real story?
I am certain that there were some. But what exactly are we talking about here?
I just checked. The New York Times did a story -- a careful, nuanced story -- as a Fashion section story. Vanity Fair did a story. VF hates Trump; Trump hates them. Vogue and some other fashion mags did stories. There were the predictable Tweets. Trevor Noah did a humor story about them, and then concluded, "But who cares, really?"
Indeed, for the cable news world, the one network that has gone out of its way to do the story up is Fox, with the aforementioned motive.
Oh here's another story, quite an important one at that. Looks like Trump can pardon all he wants, but he won't escape the States' prosecutions. Yes, I think the negative Trump stories are still going to be reported on bigly.
Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe. The cooperation is the latest sign that the investigation into Trump's former campaign chairman is intensifying.
@tim in vermont
This is not to try to change your mind, but just so you understand where I am coming from - here are some facts about the accusation that Hillary sold uranium (in a corrupt or worrying way).
"But the claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on.
PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year when Trump first made it on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:
The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.
The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.
President Obama, not Secretary Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.
Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium out of the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.
Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”
Even the Congress is still reporting their negative Trump interactions.
GOP lawmaker: Trump can't bully senators, 'this isn't the Apprentice'.
Can you explain what you mean?
It seems to me that you are more worried about what we Trump supporters are secretly thinking, than about the current facts in play. You seem to be worried that we will all say, if somehow presented with evidence that we don't know about, "I think the whole Trump/Russia thing is a lot of nonsense."
I support Trump on the Russian thing because I had a long career in network technology, and so I followed the stories closely as they first began to break. It quickly became apparent, and nothing new has shown up to change my mind, that the stuff was nonsense whipped up about either deliberate misunderstandings of technology, or by people who simply didn't understand it, and ran with their fears and prejudice.
If I see the first piece of real evidence, I will change my mind. You seem to think that there already is the kind of evidence that has been developed against Hillary on, not just the email debacle, but on her taking tens of millions of dollars from Putin's cronies and doing him favors. That evidence does not exist. When it does, we can talk.
Since you say that the Uranium One talk is a bunch of "nonsense," does that mean you think that she didn't really take the millions? What about the Clinton character would make you doubt it in the first place?
I dress up to fly! At LEAST business casual!
If you wear your good clothes on the plane, then even if your luggage is lost, you have your good set of clothes.
Plus, I think you get treated better if you are well-dressed. And a blazer/sports jacket/suit jacket comes in mighty handy at those high altitudes when the plane gets chilly.
The funny thing about the shoe issue is that Melania was wearing sensible sneakers when she got off the plane in Texas - making this, I think, even more of a non-story than it seemed to be at first. I assume that the Melania wrong-shoe story is a sign that the media is going to double down on the Trumpsteria. How ridiculous is it for any paper that considers itself a serious news outlet to waste space on one woman's shoes?
After Pelosi's commentary on the Berkeley marauders, it will be harder, but they never give up. They will just take a slightly different path toward their goal - convincing their readers that Trump's election is a wrong that must be corrected.
If GDP were not rising, they could write about that. The problem for the NYT is that generally speaking, the actual news cycle is still quite favorable to Donald the Menace, so they are trying to avoid the actual news and concentrate on the "meta-news".
With the big banks heavily supporting the Trumpian drive to tax reform, it is likely that both the Dems and the Reps in Congress will pass something. The NYT and their assembled circus of cretins is frantically searching for a meme or memes that will counterbalance the epic tragedy (from their POV) of going into the 2018 election cycle with a significantly improved economy and some Trump-driven progress on issues about which the Average Joe has been and will be concerned (ISIS, Islamic terrorism, out-of-control illegal immigration, violence on the streets).
he headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Oh no, another negative anti Trump story. I don't see these hatin' on Trump stories vanishing from the news anytime soon.
Poll: Most Oppose Trump’s Pardon for Ex-Sheriff Arpaio, Booting ‘Dreamers’
@Achilles I'm just trying to make an incredibly simple point: that I have never had a feeling for any politician in the same way that many commenters here have for Trump.
I was not defening Clinton. On the contrary, I was using him as an easy example of a politician who made a lot of police decisions I liked and yet whose behaviour and other decisions I often didn't like or disapproved of.
In other, even simpler, words: I was capable of being angry at the Republicans at the time of going after Clinton in a way that I thought was unfair BUT nonetheless, when it turned out Clinton had lied and had had an affair with an intern, I was deeply disappointed and it *did* affect my judgement of him.
So I am wondering if something similar could affect the opinion of the Trump supporters here. Whether in the same way I didn't like that special prosecutor (what was his name again?) but still was affected by his findings, some commenters here could not like Mueller but could be affected by his findings (if he finds any!).
Or not.
Please can you try and respond to the main point of I am writing, rather than veering off on some tangent? Thanks!
BREAKING NEWS: No one gives a shit about Melania's shoes.
PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year
HA HA HA HA HA! Did they talk about the millions of dollars? There's more mention of money if you can bring yourself to read the New York Times. Or was that out of scope because Trump didn't mention it? Trump was obviously referring the the NYT article I cited above, so maybe they should have fact checked it!
@tim in vermont "It seems to me that you are more worried about what we Trump supporters are secretly thinking, than about the current facts in play."
Oh I see! No, I'm not "worried" about what you are "secretly thinking". I am curious and interested in the very open and honestly expressed strong loyalty to Trump here which is in stark contrast to many other Americans.
Because I don't like him as president, I am fascinated by those who do.
Chuck, you might check out Politico and Washington Post -- they also had a fair amount to say about Melania's heels, none of it either relevant or flattering.
In fact, Ann specifically referenced the Politico story: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/08/shoe-shaming.html
"Because I don't like him as president, I am fascinated by those who do."
Kind of like being fascinated by a train/car collision.
So I am wondering if something similar could affect the opinion of the Trump supporters here.
Yes. If such evidence were to come to light, which, based on what we have seen to date, I strongly doubt, it would change the opinions of many Trump supporters. Unlike your opinion of Hillary despite the massive evidence of wrongdoing.
What you are really afraid of is that we will react like you did.
Obama corrupted the IRS and used it to go after his enemies. There is ample evidence. Didn't change your opinion, did it? Republicans are not like Democrats. Republicans went to the White House and told Nixon he had to resign. Democrats lie and obfuscated for Obama, and that never changed your opinion. You can't even hear the evidence. It runs off your brain like water off of a duck's back
Because I don't like him as president, I am fascinated by those who do.
I admit I was sort of fascinated how Democrats could convince themselves that half of America didn't hate the Clintons, and for solid reasons.
You don't like him because you wanted that corrupt pair back in the White House and you can't get over the hurt that they are not. Every day Trump is in office he does something I like. He is not Hillary.
"So I am wondering if something similar could affect the opinion of the Trump supporters here."
----------
"Yes. If such evidence were to come to light, which, based on what we have seen to date, I strongly doubt, it would change the opinions of many Trump supporters. Unlike your opinion of Hillary despite the massive evidence of wrongdoing."
-----------
No, it wouldn't. They would create some conspiracy theory/fantasy that would explain it in their fevered minds.
@tim in vermont "Unlike your opinion of Hillary despite the massive evidence of wrongdoing."
No! That is the exact opposite of what I am saying, Man, this is frustrating!
I am saying that I have never felt the kind of loyalty to a politician that you feel for Trump. Never. I admire it, in a way, and I'm also frightened of it.
I am saying that I *did* change my views over the years of a variety of politicians because of new information that came out. And also, I just never had that very strong loyalty in the first place.
I have always voted for "the least bad" option as I saw it. I was never particularly surprised by bad behaviour.
Until you guys offer something better, all you are doing is trying to keep the country from running.
Oh Lordy! Stop all the negative Trump stories, we don't want to make Eric Trump depressed enough to kill himself! Sheesh!
Eric Trump: Negative media could make you kill yourself out of depression.
KittyM is fascinated and completely unwilling to learn.
That right there is the best type of fascinated.
@tim in vermont "You don't like him because you wanted that corrupt pair back in the White House and you can't get over the hurt that they are not."
I honestly promise you that this is NOT the reason I don't like him. Honestly. Honestly.
I did give a short list above of why I don't like him as president. Here are some reasons: I don't find him "presidential" or dignified and that is a quality that for me personally is important in a president. I don't like his open disloyal to his staff, as when he criticised Sessions on twitter. I find that unseemly, again, in particular for a president.
I don't think he is very knowledgeable or curious about the world and that this is a bad thing for a leader of a powerful country.
I don't think he has much self-control and it means that there is a lot of political drama. I don't like that; I like my statement and women to exude calm and control both nationally and internationally.
I don't like his closeness, as I perceive it, to the extreme right-wing which I find worrying. I think he is pretty racist; at the very least he has a lot of racist friends and supporters.
I like politicians who reach out to everyone when they are elected; but Trump remained very adversarial, as I perceived it, even after the inauguration.
So. These are things that I really don't like about Trump. They have nothing to do with Hillary, who as far as I'm concerned was a terrible candidate from the get-go and is now yesterday's news.
@tim in vermont "Until you guys offer something better, all you are doing is trying to keep the country from running."
I'm not trying to do anything. I am just chatting on this comment section and asking questions to expand my view of what people think about our president.
That is the exact opposite of what I am saying, Man, this is frustrating!
"I think the Russia uranium thing was a lot of nonsense."
No, it wouldn't. They would create some conspiracy theory/fantasy that would explain it in their fevered minds.
You mean like how we lost the election because Russians!
I guess that meme needs to be updated. We were always at war with Ociania.
@Birkel "KittyM is fascinated and completely unwilling to learn."
I am learning what you guys think. That is enough for me.
"I'm not trying to do anything. I am just chatting on this comment section and asking questions to expand my view of what people think about our president."
That bothers Timmy to no end. He just "knows" that you're here to mess with his mind.
KittyM: "
I am saying that I have never felt the kind of loyalty to a politician that you feel for Trump."
Mind reading is easy when you're a Leftist Collectivist.
KittyM: "...behaviour..."
As a Brit, why do you care so much about American politics?
I don't think he is very knowledgeable or curious about the world and that this is a bad thing for a leader of a powerful country.
Not like Obama, ,who left these here 57 states behind on the Intercontinental Railroad and learned hisself that they speak Austrian in Austria, and found out about the army of "corpsemen" you know, zombies, that he wasn't supposed to tell anybody about. I could go on BTW. I could forgive all of those stupid things, except that we were constantly reminded that he went to Harvard. Have you ever met anybody who went to Harvard? They don't make stupid mistakes like that.
You act like the press hasn't been actively attacking his presidency since before the inauguration.
Trump and the press are frenemies.
"No one can wear those shoes and have the experience M can make you believe she is having. It's a lovely trick, like dancing and making it look easy."
My partner and I talked about the shoes. Her response was that it is easy, if you are, like she was, both a dancer and a model. She had problems with her legs being crooked when she was little, so the doctors put braces on them. Wasn't working, so her mother, a dance instructor and choreographer, took them off, and put her in toe shoes at maybe 3-4. By the time she was modeling in college, walking on her toes was second nature. That is how a woman can wear heels like that, while walking across grass - treat them like toe shoes. Easy peasy - after thousands of hours of dance and modeling. I should add that the modeling training is apparently much easier if you have a lot of dance first.
No, you're not learning at all. You're projecting and not thinking about any answers anybody gives. That's ok except you then try to lie to other readers. Stop lying would be a good first effort.
That's why all you or UnknownInga64 can ever have from me is mockery with a tiny dose of disdain.
The over/under on this comment thread is now at 163.
Bruce Hayden introduces a magnificent "humble brag" into the conversation.
:-)
Your better half sounds lovely every time you write of her. It's endearing to me to read what you write about her. Congrats!
That bothers Timmy to no end. He just "knows" that you're here to mess with his mind
See KittyM, your friend here knows what we are all secretly thinking. I don't bother arguing with him because he let it be known a while back that he is only here to disrupt, and never to engage. Maybe you really are trying to understand, but I don't think you are trying very hard.
Maybe you could explain to me why you think that opposition to illegal immigration is opposition to all immigrants, or you could explain to me Trumps's position on immigration, as honestly as you can, and we could discuss that.
But no, you just want to throw the Molotov cocktail of crying racist, to make sure the discussion never happens.
That's why I don't believe you want to know what we think any more than that troll does. He is here to keep you on the reservation. We just find him oddly entertaining, you know, like a drunken clown trying to remember when he's car is. It shouldn't be funny, but it is.
"No, you're not learning at all. You're projecting and not thinking about any answers anybody gives. That's ok except you then try to lie to other readers. Stop lying would be a good first effort.
That's why all you or UnknownInga64 can ever have from me is mockery with a tiny dose of disdain."
Hahahahaha! You don't realize that the entire world is mocking you Trump voters.
Maybe "corpse man" is a loan word from the Austrian, that we ignoramuses what ever went to Harvard just didn't know.
I am learning what you guys think.
No, you are reinforcing your prejudices. You don't have enough respect for facts to learn.
@tim in vermont "I don't think he is very knowledgeable or curious about the world and that this is a bad thing for a leader of a powerful country." "Not like Obama, who..."
This. This I will never understand. How can my (negative or positive) opinions of Trump be affected by what Obama was like (negative or positive)?
How is that possibly relevant to my judgement of Trump as president? How can a person think that way? Am I meant to think, "I find Trump ignorant - but Obama was more ignorant, so I will stop thinking Trump is ignorant"?
My mind just doesn't work that way. I have an opinion on Trump, an opinion on Obama, on Merkel, on Thatcher, on Bush Jr etc etc, independent of each other.
I just don't get that argument or point you are making at all!
When Michael Moore proves correct and Trump is reelected in 2020, I wonder if the "entire world" will continue to mock Trump voters.
Seems unlikely.
KittyM is Jane Goodall.
Jane Goodall: also British.
This focus of opinion towards a *man* is an error.
A common and understandable error, but this can be resolved with some contemplation.
Politicians, even such a uniquely independent person as Trump, are better seen as expressions of larger forces. They make useful symbols, but this is a very human shortcut for referring to a more complete world view. It is a human failing to mistake symbols for substance, though sometimes this is deliberate.
Most attacks on Trump are really directed against the people who sympathize with him. It is an excuse to berate the other tribe - which does come out openly quite often as well, but Trump is a handier symbol and more deniable should that be required.
Similarly hatred for Clinton and Obama was nearly entirely meant for the institutions and populations they symbolized. Obama for instance was an almost perfect representation of the bureaucratic-corporatist system. I also dont discount Obamas racial symbolism in generating opposition, and this too worked on several levels. People are complex and never entirely ethical.
Clinton-hate with respect to his sex scandal for instance was driven less by his behavior on its own, Clinton being well known for what he is, but as a symbol of the hypocritical impunity of the institutions he represented, which are happy to hammer the commoners for faults the masters are content excuse in each other.
@John Nowak "No, you are reinforcing your prejudices. You don't have enough respect for facts to learn."
How is taking part in online debate on a forum where most people have very different political views to my own "reinforcing my prejudices"?
Isn't that the exact opposite of "reinforcing my prejudices"?
How is asking questions of my fellow commenters in a respectful manner "not having enough respect for facts to learn"? How in your opinion should I show more respect? I try to be polite, thoughtful and articulate. I try to quote peoples exact words and explain what I disagree with, but in a friendly manner. What more can I do to show you I am open to your views?
KittyM
I believe I have offered before to argue your side of some issue if you will attempt to honestly argue mine. Give it a shot. Name the issue.
@ Bickel "No, you're not learning at all. You're projecting and not thinking about any answers anybody gives. That's ok except you then try to lie to other readers. Stop lying would be a good first effort."
How on earth am I lying to other readers????
How is that possibly relevant to my judgement of Trump as president? How can a person think that way? Am I meant to think, "I find Trump ignorant - but Obama was more ignorant, so I will stop thinking Trump is ignorant"?
OK, let me ask it in a different way.
How were you able to overlook Obama's ignorance and see ignorance everywhere in Trump?
Perhaps it's not the "ignorance" or "incuriousness" of Trump that bothers you. It just looks like a weapon you can throw at him. Just like you thought that Hillary taking millions of dollars from Putin cronies was unimportant, even if she did then advance Putin's strategic position in the world after taking it. Though the money was careful to flow progressively as the deal progressed.
Why does one candidate's dalliances, proven, BTW, with the Russians not bother you, but the other's bothers you to no end?
I don't think you are being honest with yourself, and that's why you can't understand.
Ah Kitty, they don't respect you because you are respectful. You're trying so hard, a valiant effort, but one that won't bare fruit. This is barren ground.
KittyM, believe I have offered before to argue your side of some issue if you will attempt to honestly argue mine. Give it a shot. Name the issue.
She won't do what she can't do.
"How were you able to overlook Obama's ignorance and see ignorance everywhere in Trump?"
Have you been locked on a mental ward for the last seven months? LOL!
h Kitty, they don't respect you because you are respectful. You're trying so hard, a valiant effort, but one that won't bare fruit. This is barren ground.
And the mindguard weighs in. I told you he was here to keep you on the reservation. You are showing genuine interest in the other side's arguments. Can't have that! Right Unknown?
But tim in vermont, KittyM is trying to learn and surely taking the other side in an argument is the best way to understand how the other side feels.
Of course she will try. After all, she's not lying to other readers about her motivations. Can't a Brit catch a break while she's trying to understand American conservatives? Must you call her incapable?
/sarc
"You are showing genuine interest in the other side's arguments. Can't have that! Right Unknown?"
Hey, now you change your tune, I thought you said she was a lying Brit! Hahahahaha! Oh man you people are nuts.
@buwaya "Most attacks on Trump are really directed against the people who sympathize with him. "
I disagree with you quite strongly on this point. My criticisms of Trump are completely independent of his supporters and very much to do with his own personality and what he brings or fails to bring to the presidency. See my very edited lists above.
Unknown is like one of those guys in the Scientology cult who shows up to "get the mind right" of any members asking questions.
All sarcasm aside Kitty, I think it would be a great experiment for you to try to make arguments from the point of view of a Trump voter. If you really are fascinated by what we might be thinking.
I say you start with why Trump supports white supremacy! Why he is a racist! No, that's sarcasm again. Why don't you present what you think are the honest positions of Trump voters on illegal immigration?
Hey, now you change your tune, I thought you said she was a lying Brit! Hahahahaha! Oh man you people are nuts.
It's clear that you guys are deaf to irony, so I stopped using it. Irony does make writing more fun, but we have to drop the grown-up tools when dealing with you, Unknown.
tim in vermont
UnknownInga64 is just the latest iteration of Inga. Whether Inga is a man or woman doesn't matter. When absolute moral authority is needed, Inga has a non-existent child waiting in the wings. It's a bot.
And all of that is true whether there's an actual human in there or not.
Now I really do have to go, I am late, but the past few comments of Unknown show that he is after you, Kitty, not us. He thinks of himself as a border collie, and you the sheep, and he has to make sure you don't carry this little quest of understanding us too far.
Try reading his comments from that point of view and you will see what I mean. I am taking you at your word that you want to understand what we think.
"Most attacks on Trump are really directed against the people who sympathize with him."
I think Trump is the train and his supporters are the passengers. Too bad the train has jumped the tracks and will eventually crash. The passengers are having the ride of their lives, unfortunately they won't like the end of the journey.
Do a search on GroupThink. Look up mind guard.
"....the past few comments of Unknown show that he is after you, Kitty, not us. He thinks of himself as a border collie, and you the sheep..."
Nope, she's a big girl and can handle herself. I'm merely showing her what hypocrites you people are.
Kitty,
We are all sinners, and often (or usually!) we resist admitting our sins to ourselves. Truth requires being brutal to our own opinions. This training is fundamental in Catholic practice, or when it is done right anyway. The habit of confession encourages inner candor. Why do we think, or feel, the way we do? The truth is usually uncomfortable and likely to embarass.
There is no train.
These are large forces at work, quite independent of personal expression.
@tim in vermont "OK, let me ask it in a different way. How were you able to overlook Obama's ignorance and see ignorance everywhere in Trump?"
Thank you for the question. I can't answer it in a way that you will like because the honest answer is that I didn't find Obama particular ignorant. He seemed quite smart enough and also it seemed that he surrounded himself with smart people whose advice he took.
So I can't - unfortunately - agree with the premise which is that the two men are equally ignorant and therefore I am unfairly not minding in one case and minding in another.
But I will also add that Trump's ignorance (as I see it) is just one of many, many issues I have with him as president.
"Why does one candidate's dalliances, proven, BTW, with the Russians not bother you, but the other's bothers you to no end?"
As I said before, and i am actually really sorry about it, but as far as I can judge, the two situations were not comparable. But let's say they are for the sake of argument (or we'll be here all day with a boring back and forth about this!) - the difference is that Hillary - as I say - is ancient history and Trump is president.
And collusion with Russia in the electoral process is much worse in my opinion than any amount of ordinary corruption.
"I am taking you at your word that you want to understand what we think."
-----------------
"But no, you just want to throw the Molotov cocktail of crying racist, to make sure the discussion never happens.
That's why I don't believe you want to know what we think any more than that troll does. He is here to keep you on the reservation. We just find him oddly entertaining, you know, like a drunken clown trying to remember when he's car is. It shouldn't be funny, but it is."
"She won't do what she can't do."
"I don't think you are being honest with yourself, and that's why you can't understand."
Liar.
@tin in vermont "I am taking you at your word that you want to understand what we think."
Thanks so much! I really do!
"He (Unknown) thinks of himself as a border collie, and you the sheep, and he has to make sure you don't carry this little quest of understanding us too far."
Thanks for the advice - but actually in this forum, where I am very much in the minority, it is really lovely to have his/her supporting voice around. So your concern is not necessary, but appreciated anyway.
@tim in vermont - Thanks for the back and forth and have a great day!
@Birkel "I believe I have offered before to argue your side of some issue if you will attempt to honestly argue mine. Give it a shot. Name the issue."
That is too complicated and game-playing for me, sorry. Can't we just chat?
Kitty, I think that in fact most of the Trump voters here are nowhere near as passionately supportive of him as you seem to believe. There are probably a few hardcore supporters but based on what I've read, most who voted for him did so more as a vote against Hilary than out of any strong positive feelings for him.
As a lukewarm, reluctant Trump voter, I can tell you that the constant hateful and dishonest media coverage, the endless hysterical, disparaging, and largely truth-free Facebook posts, the never-ending guilt-by-association gambits tarring all Trump voters as racist neo-Nazis, the fawning coverage of the ceaseless lefty marches and "protests" and the associated lionization of the ironically-named "antifa"...all of that has gradually made me into a far more enthusiastic Trump supported than Trump himself ever could have.
I can recognize this happening with other similar Trump voters here as well. Independent-minded people who don't like being told what to do or how they're allowed to think are mostly going to have this same reaction in the face of wall-to-wall messages portraying Trump and anyone who pulled the lever for him as an unholy amalgamation of Hitler, Satan and George Wallace.
KittyM, I am happy that you continue to comment here, in the face of much harsh criticism.
The same goes for Chuck.
That is too complicated and game-playing for me, sorry. Can't we just chat?
Kitty, what is the point? Surely your chase has a beast in view.
Here, Kitty, I'll throw you a bone:
If President Trump ever starts putting Jews in ovens, I will renounce all support for him.
(Since he is Literally Hitler, that seems a reasonable threshold.)
Can you explain why releasing factual information is worse than any amount of corruption?
KittyM: Whereas for some commenters here who do like Trump as president, it is because (as I have understood it) they think he is a great guy, honest, straight-talking etc etc. So if Russia is true, that is (possibly) a big change to their picture of him.
I get the sense though, that many of his supporters here are "all in". That there is nothing that Trump could do or say that would rattle their conviction that he is a good thing for the country.
"Senses" you and every other clueless commenter on Trump voters everywhere, since Trump first started looking like a viable candidate, based on exactly the same evidence (none), in pretty much exactly the same words. Could you at least try not to sound like such a copy-pasting zombie?
There is not a single poster here for whom what you say is true. You believe it is true, because other posters are not critical of Trump for the same reasons that you are critical of Trump. People who are not trapped in a solipsist-zombie mind box don't evaluate other people's opinions that way. You continue to provide a picture-perfect example of what Haidt is talking about when he describes how conservatives understand why liberals believe what they do, but liberals tend not to understand viewpoints different from their own.
Why do you believe Obama was intelligent? Because he could read speeches written by other people?
KittyM said...
@tim in vermont "OK, let me ask it in a different way. How were you able to overlook Obama's ignorance and see ignorance everywhere in Trump?"
Thank you for the question. I can't answer it in a way that you will like because the honest answer is that I didn't find Obama particular ignorant. He seemed quite smart enough and also it seemed that he surrounded himself with smart people whose advice he took.
If you were making an honest effort you would be able to put our point of view into words. Obama started more wars without congress than any other president. Obama is singularly responsible for a refugee crisis that is tearing Europe apart.
But you can't honestly describe our point of view.
Nothing Obama did can be described as smart. It can be described as intellectual.
On the other hand we can describe the mindset of Obama and his supporters quite well.
@Angel-Dyne "You believe it is true, because other posters are not critical of Trump for the same reasons that you are critical of Trump. "
No.
I believe it is true, because on the whole when I post comments critical of Trump, I get back vehemently defensive answers that often focus on "What about Obama?" or "What about Hillary?" or are just snarky about me, insulting my intelligence.
There has been a lot of reasons to be critical of Trump since his inauguration. His approval ratings have dropped. So lots of people feel like me: that Trump has not been a great president, that he has been a disappointment, that he is embarrassing etc. I'm not saying that is 100 % true. I am saying I think that and so do others.
But on this particular blog, there is a very definite tone and that is fundamentally defensive and supportive of Trump. And this has held true through many incidents.
That is why I believe that people here are extremely loyal to Trump. What part of that is hard to grasp? Which bit have I got wrong?
You have a tendency to respond to me by saying that I know nothing of the commenters and that I have got them all wrong. Which I will happily admit might be true. But the information I have comes from *you* and your fellow commenters. If you want to persuade me that you look at Trump with a critical eye - you don't have to try to persuade me, I only mean if you want to - then you are going to simply have to point me to some critical opinions on him.
KittyM: I am saying that I have never felt the kind of loyalty to a politician that you feel for Trump. Never. I admire it, in a way, and I'm also frightened of it.
What you are calling "loyalty to Trump" is nothing more than...wait for it...people disagreeing with you. You think Trump is a "racist". People who don't are therefore true-believin' loyalists. Your evidence for this is nothing more or less than that they disagree with you. You buy the whole "Russian collusion" narrative. People who've concluded that it's so much ginned-up bullshit are therefore true-believin' loyalists. Your evidence for this is nothing more or less than that they disagree with you.
I neither admire nor am frightened by the kind of obdurate solipsism you display here. It's interesting from a psychological point of view, this "zero self-awareness" that tim also notes. You really don't see how completely locked in and self-referential everything you say here is.
@Achilles "If you were making an honest effort you would be able to put our point of view into words..."
I would really appreciate it if you guys would stop telling me what to do or think or how I could "internet comment" better like a bunch of teachers.
I am here to express my views and listen to yours. That's it. Super simple. Out of the bubble. But I don't want to play games. It is very tiring and depressing to be bombarded with these commandments all the time. Can't you just let me know what your views are without the nasty or condescending stuff? Can't you just respond to me without telling me for the umpteenth time that I'm an ignorant lefty?
That would be great. Thanks.
KittyM, you can't learn until you can accept you might be wrong.
@John Nowak "you can't learn until you can accept you might be wrong."
I like to think that I am smart enough to know that I am often wrong. You'll get no argument from me if you are saying that I might be wrong.
On the other hand, the discussions here are mostly political discussions, are they not? At least the ones in which I am interested. And in these discussions, who is to say who is right or wrong? We all *think* we're right, obviously. But we can't all be.
I like political debate because we are exchanging views. I think Trump doesn't show enough dignity for the office of president; you think he's honest and straightforward and a refreshing change from the elites (or whatever).
You can't just tell me I'm wrong, just like I can't tell you you're wrong. That's ridiculous. We can read each other and respond, that's all.
@Angel-Dyne "What you are calling "loyalty to Trump" is nothing more than...wait for it...people disagreeing with you. You think Trump is a "racist". People who don't are therefore true-believin' loyalists."
You get the prize for (wilfully?) misinterpreting my every post, despite my absolute best efforts to write clearly, fairly and sanely.
I have pointed out about five times why it is that I am struck by the level of loyalty to Trump here. Yes, people disagree with me. But it is the *way* they disagree with me that is so interesting. I have been in plenty of more liberal forums with commenters who like Hillary but only the Bernie Sanders supporters displayed this level of very intense support for their guy.
It is a very particular tone, here: aggressive, emotional, angry, defensive. You are the best example of this. "I neither admire nor am frightened by the kind of obdurate solipsism you display here. It's interesting from a psychological point of view, this "zero self-awareness" that tim also notes. You really don't see how completely locked in and self-referential everything you say here is."
I think honestly that your responses to me show someone who is "completely locked in and self-referential". I have never had an answer from you that wasn't deeply personal. You have never talked about the subject - you always drag it back to a comment about *me*: I'm stupid,I'm not listening, I have "zero self-awareness".
Why aren't we talking about Trump? How wonderful / terrible he is? What a great job / awful job he is doing as president? Who the hell cares about me?
"Bruce Hayden introduces a magnificent "humble brag" into the conversation.
:-)"
if you like child abuse.
What kind of dance instructor puts a 3 or 4 year old in toe shoes? My research says it's not allowed until the child is 12!
@John Nowak "Why do you believe Obama was intelligent? Because he could read speeches written by other people?"
I actually found the speechifying, which so many on the left were so crazy about, less impressive. Isn't that weird? He would make a speech and there would be comments about how great an orator he was, and I would be all "meh".
But, yeah, he seemed presidentially intelligent. I mean the right level of interested in the world, or whatever. I had plenty of issues with his policies (which is why the idea that I am called out on this forum for being this rabid Obama / Hillary fan is so hilarious to those who know me personally) but I never thought he was ignorant or dumb, no.
Trump's ignorance of the world is the least of my criticisms. But he does strike me in his press conferences as not very curious about the world.
Worse is the constant lying. He said in a press conference yesterday for example that Finland has done a deal for jets. And the next day the Finns put out a statement that this was not true. The relentless untruths I find very unpresidential and embarrassing for America.
KittyM: I am saying that I have never felt the kind of loyalty to a politician that you feel for Trump. Never. I admire it, in a way, and I'm also frightened of it.
Never? The Obama-worship only officially ended a few months ago! The pictures of Obama w/a halo, the schoolchildren singing his praises...this is pretty recent stuff.
If anything Trump is a return to normal--national politicians usually have a core of strong supporters, a larger pool of less-attached "transactional" supporters, and a solid group of people who hate them. Usually with a Republican the people who hate are given a lot more coverage (what happened to Cindy Sheehan when a Dem. was elected?!), but otherwise it's a pretty standard pattern. Trump's appeal is more populist than most recent Presidents' have been, but as a candidate Bernie Sanders was at least as populist and inspired the same sort of derogatory coverage of his hardcore supporters (BernieBros, etc) as Trump has.
@ Mike Sylvester "KittyM, I am happy that you continue to comment here, in the face of much harsh criticism."
Wow, thanks! That made my day!
@ Bad Lieutenant "Kitty, what is the point? Surely your chase has a beast in view."
The point is the exchange of views and to begin to understand a different viewpoint than my own.
I've quoted J S Mill here so many times, Professor Althouse might ban me for repetition, but this is why I am here:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
The fact is, I think Trump is a terrible president. So much so, that I find it hard to imagine people looking at the same guy and thinking, "What a great president!" So that's why I'm here - to understand it. And hey - if the arguments are strong enough, to change my mind. Why not? After all, as I explained earlier, I am not some kind of obsessive Hillary supporter, no matter what box you try to put me in.
Gotta be honest though: there isn't much persuasive argument for me so far. Sorry to be brutal but the nastiness gets in the way a lot. Commenters such as Angel-Dyne telling me I'm an idiot - that's not very persuasive, even if it is true!
KittyM: I believe it is true, because on the whole when I post comments critical of Trump, I get back vehemently defensive answers...
So? Again, no evidence for your claim. Who are you that nothing you say should meet with vehement disagreement? You are really astoundingly unwilling to entertain the idea that disagreement could possibly indicate that you might, you know, not be right about something, rather than that this or that psychological factor is what's really at the root of any disagreement with you.
One is aware that your personal preference is for a more "feminine" style of discussion (or "chat" if you will). No doubt the tone allowed here is different from what you prefer (e.g., the conformist, heavily-censored Guardian comments). The Althouse tends to be more "manly" - it suits people who prefer that more straightforward, shrug-off-the-insults atmosphere, and there's more of them around than there are grolies. You have no control over that, so why don't you just stop whining about it and get on with it? One might almost think that your constantly stopping to complain about "tone" is an attempt at deflection.
...that often focus on "What about Obama?" or "What about Hillary?"
So? As annoying as tu quoque can be to genuinely honest debaters, hypocrisy and double-standards are certainly rife enough that people are justified in trying to establish your capacity to make disinterested judgments of political figures. And the sad fact of the matter is that you haven't acquitted yourself well at all on this point.
...or are just snarky about me, insulting my intelligence.
Your sensitivity to quotidian internet behavior is not evidence of anybody's true-believin'.
KittyM said...Trump's ignorance of the world is the least of my criticisms. But he does strike me in his press conferences as not very curious about the world.
That was the line against Reagan and GWBush as well, though, wasn't it?
Later people read Reagan's copious letters from the time he was President and realized he was heavily engaged in the topics of the day, read a large number of primary sources, etc. Same with GWBush--it's been "revealed" that he reads quite a lot and has for quite some time.
Remember all the "epistemic closure" accusations?
I'm not saying that this charge is wrong against Trump now, but you should realize that the stuff being said against Trump is almost exactly the same that was said against all the recent Republican Presidents. I mean, maybe THIS TIME some or all of it is true...but after crying wolf for as long as I've been alive the charges now just lack some power, you know?
@Hoodlum.Doodlum "Never? The Obama-worship only officially ended a few months ago! "
But H-D - you don't know me! I was never some kind of mad crazy Obama fan. What have I ever written here that would suggest that? I had plenty of criticisms of him as president and of his policy decisions. Really.
I do wish we could talk about Trump's strengths and weaknesses without the comparison to Obama.
"As a candidate Bernie Sanders was at least as populist and inspired the same sort of derogatory coverage of his hardcore supporters (BernieBros, etc) as Trump has."
Yes, I agree with this completely.
OF COURSE they'll never go back to normal; Trump is existentially harshing (what they think is) their mellow.
@H-D "after crying wolf for as long as I've been alive the charges now just lack some power, you know?"
You know what, that makes a lot of sense to me and I do know what you're talking about. I can understand very well the feeling of thinking that "your guys" are *never* given the credit due to them and that this would lead to deep cynicism when similar charges are raised against the latest Republican.
But - in this case - I think there is so much evidence of Trump's lack of sophistication, his sort of brutality and lack of grace and manners. Just his tweets alone! His asking foreign visitors about their population size. It makes me cringe, honestly.
KittyM said...I believe it is true, because on the whole when I post comments critical of Trump, I get back vehemently defensive answers that often focus on "What about Obama?" or "What about Hillary?
If your assertion is "this has never happened" or "bad thing is unique to Trump" or something like that it is wholly appropriate to point out examples that refute those assertions.
"I have never seen unthinking devotion to a President like I see for Trump" is refuted by referring to the near-worship of President Obama.
"I have never seen demagoguery or cynical divisive appeals of the sort Trump uses" is refuted by reference to Hillary Clinton's campaign (what with the deplorables, etc).
The main argument against Trump is that he is uniquely dangerous because he is so different from all prior Presidents. Pointing out the ways he is in fact not that different--or that he in fact represents just a continuation of existing trends--is appropriate and valid.
KittyM said...But - in this case - I think there is so much evidence of Trump's lack of sophistication, his sort of brutality and lack of grace and manners.
Sure, but think waaaay back to how GWBush was described. He was a witless ape, a classless goon, a near-simian creature from some Texas truck stop lacking manners, refinement, and sophistication. His wife didn't understand fashion and his daughters were trashy. Remember? I do.
Trump wears his brashness as a badge--his "in your face New Yorker" shtick is central to his identity as a political figure. He uses Twitter to speak directly--and bluntly--more than any national political figure has in the past, certainly. But 1.) Republican figures always have to find ways to go around or over the Media in ways that Democrats don't (the Media being happy to help Dems and happy to stifle Repubs) and 2.) that's really a continuation of a trend, too (Obama went on Late Night TV as President, gave interviews to YouTube personalities and Between Two Ferns to sell his policies, etc).
Again: calls of "This Time We Really Mean It!" may be genuine, but their self-weakening nature helps assure they won't be all that persuasive to people who don't already agree.
@H-D "The main argument against Trump is that he is uniquely dangerous because he is so different from all prior Presidents. Pointing out the ways he is in fact not that different--or that he in fact represents just a continuation of existing trends--is appropriate and valid."
Yes. That is true.
But what I was describing was something else. It was the "what about-ism" that is the vast majority of responses to *anything* critical I write, not just the topic "is Trump uniquely dangerous?".
""I have never seen unthinking devotion to a President like I see for Trump" is refuted by referring to the near-worship of President Obama.
Sorry, but that was not my point. I was saying that *I* personally have never felt that way towards a political figure and am interested by those who do. When Obama was president, maybe in certain circles there was that devotion, but again, not in mine.
Trump has made plenty of missteps and had plenty of scandals and it is fascinating to be in a forum where that is all as if it never happened.
In fact, your point - that there was a lot of hero worship of Obama - should mean that people here are more wary of Trump-worship, having experienced it from the other side, so to speak.
If you think, "I saw Hillary and she used demagoguery and divisive language, of which I disapproved" (which I assume from your tone you do) - surely you and I can find common ground when Trump uses similar tactics? If you think, "God, it was so sick when all those sheep-like Democrats worshipped Obama as if he were a kid, when I could see clearly he was just another ordinary corruptible politician", can't you much more easily have empathy for my point of view because my distaste for the hero-worship of Trump (with his feet of stone) reminds you of *your* distaste for Obama-worship?
@H-D Gotta go shopping. But thanks for the great talk! I really enjoyed it and there's a lot in what you say that I agree with and a lot that I don't, but I see where you're coming from. Have a lovely day.
So, KittyM.
Regarding "whataboutism,"--whom did you vote for in 2016? Was it Trump? Was it Hilary? Because those were your only realistic choices. Only one of them was going to win.
If you voted for Hilary, despite her numerous and well-documented failings (I'd say crimes, but since she appears to be above the law, let's just say 'failings'), how can you *possibly* complain of people who saw Donald Trump as, at worst, the lesser of two evils?
I am grateful everyday that that witch lost the election. If Trump accomplished nothing else in his four (or eight) years in the White House, that feat alone makes him a great President. Keeping her corrupt hands away from the levers of power is a service to the nation that cannot be underestimated.
However lukewarm about Trump I may have been, I become a more steadfast Trump supporter every day as the absolutely unhinged fury of the left goes unchecked--or even grows. We, the deplorables, dared to defy our self-appointed betters and hand the White House to that [insert Calumny of the Day (tm) here], and the world will never be righted until that crime is corrected. It's not as if they and their fellow travelers don't still have complete control of the MSM and much of the federal bureaucracy, but that the election turned out to actually *matter* (as opposed to being a de facto coronation of their girl) shows just how little they really care about democracy when it frustrates their desire for control.
One of my complaints about Trump is that he didn't (or hasn't yet) done enough to drain the swamp. Mass firings of the bureaucracy, to the extent that he's able, would be a good thing. Better the positions remain empty than they be filled by saboteurs.
Still--Hilary isn't President, and never will be. And I thank Donald Trump for that.
I'm Catholic and I think Pope Francis is an imbecile.
I like to think that I am smart enough to know that I am often wrong
We'd all like to think that.
However, it's clear that you're only saying that because you were told to say it. You don't live it in any noticeable way.
Obama seemed to be smart. And you expect people to treat that as anything but an opinion.
People who care about facts use them, but you don't. You don't even make them up. If they're unpleasant, you declare that they seem like claptrap.
So, no. Some people cannot learn, and you're there.
May, 2009; Fox News goes off on Michelle Obama for wearing $540 Lanvin sneakers to help feed the poor at a D.C. food bank.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/05/01/michelle-obama-wears-540-designer-sneakers-to-feed-poor.html
The only place that I saw any stories about Melania Trump's heels has been Fox News.
That's the kind of stupid shit a Leftist says. Meaningless. Do some research first. Up your game. If you were paying attention here, at the Althouse blog, you would have seen it started as a Twitter storm. Is THAT Fox News? No. Take some time for self-reflection.
I'm trying to think of anyone here who actually glorifies Trump or finds him perfect or admires him unreservedly. Most of us here find him infinitely preferable to the opposition, but that is quite a different thing. Let me try to explain with a digression:
I teach high school, and as a matter of principle never give my students any hint as to how I vote. This year, I did go so far as to tell them that I did not understand how anyone could actually vote for Trump or Hillary with any enthusiasm - or any of the other three for that matter (Stain, Johnson, McMuffin) - rather than against whichever of the top two they despised more. The way I put it was that on a scale of 1 to 10, where Hitler is a 1 and George Washington a 10, none of these five people would get better than a 4: fair to poor but maybe not absolutely terrible. However, I told them that I certainly understood how someone could have a very strong preference in the election, and be really eager to vote, because if you think one of the top two is a 4 and the other one is a 2, you have a moral obligation to get that pathetically mediocre 4 into office and keep the horrible 2 out.
I did not tell them that I thought Trump was the 4 and Hillary the 2 in this election. Yes, the man is an asshole. So are all four of the people he ran against. In fact, of the five living ex-presidents, I'd say we have approximately 3.5 assholes (70%!) - counting Bush I as a decent human being (though a lousy president - a bit of assholery often helps in a difficult job) and Bush II as half asshole, half decent human being. Yes, Trump is a boaster and a blowhard - but Hillary is a nastier variety of liar, the kind who would gleefully perjure herself and expect you to believe it. Faced with two (or five) assholes, one of whom had policies I like, I voted for Trump with far more enthusiasm than respect. I suspect that the vast majority of Trump supporters on this site feel much the same way. We have never had any desire to put a halo on him - we save any religious urges we may have for church - or put him on a pedestal, and none of us think he's done anything Rushmore-worthy yet. I do think he's moved up to a 5 or 5.5 since the election, and could move up to a 6 or a 7 if he ever gets the damned wall built, jails all the bureaucrats whose hard-drives all just 'happened' to malfunction simultaneously when they were subpoenaed, finds some way to remove the North Korean and Iranian threats, appoints a couple more SCJs of Gorsuch quality and hundreds of constitutionalist lower-court justices, keeps on slashing red tape (he's doing well on that), finds out what the Awan brothers were up to and prosecutes all the guilty of both parties, and . . . well, basically Sessions needs to start doing his job for several of these. I think Trump may turn out to be a good-to-excellent president, though he will contain to be a substandard human being. Can Liberals really not see that that is a possible combination? Surely everyone who admires LBJs policies (I don't, but most Liberals do) also knows that he was one of the most contemptible human beings ever to achieve high office in a democracy. A bad man can be a good president, and a good man (e.g. Herbert Hoover) can be a terrible president.
One more thing: I've read that Trump has a whole shelf of civil-rights awards, including two major ones from Jesse Jackson. No one ever thought he was a racist until he ran for the Republican nomination. If you say "But David Duke supports him!" I will simply point out that (at least according to the SPLC) David Duke endorsed Obama.
What about Dingell-Norwood?
@Mark Jones Thanks for your long and thoughtful comment addressed to me. It is very well-written, if I may be so bold, and explains extremely clearly your views.
Because, as Angel-Dyne rightly pointed out above, I like a more agreeable and conciliatory tone in debate, it's hard fro me to respond, just because you and I are so far apart on this one. But I will try to equally thoughtfully address some of your points.
"If you voted for Hilary, despite her numerous and well-documented failings (I'd say crimes, but since she appears to be above the law, let's just say 'failings'), how can you *possibly* complain of people who saw Donald Trump as, at worst, the lesser of two evils?"
You are right. It would not be right for me or anyone else to "complain" of people who saw Donald Trumo as the lesser of two evils. May I say that I am quite sure that I have never complained about people voting for Trump in this comment section. There was a democratic election and I am a great believer in "lesser of two evils" decision-making in elections (as opposed to people who don't vote at all because they don't have the perfect candidate).
My judgement of who the "lesser" of the two evils is would be different, as I am sure you are entirely unsurprised to hear!
"Keeping her corrupt hands away from the levers of power is a service to the nation that cannot be underestimated."
I appreciate your openness. I just completely disagree. I judge Trump to bring a far greater corruption to the office of the presidency. The fact that he hasn't revealed his tax returns, although tax reform is just around the corner, the fact that he is not properly divested, the fact that he uses the presidency to push his businesses, the fact that his daughter and son-in-law are in the government like in the tin-pot dictatorships that true conservatives used to look down our noses at. I don't expect you to agree with me on this, by the way; I'm just explaining why for me Trump has the "corrupt hands".
"I become a more steadfast Trump supporter every day as the absolutely unhinged fury of the left goes unchecked--or even grows..."
I don't quite understand what the fury of the left has to do with your judgement of the policy making going on. Who cares what his opponents think? Surely it's his presidency and he makes decisions that you like or don't like. Why does the vehemence of the opposition make you like him more?
"We, the deplorables, dared to defy our self-appointed betters and hand the White House to that [insert Calumny of the Day (tm) here], and the world will never be righted until that crime is corrected."
Again, why are you still so emotional / angry? It reminds me of the reaction of Brexiteers in the UK. They won; and yet their tone was still so angry, when you would have thought it would be celebratory, as it was on the other political side when Obama won. From where I stand - i.e. on the outside of his supporters - that strikes me as strange and also disturbing.
Finally "the fury of the left": I see much more despair and frustration and confusion.
Mark Jones (1:00pm):
Yes, that's two good reasons for any small-d democrat or small-r republican to like or at least respect Trump. In the primaries, he killed the Bush dynasty, and in the election he killed the Clinton dynasty. Family dynasties are undemocratic, unrepublican, and un-American.
Funny that KittyM (1:29pm near the end) brings up Brexit.
Why are Brexiteers so angry even though "They won"? For much the same reason Trump voters are angry. Both sides agreed before the Brexit referendum that it would be binding, with no do-overs (unlike Scottish independence), and as soon as Brexit won, surprising all the pollsters, the Remainers showed that they had been lying about the bindingness of the referendum. They've been dragging their feet and calling for the do-over they thought they wouldn't need, ever since. At the moment, it looks like Brexit will never happen. What kind of Democracy is that?
Similarly, an awful lot of American Democrats seem absolutely determined to overturn a legitimate election that they lost when the polls told them they were going to win it. We know they're lying about their reasons for overturning the election because they keep coming up with new ones when the old one turns out to be false. Popular vote - unfaithful electors! Nope. Russian collusion? No evidence yet. Racism? Nope. He's crazy, and it's 25th Amendment time! No, he's not: he's a perfectly sane asshole. I wonder what they'll come up with next. (And I suspect I've forgotten a reason or two.)
@Dr Weevil. Thank you for your response. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your views and explain your point of view.
"A bad man can be a good president, and a good man (e.g. Herbert Hoover) can be a terrible president."
I think fundamentally you're right. And I think there is too much focus on Trump the man. I only care about his performance as President.
I completely agree with your thoughts, echoed by Mark Jones above, that "the lesser of two evils" was the way to go in the last election.
But obviously when it comes to actual policy, I'm afraid we disagree. And the fact that Trump has *impressed* you in these past months - the fact that you like him more now - that is so hard for me to grasp. Sorry. Just being honest.
I like presidents to be calm under fire. Trump is hysterical and causes panic or crisis or drama even when there is no need or over trivial things.
I like presidents to uphold the rule of law. Trump dumps on judges and pardons a sheriff who was in contempt of court before letting the judicial process run its course.
I like presidents to uphold freedom of the press. Trump is nasty about "fake news" all the time.
Just to be clear - I don't expect you to agree with me on any of these points! Nor am I "arguing" with you to try to persuade you. It's more just a quick list so you know where I'm coming from.
I think you and I just have fundamentally different ideas about priorities for the country, and dangers to the USA. I guess our values are different. I hope we can find some common ground through these comments, though!
@Dr Weevil "Family dynasties are undemocratic, unrepublican, and un-American."
Being someone who shies away from conflict, I just want to very loudly proclaim that I agree with you! (Though that's also the reason why I hate to have Ivanka and Jared in the White House)
KittyM: You get the prize for (wilfully?) misinterpreting my every post, despite my absolute best efforts to write clearly, fairly and sanely.
I may be misinterpreting what you want to say, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting what you do say. Case in point:
I have pointed out about five times why it is that I am struck by the level of loyalty to Trump here.
Did you really mean to say, "I have pointed out about five times why it is that I think Trump supporters here show an unusual level of loyalty to a political figure"? Because your sentence as it stands assumes the truth of the point under dispute.
Yes, people disagree with me. But it is the *way* they disagree with me that is so interesting.
Again, you're simply assuming the truth of your original assertion. You think there is something "interesting" about the way people respond to you, and that this "interesting" characteristic is proof that they are Trump true-believers. You're welcome to believe that, but it's nothing but an unsupported, subjective belief about the relationship between "tone" and true-believin'. When asked to present more than this unsupported, subjective belief for your original claim, you merely repeat the claim, and then get all exasperated about people not understanding or "misinterpreting" you.
Why aren't we talking about Trump?
Why indeed. OK, talk about Trump. You made the claim that Trump is "racist". OK, make a proper argument for that claim, something better than vague gesturing toward "dog whistles" and "some people who support him". Defend your view that Trump is a racist, and by "defend" I mean actually address the counter-arguments you'll get for whatever claims you make, instead of merely re-affirming your belief in the truth of your original claims.
@Angel-Dyne Let me tell you honestly you are driving me mad. I can only read your tone as super condescending and it really sets me off.
You don't enjoy reading my comments and I'm sorry about that. But I clearly will never be able to argue in a way that you will respect. You are right that I prefer a less aggressive form of intellectual debate. Let's you and me just avoid each other here, OK?
@Dr Weevil "They've been dragging their feet and calling for the do-over they thought they wouldn't need, ever since. At the moment, it looks like Brexit will never happen. What kind of Democracy is that?"
OK - back to not agreeing with you :-)
The Brexit negotiations are a joke and Brexit might not happen - but that has nothing to do with the "Remainers" and everything to do with the state of the Tory party, a lack of preparedness, etc etc. In fact, the democracy part of it has worked perfectly so that even MPs and Peers who were against Brexit voted for Article 50 in parliament because they felt that to not do so would be anti-democratic.
"an awful lot of American Democrats seem absolutely determined to overturn a legitimate election that they lost when the polls told them they were going to win it."
Again, I disagree. I don't see any serious (or unserious) attempt to overturn a legitimate election. Robert Mueller is going where the evidence takes him: if there was no collusion, then there will be nothing for Trump to worry about. I think there was cause to get him to look into it.
Brett supporters and Trump supporters have much in common. In particular, a political tone that requires constant threatening enemies. That's one of the things maybe that I like least about Trump. His brand of politics requires enemies. Everybody against you. That is why he is constantly stoking the fire with his jabs at the press or judges or others.
I really prefer presidents, prime ministers, etc who try to find common ground and bring the nation together.
"I have pointed out about five times why it is that I think Trump supporters here show an unusual level of loyalty to a political figure"?
You know, I don't think she has even done that. I would accept "I have repeated five times that everyone here is unusually loyal to Trump."
But she certainly hasn't been able to explain why.
KittyM:
Sorry for coming late to the party...
RE: "On the other hand, the discussions here are mostly political discussions, are they not? At least the ones in which I am interested. And in these discussions, who is to say who is right or wrong? We all *think* we're right, obviously. But we can't all be."
Yes: everyone can't be right.
RE: "I like political debate because we are exchanging views."
There should be more to political discourse than an exchange of views. Anyone can have a "view". The goal should be to present opinion that you can back up with facts.
RE: "You can't just tell me I'm wrong, just like I can't tell you you're wrong. That's ridiculous. We can read each other and respond, that's all."
No, some political discussions end with objective truth. You might make a factual claim that I can disprove through deductive reasoning. If so, you would be wrong. A great deal of political discourse centers on ampliative argument. Even then, we can arrive at key findings of truth (e.g. in all probability, this claim is true or false).
RE: "I think Trump doesn't show enough dignity for the office of president; you think he's honest and straightforward and a refreshing change from the elites (or whatever)."
Your statement is a reasonable choice, albeit a personal preference.
I didn't vote for President Trump, and I'm not a fan. He doesn't speak for me about most issues, I don't like him personally, and I don't think he's very smart. However, there is more to his presidency than a "refreshing change". He's a populist, just like Sen. Sanders, and Tea Party supporters, and Brexit supporters.
Our republic is in terrible trouble. The "elites" as you call them, have taken over politics, media, and academia, and they are using it to make themselves rich. The State exists to serve the needs of it's members. That is the essential purpose of western democratic traditions. That isn't happening. Populism is a natural reaction to that situation. It is entirely necessary to restore western democratic ideals.
I support Trump efforts because:
1. If his presidency fails, we all suffer. The Ruling Class are working hard to undermine his presidency. They can make money on "short" positions, and they want to make people suffer for trying populism.
2. I want populism to work. The system must be reformed, and democratic institutions must be rebuilt. If that doesn't happen, then the system will collapse.
3. Many of the attacks against him are grossly unfair, and everyone deserves fairness. For example, he's attacked for condemning violence on both sides, a factual claim that happens to be true. When others (e.g. Rep. Pelosi) do that, it's OK. He's under investigation for collusion with the Russians, but it's been clear from day one that this claim is demonstrably false.
KittyM: You don't enjoy reading my comments and I'm sorry about that.
If I didn't enjoy reading your comments I wouldn't read and respond to them. There are people I don't enjoy reading, like Ritmo and a handful of others, so I don't read them.
But I clearly will never be able to argue in a way that you will respect. You are right that I prefer a less aggressive form of intellectual debate. Let's you and me just avoid each other here, OK?
So I guess that means you're not going to defend your claim that Trump is a racist in anything resembling an intellectually rigorous, er, I mean aggressive manner? Bummer. I'm sure you could if you wanted to, but I understand. Been nice chatting with you.
@kevino Hi! Not too late! :-)
Your comment is so well-structured and clear that it makes me quite intimidated. But my response to it also reflects some wider issues involving the difficulties of talking to each other across the political divide.
First of all, I agree with your three points at the beginning. You're right when you posted "There should be more to political discourse than an exchange of views...The goal should be to present opinion that you can back up with facts" and yes, ideally, we are working towards some greater understanding which must mean moving towards more truth.
So when I read your comments, I thought, "Yes! Agree!" Above all, I fundamentally agree (and get excited about as you can see) the kind of intellectual debate I have been having here today (except with Angel-Dyne) where there's a rigorous back-and-forth and you can feel yourself inching towards *something* or some agreement or even just a point where we understand each other better.
But here's the problem: in your comments you then go on to present "facts" that I don't accept are facts. And I'm not sure how to handle that. Your last sentence, for example: "He's under investigation for collusion with the Russians, but it's been clear from day one that this claim is demonstrably false." I don't want to just say, "I think you're wrong" but there is such a large disagreement between us on this, that I'm not sure how to proceed.
Any advice? I really would like to keep going. I mean, I see that you and I could have a great conversation/discussion about whether or not Trump is racist where I would say one thing, bring in some evidence, you would say another thing, bring in some different evidence etc etc. But what do we do when your version of the world - "The Ruling Class are working hard to undermine his presidency. They can make money on "short" positions, and they want to make people suffer for trying populism" - doesn't convince me?
Re: Trumps "unPresidential" behavior/character.
Say it's true. He has a lifelong habit of rhetorical...excess. He's loudmouthed, braggadicious, and speaks off-the-cuff, usually without nuance or subtlety. You know what? I. Don't. Care.
To Quote President Lincoln regarding General Grant, "I can't spare this man. He fights."
Which is more than can be said for 16 other Republicans he beat to win the nomination. Mealy-mouthed, bloodless patricians, each and every one of them. Too genteel and/or media-whipped to hold--much less express--an unqualified opinion at variance with the MSM or Democratic agendas (but I repeat myself). On the rare occasions that they do actually say something of which their fellow swampdwellers disapprove, they can't retract it and explain (i.e., apologize) fast enough.
Donald Trump beat all those yahoos because he was willing to say things the ruling class found objectionable and outside the pale. Things half the country *also* believed, and which almost none of their so-called representatives (even the Republicans) were willing to say. And he did it without apology, even proudly. Not cringingly, as the GOPe did (on the rare occasions it happened at all).
The fury of the left stiffens my resolve to support Trump because it proves he really is different. He's an outsider, and they can't stand that someone who didn't come up through the "right" channels, who wasn't already a swamp creature, could seize control of the reins of power. The old joke about how if voting really changed anything it would be illegal? This is proof of just how true that really is. As long as we were given a choice of a swamp-approved D or R to choose from, as long as nobody's rice bowl was threatened, the swamp creatures could enjoy a good horse race. Maybe our team won, maybe theirs did, but either way, the public got pretty much the same damn thing.
But when someone who isn't part of the swamp gets elected? That's just unacceptable. He must be neutralized, and preferably destroyed as an object lesson. And I will concede it's not just the leftists. Large numbers of Republicans are just as pissed off and eager to stab him in the back. And the level of fury we see expressed daily is all out of proportion to simply losing to a Republican. They lost to an UNAPPROVED Republican.
kevino:
P.S. Your entire comment @2:06 PM is choice.
kevino: There should be more to political discourse than an exchange of views. Anyone can have a "view". The goal should be to present opinion that you can back up with facts.
Tocqueville had something to say about this particular flaw in American political culture. (I paraphrase: "Americans can discuss but they cannot converse.") Others have also tartly criticized the sterility of the "exchange of views" model, in which the mere airing of views is in itself supposed to be some sort of profitable exchange analogous to trading material goods.
I'm beginning to think there's no point in arguing with KittyM any more: anyone who can write "the democracy part of [Brexit] has worked perfectly" seems way out of touch with reality. How can you hold a referendum that everyone on both sides agrees is binding, and then not go through with the (surprising) result? Remainers have demonstrated that they were lying about the referendum being binding, thinking they would win anyway so no one would notice. They should be trying to make it work instead of trying to make it as disastrous as possible so it will either not happen or will turn out so badly that they can ride back into power on the ruins of an economy they've done their best to ruin.
And anyone who hasn't noticed the large numbers of American lefties openly calling for reversing last November's election hasn't been paying attention. They tried to get enough 'faithless electors' to overturn the clear result, and have been fantasizing about impeaching Trump and somehow getting Hillary rather than Pence into office ever since that failed.
@Mark Jones "But when someone who isn't part of the swamp gets elected? That's just unacceptable. He must be neutralized, and preferably destroyed as an object lesson."
I see what you're saying. You're talking here about the reaction of the political class. The so-called elites.
So in your eyes the opposition comes from people with power. But what about quite ordinary Americans who oppose him and fear him? What about the powerless? What about quite ordinary people and our concerns?
I don't like the *ideology* espoused by Trump because it is brutal and nasty and is always dividing the world into enemies and supporters.
You see a rebel, courageously speaking the truth. I see a corrupt lying billionaire, with no interest in anyone but himself and no sense of loyalty to anyone but himself either.
"What about the powerless?"
They are part of the Democrat High-Low mix. An alliance against the Republican middle, to put it broadly. Of course there is a mix throughout the distribution.
Thats been US politics for quite a while now. This is quite common around the world btw.
They don't lack power, necessarily, but they are exploited, perhaps against their interests rightfully construed.
"I don't like the *ideology* espoused by Trump because it is brutal and nasty and is always dividing the world into enemies and supporters. "
This is the case with all ideology. A Procrustean bed.
I don't think Trump actually has an ideology btw.
Conservatism, contra all attempts to make sense of it and systematize it (Russell Kirk say), is fundamentally a rejection of ideology.
@Dr Weevil "I'm beginning to think there's no point in arguing with KittyM any more: anyone who can write "the democracy part of [Brexit] has worked perfectly" seems way out of touch with reality. How can you hold a referendum that everyone on both sides agrees is binding, and then not go through with the (surprising) result?"
OK, that's very annoying. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
1) June 23 2016: Polling day for the EU referendum.
2) June 24 2016: National declaration of the referendum result - Brexit wins
3) March 13 2017: Theresa May’s Brexit bill clears all its hurdles in the Houses of Parliament
3) March 29 2017: Article 50 triggered; 2-year countdown to Brexit begins
4) April 19 2017: Prime Minister May calls a general election, hoping to strengthen her hand in negotiations
5) April 29 2017: First Brexit summit for EU leaders
6) June 8 2017: Snap general election; Tories lose majority
7) June 19 2017: Brexit talks start at last in Brussels
So as things stand, the UK has triggered Article 50 and the negotiations for Brexit are ongoing.
Which part of this in your opinion is "not going through with the (surprising) result"? Anyone who knows this and still thinks that somehow the referendum results are being ignored is definitely, if I may use your words, "out of touch with reality".
@buwaya "Conservatism, contra all attempts to make sense of it and systematize it (Russell Kirk say), is fundamentally a rejection of ideology."
But there are *so* many examples of American conservatism sticking rigidly to ideology even when it doesn't make sense. What about, for example, the opposition to Obamacare (which started as a conservative plan)? What about the opposition to Planned Parenthood?
From where I stand, it is the conservatives in America who are much more ideologically tied down than the liberals.
"because it is brutal and nasty "
The world is brutal and nasty under the hood. All people are brutal and nasty, or are capable of it if sufficiently tempted. That is a core idea of conservatism btw, and Christianity, that we are tainted with original sin. Interestingly you will find the same idea in late antiquity.
A proper confession will get down to the core, flawed person beneath the illusions, rationalizations and excuses.
Politics is driven by brutal and nasty realities, which people, being people, like to cover with comforting illusions.
Althouse calls this brutal aspect of political reality, I think, "insect politics".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा