President Elect Trump

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

i

ledvedderman said:

As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.

What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.

So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

Donald Trump Actually Just Ended His News Conference By Saying ‘You’re Fired’

The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.

“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”

At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”

And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.

good god what a fucking buffoon.

It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.

it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.

Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.

Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.

Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below



Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically?
a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party
b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings

The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings.
No better example then wars/bombs between Bush Obama.

pjhawks said:

Trump, who is a by product of media and celebrity, is pissing off the two groups that most bring a politician down: the intelligence community and the media. You can't give those 2 groups fuel to dig up as much shit as they can. he is doing that. this will not end well. I said all along I don't think the makes it through 4 years. I put the chances of him resigning within the 1st year at 25% right now and him being impeached within the 1st year at about 5% right now.

you're right it is risky to challenge intel and the media. so far neither has effectively brought him down, but intel is just getting started.
you could argue that he is winning the war with the media. if he becomes intolerable for the intel, bye bye donny, but im sure he knows that. i think he has supporters within the fbi, if my life had to choose sides between fbi or cia, its going cia. he should and will temper the intel talk.
there is one group that counts more than intel, the media and congress combined, its the people. not that he alone can do any of these things, but if theres ever an affordable alternative to aca, if jobs improve, consumer confidence grows, the economy improves etc etc etc then he will get credit (remind everyone 10 times a day) and ultimately win the people. that all that really matters.
trump can be stopped in two ways, dont allow him to win the people, dont allow the things above (he has house and senate so it would likely have to be within the gop party, mccain graham), or tank the economy ala 2007-2008, if the economy tanks then he loses the people and then all you will hear is "i do ya so". the fed has already increase the rate (stocks still soaring) and plans on more increases in the coming months and years. i think he know this as well and thats the reason he is bringing wall st into his cabinet positions. but what do I know.

Gern Blansten said:

I'm thinking that something big is going to break right before or on the 20th.

Either the Tom Arnold tape or something from Russia.

You do know what today is, right? Time for Jason Voorhees to make America great again. Trump and his cabinet are Terry Kiser from part 7.

This could nullify trump opposition! Dems GOP media even intel folks. We've gone back in time.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

i

ledvedderman said:

As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.

What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.

So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

Donald Trump Actually Just Ended His News Conference By Saying ‘You’re Fired’

The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.

“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”

At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”

And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.

good god what a fucking buffoon.

It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.

it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.

Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.

Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.

Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below



Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically?
a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party
b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings

The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings.
No better example then wars bombs between Bush Obama.

Free said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

i

ledvedderman said:

As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.

What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.

So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

Donald Trump Actually Just Ended His News Conference By Saying ‘You’re Fired’

The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.

“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”

At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”

And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.

good god what a fucking buffoon.

It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.

it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.

Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.

Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.

Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below



Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically?
a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party
b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings

The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings.
No better example then wars bombs between Bush Obama.