Trump presidency

[bantler]

seriously, I want her and Kamala Harris to run together in 2020 (even before this latest badassery, I wanted her to run).

I would prefer Donald Trump lose in 2020. Enough statements; time to win something.

[Ginger]

Well, I dunno about you, but sarcastic responses to bad behaviors actually works.

Citation please. Im sure it CAN work in some circumstances, I'm not sure Trump is one of those.

What are reflective statements and questions? They simply get the youth (or whoever you’re talking to for that matter) to reflect on themselves in some way, to potentially gain insight into what’s happening for them in that moment. And that’s what our true goal with resistance should be: That the teen her or himself learns something about him or herself when it comes to resistant behavior.

and it doesn't like SAY sarcasm however sarcasm can totally make you reflect on yourself. A lot.

[Chen]

Uh nothing there indicated sarcasm would be a good way of dealing with resistant teens. Seems like its the opposite of some of the stuff on that page, like the "non-disrepectful tone" or the whole paragraph about mindfulness.

[Ginger]

It doesn't explicitly say it yet... crisis workers DO use sarcasm despite what they SAY about respectful to youths. They use it a lot. And mocking your problems to get you to see how you're acting out and look at yourself is still reflective statements and questions so? I stand by what I said.

[bantler]

It doesn't explicitly say it yet... crisis workers DO use sarcasm despite what they SAY about respectful to youths. They use it a lot. And mocking your problems to get you to see how you're acting out and look at yourself is still reflective statements and questions so? I stand by what I said.

That's Socratic Method, not Sarcasm.

[Ginger]

Well, okay: Then the fine arts and philosophies of telling trouble youth that resist how it is is done by Mr. Socrates. I just think... if no one ever even sternly lectures Trump like the child he is in his mind then. There SHALL BE WAR it's not an if or a maybe if he keeps getting to do whatever he wanna just 'cause he is Prez now? We will have wars, and more deficits, and wasteful spending and he'll skyrocket our debts to other countries via bad deals... or whatevs. I dunno I am not a political analyst? My only thing is: SOMEONE needs to talk to Trump like a resisting teen girl and counsel him, harshly, that he is being wrongheaded or he gonna trashes up our country And our allies' countries And our enemies' countries....

[Chen]

Forgetting that harsh talking may be effective in some cases, does anyone really think that will work with Trump? We know he's stubborn and unmoving. I don't see being harsh to him in particular working. The fact he holds pretty much all the power in any of these dynamics (you know, by being president) certainly doesn't help. His advisers suggesting he do things by making it seem like they're his ideas is probably the best we'll get from him. Frankly I'm sure that's what's already happening. The thing a lot of people are missing is that a lot of Trump's terrible ideas are not his alone. He very likely DOES have advisers telling him to implement these kinds of things. He's certainly not alone in the vast majority, if not all, his beliefs.

[Liri]

Stephen Miller, imo, is the main guy to watch out for. Freshly packaged nativist. I'm not sure about his convictions outside of issues relating to immigration, refugees, and asylum, but I doubt he'd buck anything the Pruitts and Zinkes come up with.

[Ginger]

Forgetting that harsh talking may be effective in some cases, does anyone really think that will work with Trump? We know he's stubborn and unmoving. I don't see being harsh to him in particular working. The fact he holds pretty much all the power in any of these dynamics (you know, by being president) certainly doesn't help. His advisers suggesting he do things by making it seem like they're his ideas is probably the best we'll get from him. Frankly I'm sure that's what's already happening. The thing a lot of people are missing is that a lot of Trump's terrible ideas are not his alone. He very likely DOES have advisers telling him to implement these kinds of things. He's certainly not alone in the vast majority, if not all, his beliefs.

YOU like totally right that counseling Trump may not work... and in that case... and if his advisors and aides are playing along? We need to impose professional sanctions and restrict his powers. It's our only hope, Luke, as Leia says of ending his teen boy reign of terror. He needs professional sanctions and restrictions to his duties, maybe even a leave of absence for medical/mental health issues, Now... before we go to wars with other countries?

[bantler]

Only Emperors can sanction Emperors.

[Liri]

So...

He wants a path to citizenship for DACA recipients

And

Will talk to Bob Mueller under oath

[sardia]

So...

He wants a path to citizenship for DACA recipients

And

Will talk to Bob Mueller under oath

He's gotta be lying about the oath part, like some sort of delaying tactic, because Trump does awful during interviews. Well, wait, the way he acts under oath is very different. He thinks more. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ch/550073/

Transcripts, and in one case video, of three depositions taken over the last decade provide a fascinating look into how the prolifically dissembling president behaves when he is under oath. The Donald Trump who emerges from these depositions is the same but different from the one familiar to Americans today. He is just as apt to bluster and braggadocio, and sometimes peevish. But within the confines of conference rooms and offices, he is calmer, more restrained, and more deliberate than his public persona, and with the tether of his oath holding him back, often acknowledges when he is wrong or has misrepresented things in the past.

Spooky.

[tapupartforpres]

It's too much, what an idiot.

[Quercus]

So...

He wants a path to citizenship for DACA recipients

And

Will talk to Bob Mueller under oath

He's gotta be lying about the oath part, like some sort of delaying tactic, because Trump does awful during interviews. Well, wait, the way he acts under oath is very different. He thinks more. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ch/550073/

Transcripts, and in one case video, of three depositions taken over the last decade provide a fascinating look into how the prolifically dissembling president behaves when he is under oath. The Donald Trump who emerges from these depositions is the same but different from the one familiar to Americans today. He is just as apt to bluster and braggadocio, and sometimes peevish. But within the confines of conference rooms and offices, he is calmer, more restrained, and more deliberate than his public persona, and with the tether of his oath holding him back, often acknowledges when he is wrong or has misrepresented things in the past.

Spooky.

Can anyone think of a way to convince him that he's under oath all the time?

[CorruptUser]

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[tapupartforpres]

So...

He wants a path to citizenship for DACA recipients

And

Will talk to Bob Mueller under oath

Yea let's see IF this happens. The whole deal is just messed up to be honest.

[elasto]

A consummate example of the modern non-apology apology:

In an interview with ITV's Piers Morgan, Mr Trump said he knew "nothing" about Britain First before sharing three of its videos in November.

"If you are telling me they're horrible people, horrible, racist people, I would certainly apologise if you'd like me to do that," he told Morgan.

A progress of sorts? Or Is the apology so 'meta' as to be meaningless...

link

[Mutex]

A consummate example of the modern non-apology apology:

In an interview with ITV's Piers Morgan, Mr Trump said he knew "nothing" about Britain First before sharing three of its videos in November.

"If you are telling me they're horrible people, horrible, racist people, I would certainly apologise if you'd like me to do that," he told Morgan.

A progress of sorts? Or Is the apology so 'meta' as to be meaningless...

link

It's the standard "hypothetical" apology that usually starts "I'm sorry if". Not quite acknowledging the thing they're sort-of-apologising for actually happened.

[Ginger]

In my opinion it's a very common technique re: politicians to: "double talk," AKA, "say nothing while sounding like you are being sincere." SO: If he just leaves out... actual sorries... and PRETENDS LIKE he gonna apologize that may pacify some of his constituents and they'll just ignore that he never really said the words, "I did something wrong, I gonna fix it and I am sorry?"

[ObsessoMom]

Off topic, but on the subject of non-apology apologies:

Spoiler:

Dr. Larry Nassar's was a real humdinger, too:

There are no words that can describe the depth and breadth of how sorry I am for what has occurred. An acceptable apology to all of you is impossible to write and convey.

I've got to admire the weasel-words "for what has occurred," as if the crimes performed themselves. One can feel sorry that stuff "has occurred" without claiming responsibility or agency. And since the phrasing is so vague, "what has occurred" can include things that one sincerely regrets, like getting caught.

He removes himself from apology-land still one more level, by saying that "there are no words" for "how sorry I am," and therefore "an acceptable apology...is impossible." He therefore implies that not even attempting to apologize is the right and sensitive thing to do in this situation. What a kind and thoughtful fellow.

Back on topic:

Trump Administration officials, on the other hand, avoid apologies by walking back problematic statements they've made, while simultaneously claiming that the statement in question was correct in the first place. E.g.:

Breaking with long-standing tradition, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin endorsed the weakening of the dollar as “good” for the United States.

Speaking during a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 24, Mnuchin said: “Obviously, a weaker dollar is good for us as it relates to trade and opportunities.”

The reaction was swift. The greenback dropped like a stone as news of his comments spread, hitting a three-year low in currency markets.

Never before in living memory has one of America’s top economic officials spoken in favor of a weaker dollar. The president himself dove into the mix by reassuring nervous investors after he arrived in Davos that he does, in fact, favor a stronger dollar.

Indeed, that’s been the usual mantra out of Washington for decades. Mnuchin’s immediate predecessor, Jacob Lew, for example, put it this way: “A strong dollar has always been a good thing for the United States.”

[...]

Mnuchin may have begun to realize he went too far soon after he made his remarks on Jan. 24 – or noticed the dollar’s sudden plunge – because the next day he tried to walk them back, declaring that the Trump administration is not really concerned with “where the dollar is in the short term.”

The effort seemed half-hearted, as he described his previous words as “consistent with what I’ve said before…. There are benefits and there are costs of where the dollar is.”

Benjamin J. Cohen's full opinion piece (explaining why Steven Mnuchin's lack of concern about the depreciation of the dollar is, um concerning), can be read here: https://theconversation.com/treasury-se ... rous-90742

[Ginger]

LOL A NY Post articles says, 'There's a good reason why Trump never apologizes....' And I am in breathy giggles fits.

[sardia]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... atic-wave/
Alright, you guys(except CU) been ignoring the signs of this for a while, so pay attention. While it's not as bad as Corrutuser thinks it could be, it does limit the kind of gains that Democrats could make. A mere +6 in the generic polls can't overcome the gerrymandering/low turnout voters in the Democratic base, and more importantly, it increases the number of senate seats the Democrats could lose. The economy can only be sorta predicted 6 months out, and even when there's a recession, people may not know it. The fundamentals are conflicted right now, (good economy, rising poll numbers vs good performances in special elections) TLDR

It is not time for them to panic, but it’s a reminder not to take anything for granted.

Now I'm really curious as to the next special election results, or if another shoe drops in Mueller's investigation.

Spoiler:

I am worried that the GOP has successfully poisoned the investigation a la Ken Star whitewater case, so that even if Mueller presents a report that Trump is guilty, the GOP will refuse to indict him until after he leaves office. Lastly, without a larger advantage in seats of power, Trump's brand of politics is going to poison the country until it becomes another UK. Too bad there's not much Democrats can or are able to do with this knowledge. (pivot? Form a new party under the same name? Enact policies that oppress Republicans?) You lose enough elections, and anything can happen.

[jewish_scientist]

It’s the correct take, and any other take is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

That may be the best quote ever posted on this thread.

[Liri]

FBI? More like FBLie!

[Weeks]

FBI? More like FBLie!

Breaking: Nunes memo reveals corruption in Nunes

[emceng]

I really like the term 'Manchurian Idiot' for Trump. He is an idiot, and from his actions he just fucking loves Russia, at the expense of the USA.

[sardia]

I'm listening to the 538 podcast about Trump remaking the party, and they start trashtalking the media over shithole-gate and how it's a nothing burger. While I agreed the Mueller investigation is more important, I start wondering if Democrats and the media are overreacting to Trump in the wrong areas.

[CorruptUser]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Trump didn't get elected due to the media unintentionally giving him a free platform for his obnoxious views in an attempt to smear the Republican party by forever associating them with Trump. Trump got elected due to the media intentionally giving him a free platform because the media is secretly in love with the guy that brings in all the ratings, or at least loves to hate him and doesn't want him to leave.

[sardia]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Trump didn't get elected due to the media unintentionally giving him a free platform for his obnoxious views in an attempt to smear the Republican party by forever associating them with Trump. Trump got elected due to the media intentionally giving him a free platform because the media is secretly in love with the guy that brings in all the ratings, or at least loves to hate him and doesn't want him to leave.

The media has business reasons to overreact to Trump. When Democrats are reacting to Trump, their outrage is usually genuine, but I feel it's poor use of the public's limited attention span.

[Dauric]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Trump didn't get elected due to the media unintentionally giving him a free platform for his obnoxious views in an attempt to smear the Republican party by forever associating them with Trump. Trump got elected due to the media intentionally giving him a free platform because the media is secretly in love with the guy that brings in all the ratings, or at least loves to hate him and doesn't want him to leave.

I think this misses the mark. You're close in that the most scandalously outrageous guy around draws attention, and advertisers pay media outlets for attention.

Where I think you miss is mistaking Consequence for Intent.

There isn't a cabal of robed and hooded media executives making grand decisions about who should be on the screen, if there was they would have an attention-grabbing scandal-magnet that -didn't- call in to question the veracity of existing media outlets. Trump has done as much to damage existing media credibility as he has done to draw attention and advertising dollars (and any cabal with the influence of directing intent would be made up of the very "old media" that Trump, and others, have been eroding the confidence in).

What there is however is a system of paying for media production through advertising that stretches back hundreds of years at the very least to the beginnings of the modern newspaper. Radio, Television, even the Internet have all adopted a similar revenue generation method to subsidize in whole or in part the production of media. This system provides rewards for media outlets that find the most attention-grabbing material to publish (indeed it's arguable that what we call "tabloid-" or "yellow-journalism" predates what we would think of as "proper-journalism", and journalistic standards only came about in response to less than rigorous reporting standards). These revenue generation methods create fundamental brain-mechanic level rewards and reinforcements all down the line, from the attention-seekers looking to grab attention, to the journalists trying to write stories and pay the bills that way, down to the viewing audience who's perceptions are affected by what is presented in the media.

But it's a system driven by the most basic behavior-reward brain-mechanism-systems without intent. It has more in common with a train without an engineer, or a runaway steamroller. The mechanism of behavior-and-reward in the media industry does its thing like an engine, combustion pushes piston which drives crankshaft which turns wheel and the machine moves forward. Money goes to outlets that draw attention, so outlets seek attention-grabbing stories/images, which draws attention-seekers to create content for those outlets. It doesn't matter that the engine is driving the steamroller towards an entire car-lot of luxury sedans, nor does it matter to the mechanisms of the media industry that they've given a vast amount of attention to an individual who makes a mockery of the very task of information dissemination they try to accomplish. The centuries-old traditions of media generation -and the expectations of the consuming audience as to what and how much media they should get and how and how much they should pay for it-* drive the behavior-reward cycle forward regardless of intent or outcome.

*This bolded bit being important to any attempt to change the reward structure that drives media production decisions. To abuse the mechanical metaphor It's not a matter of turning a steering wheel, it's the need to replace the entire engine to make it go somewhere other than its current trajectory.

What we see is a consequence of a mechanism in motion. It's not a product of the intent of anyone, singular or multiple, at the helm of anything making decisions.

[Zohar]

I think increasing proof that the president is a racist and a bigot is newsworthy and anger-worthy. Not something that warrants immediate action like DACA or the budget, but it's worth reminding people are biggest problem isn't shithole countries, it's a shithole president.

[CorruptUser]

Oh please, the newspaper reader nor the cable news show viewer is not and has never been the main customer of media; the advertiser is. Just because the reader pays for the newspaper doesn't mean they are not the product.

Your runaway steamroller does indeed have an engineer. Just look at the CNN website. The Dow disappeared from the front page soon after the election, only reappearing sporadically whenever the market takes a hit. The news companies used to parade around the "jobs created this month" stat under Obama, but barely make any mention of it now. They aren't lying, but they do decide what news to report on.

And people wonder why the legitimate news, the mainstream media, have been tarred as "fake news".

[Soupspoon]

And people wonder why the legitimate news, the mainstream media, have been tarred as "fake news".

If it's true but broadly selective, it may not be impartial, but it isn't fake.

Calling awkward truths fake devalues both the truth and the truly fake.

[Zamfir]

Dauric, I find that a bit too easy on the intent. It's not like advertising (or clickbait or whatever) just falls from the sky. It's made by people who know exactly what business they are in, the business of getting to people to make unwise decisions. They just say, it's not illegal, I am not forcing them, it makes me money, I am clever. And the people on the other hand have agency as well. It's not like you automatic have to vote for Trump after you've read 24 articles in the NY Post.

In engine-metafor terms, it's as if every component of that engine is some super smart Industry 5.0 part that can look ahead, guestimate what's going to happen, and choose whether to participate or not.

[Zohar]

Oh please, the newspaper reader nor the cable news show viewer is not and has never been the main customer of media; the advertiser is. Just because the reader pays for the newspaper doesn't mean they are not the product.

Your runaway steamroller does indeed have an engineer. Just look at the CNN website. The Dow disappeared from the front page soon after the election, only reappearing sporadically whenever the market takes a hit. The news companies used to parade around the "jobs created this month" stat under Obama, but barely make any mention of it now. They aren't lying, but they do decide what news to report on.

And people wonder why the legitimate news, the mainstream media, have been tarred as "fake news".

I am unclear how any of what you wrote here relates to why it's newsworthy to report on the president's comments.

[CorruptUser]

And people wonder why the legitimate news, the mainstream media, have been tarred as "fake news".

If it's true but broadly selective, it may not be impartial, but it isn't fake.

Calling awkward truths fake devalues both the truth and the truly fake.

I'm not calling CNN fake, the alt-right (and regular far-right) and far left are. But they have a point that CNN does manipulate, even though it's not false. Propaganda isn't usually lies, other than lies of omission.

@Zohar
Was referring to Dauric, not you. The shithole countries remarks, as I've stated way back on the top of page 97 of this thread, were reported the wrong way.

[ObsessoMom]

My banana republic strongman parade is going to be bigger than your banana republic strongman parade.

Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to plan a military parade that would see soldiers marching and tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, it was reported on Tuesday.

The move was instantly criticised, with one veterans’ group comparing the president to “a wannabe banana republic strongman”.

[...]

Trump, who did not serve in the Vietnam war after receiving five draft deferments, has long spoken of his admiration for tough military figures such as General George Patton and frequently makes reference to “my generals”.

[...]


Richard Painter, former White House ethics lawyer for George W Bush, tweeted: “Cool. Just like in North Korea and Russia. But what do we do about those traitors who don’t clap during our Dear Leader’s speech?” – a reference to Trump’s criticism of Democrats who did not applaud during his state of the union address.

[Dauric]

Spoliering on "Intent" because this got long...

Spoiler:

We're talking about the population of the United States of America, over three-hundred million individuals. The choice of any individual to participate or not participate in the modern media market is subsumed in to raw statistical numbers. Any individual that does not participate in the media market as it currently exists leaves open a space for someone else to fill that gap, and fill it they will because someone will feel the need to take advantage of the opportunity.

The problem is there exists a reward structure that makes an industry built on making people make poor choices not only feasible but downright profitable. Again, big-picture, it doesn't matter that any particular individual decides to participate in that system or not, -someone- will take advantage of that reward system to better themselves if someone else doesn't.

Taking advantage of systems where there is an advantage to be had is one of the most basic survival traits, and a foundation of behavior for most every animal on the planet, humans included.

Media is part of a very old, very traditional, and very widespread behavior structure wherein Advertisers (those in an industry to make people make bad decisions) pay the lion's share of media costs. The public at large gets vastly reduced media costs in exchange for the opportunity for Advertisers to attempt to make them make bad decisions. And that's even before we get in to the heavy degrees of rationalization that people in the industry engage in to believe that their jobs are -not- making people make bad decisions, but helping people make informed decisions. I had an instructor in college (I was studying Multimedia and web design) that honestly believed pop-ups were the best thing to happen to the internet. He had built a detailed rationalization to support the idea that the activities he invested his life in were not detrimental.

Rationalization that one's invested behavior and/or beliefs is constructive and not destructive is a very basic function of human psychology.

Another fundamental behavior of human beings is to seek self-reinforcement. People in an "Industry" attend conferences to learn about the latest and greatest happenings/technology/etc. that have an effect on their work, but it also means they get heavy reinforcement of their beliefs from others that have built similar rationalizations about the value of the work they have invested a large portion of their lives in.

CNN, like pretty much every media outlet, has an editorial slant. That they play up their 'successes' and down their 'failures' falls to basic (and even predictable) human social-conscious behavior. It's not particularly full of intent if the people participating in the system are doing little more than following basic human drives. It is the rare individual that -does not- play up their successes and admits openly to their failures.

You want to show that the media world is driven by conscious intent you have to show that the human beings involved are acting in more complex fashions than those driven by base psychological mechanisms.

If the community of the United States was say.. a couple thousand, -maybe- the conscious intent of individuals would matter more, -maybe- it would matter if some of those individuals followed the chain of events without their own internal biases to unfortunate ends they might make a difference by not participating. We are orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude beyond that. The critical mass of rationalization and mutual reinforcement is a fraction of the people available and willing to take advantage of the existing systems to their own benefit.

To further abuse Zamfir's "Industrial 5.0" metaphor: Just because the parts of the machine are -capable- of thought, does not mean that they actually -engage- that capability on a more complicated level than the most basic underlying functionality. This gets worse when you increase the numbers as statistics takes over, and each moment that a component -doesn't- do something other than the most basic functionality compounds with those components that chose to follow that functionality, and the myriad ways other components may chose to not follow those directives dilutes the effective appearance of alternatives compared to the base function. With significantly larger and larger populations behavior becomes more and more predictable in response to the systems that they interact with.

You want to convince me that there is "Intent" you're going to have to convince me that the people involved aren't functioning on a psychological autopilot.

The Grand Upshot:

(And I want to clarify the way I intend terminology in the following: Media is consumed by the Audience. Audience Attention is consumed by the Advertisers)

We have a system that moves the costs of media production from the Audience that consumes it, on to another party who is willing to take on that burden for their own advantage. The system provides benefits to both groups and has done so for a very long time. This structure has an inherent system of rewards that are meted out with specific behaviors. At large enough populations the aggregate behavior is determined not by thoughtful contemplation, but by base psychological functions and statistical averaging.

The summary: Pavlov's dog doesn't -intend- to salivate at the ringing of the bell, it does because of conditioning and exploitation of instinctual behaviors.

The summary of the summary: People are a problem.

[Yablo]

If it's true but broadly selective, it may not be impartial, but it isn't fake.

Calling awkward truths fake devalues both the truth and the truly fake.

I agree with this, and I'm pretty tired of hearing about "fake news." Some of it truly is fake, but casting the large "fake news" net over everything makes it hard to argue.

At the same time, selectively reporting, omitting important details, and accurately reporting meaningless stories in an attempt to distract are still dishonest, and the media industry as a whole should have the integrity to rise above that. Leave the manipulative, agenda-pushing, "journalism" to the tabloids and conspiracy YouTube channels.

I realize it can be easier said than done, but certain professions and situations really do call for the setting aside of politics. For instance, an athlete on a championship team should either accept the invitation to the White House or not, and let that be the end of it. Don't call a press conference so you can make a big show about how you're not going because of this or that issue.

I strongly disagreed with a lot of Obama's policies, I think Hillary and Bernie would have been disastrous presidents, and while I like most of what Trump is doing, I think he needs to chill out and just be presidential. Even still, if I were on a championship team invited to the Obama, Clinton, Sanders, or Trump White House, I would definitely go, and I would be respectful.

Also, I would be far more likely to listen to an argument made by a Liberal news outlet that presented its stories in a respectful way. The way much of the mainstream media (CNN, in particular) go about their reporting is a major turn off. Insulting the other side doesn't strike me as intellectually honest or constructive.

[Soupspoon]

And people wonder why the legitimate news, the mainstream media, have been tarred as "fake news".

If it's true but broadly selective, it may not be impartial, but it isn't fake.

Calling awkward truths fake devalues both the truth and the truly fake.

I'm not calling CNN fake, the alt-right (and regular far-right) and far left are. But they have a point that CNN does manipulate, even though it's not false. Propaganda isn't usually lies, other than lies of omission.

Of course. But the process (not yours) of using the Fake News label for everything it has been used for means that it is an utterly debased coin.

See a graph that goes opposite to your expectations? Just label it Fake. Disagree with an opinion piece? Label it Fake. See a thing you know to be true but don't want to concede as true? Fake!

MsM is Fake. Politicians of the other party are Fake. Accredited non-partisan Fact Checkers are Fake. In the end, it's not useful for anything except muddying one's own favoured swamp to keep your own 'gators hidden from view.