-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
minor effort
Banned
It's almost amusing how transparent his desire to be respected and adulated by the Manhattan elite is.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Uh oh:
isn't bannon breitbarts master
why is breitbart breaking from the will of bannon
either way I hope the rift between trumpy and his stupid followers continues
Django.Mango
Member
There are yet some civil lawsuits against him.
Slurpy2k20
Member
That headline is already gone. Amazing.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Trump doing something blatantly illegal and requiring the GOP congress to impeach him would be a spectacle.
- They don't do it and look terrible and hugely partisan and suffer
- They go through with it, and Trump's fan base goes nuts and there's a GOP civil war
- They don't do it and look terrible and hugely partisan and suffer
- They go through with it, and Trump's fan base goes nuts and there's a GOP civil war
Yeah, wasn't impressed with the answer on whether he can do two jobs at once or not at all.
Holy fuck at those comments.
Children or trolls. Probably not even of voting age.
Slurpy2k20
Member
Uh oh:
Can you link to the article? I can't find it. Searching "broken promise" didn't even bring it up.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Really?
looool
Looks like there's a rift within Breitbart editorial if there's an inconsistency on what is posted and what is *approved*.
The self-censor by the white supremacists is amazing.
nature boy
Member
They removed the "Broken promise" bit, but Wapo has reported on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...promise/?postshare=5221479835284787&tid=ss_tw
gutter_trash
Banned
it's a game, keep the fakeness of being ''ballanced''
I was just wondering if he realizes what he is walking into.
VendettaRed07
Member
Trump won't go after Clinton because if he does, his ass is grass the second he leaves office.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I wonder if he realizes, come January, he's not going to be able to just hide in Trump tower all the time and never talk to anyone.
One of the core jobs of the president is to speak to the people.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Wikileaks got what they wanted, we probably won't hear from them again unless they actually have something against other Dems or people against Russia.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Fixed
Wikileaks and Wikileak followers are currently attacking Washington Post and NYTimes for being a propaganda arm for Clinton and peddlers of fake news.
Even liberals are surrounded by idiots.
Agreed. Gave very shallow talking points. Broad platitudes alone won't get the job done.
Intheflorsh
Banned
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
He seems to be trying to have two platforms.
Hooligan69
Member
This got me thinking, as it makes sense broken down like this. Discounting him as an imbecile may be playing right into his hands:
"Anger and righteous indignation aren't going to go very far. This isn't a fight you're going to win by just being angry. You need to pick your fights intelligently and understand that the guy who just won the election is putting on an act to con you into believing he's an idiot. He isn't dumb, he's a viper and he's playing by the lessons laid down in the Art of War.
Trump managed to change the subject this election every time his opponents gained steam by committing a blunder. Hell, we haven't been talking about his $25m settlement this weekend because he changed the subject to Pence at Hamilton. In war, this is analogous to carefully selecting terrain to fight from.
Trump managed to appear non-threatening to Republicans first, and then to Democrats. No one thought he would win a state primary, or THE primary, and surely not the election. He used this stature as a long shot to beat low expectations while his opponents were busy fighting each other. Trump appeared weak when he was strong.
When Trump's campaign was going through crises, he was his most active on the road and most verbal in the media. Trump appeared strong when he was weak.
During primary fights, Trump intentionally stirred discord between his opponents. He used Fox News to show Bernie Sanders in a good light. He resisted attacking Ted Cruz and John Kasich until the final stages of the campaign. He knew that the best way to beat a united enemy is to pick it apart into smaller factions to be defeated one by one.
Trump seized the moral high ground by courting violence against his own supporters. Like the Chicago Trump rally and others to come, he gained the sympathy of doubting members of the Right by showing the Left as violent.
He appeared unstable on purpose to take up all media coverage. He deliberately started a raucous on the final part of the Democratic Convention by criticizing the Khan family. By doing this, he forced his opponent to condemn him rather than articulate her own message. She had to condemn him while he stated his vision to Rust Belt voters.
Trump played us all. And we didn't see it coming. We all felt intellectually and morally superior while it was happening, and we were absolutely closed off to the idea that he was smarter than us all. But he is."
"Anger and righteous indignation aren't going to go very far. This isn't a fight you're going to win by just being angry. You need to pick your fights intelligently and understand that the guy who just won the election is putting on an act to con you into believing he's an idiot. He isn't dumb, he's a viper and he's playing by the lessons laid down in the Art of War.
Trump managed to change the subject this election every time his opponents gained steam by committing a blunder. Hell, we haven't been talking about his $25m settlement this weekend because he changed the subject to Pence at Hamilton. In war, this is analogous to carefully selecting terrain to fight from.
Trump managed to appear non-threatening to Republicans first, and then to Democrats. No one thought he would win a state primary, or THE primary, and surely not the election. He used this stature as a long shot to beat low expectations while his opponents were busy fighting each other. Trump appeared weak when he was strong.
When Trump's campaign was going through crises, he was his most active on the road and most verbal in the media. Trump appeared strong when he was weak.
During primary fights, Trump intentionally stirred discord between his opponents. He used Fox News to show Bernie Sanders in a good light. He resisted attacking Ted Cruz and John Kasich until the final stages of the campaign. He knew that the best way to beat a united enemy is to pick it apart into smaller factions to be defeated one by one.
Trump seized the moral high ground by courting violence against his own supporters. Like the Chicago Trump rally and others to come, he gained the sympathy of doubting members of the Right by showing the Left as violent.
He appeared unstable on purpose to take up all media coverage. He deliberately started a raucous on the final part of the Democratic Convention by criticizing the Khan family. By doing this, he forced his opponent to condemn him rather than articulate her own message. She had to condemn him while he stated his vision to Rust Belt voters.
Trump played us all. And we didn't see it coming. We all felt intellectually and morally superior while it was happening, and we were absolutely closed off to the idea that he was smarter than us all. But he is."
Nobody made articles about how people a part of Hilldawgs campaign were going to engage in Super Socialism by wanting a UBI program.
You would have assumed the conservatives would have had rage to fuel atomic bombs to this, but they didn't care at all.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So, this NyTimes interview is a 180 into being a moderate Republican on everything but the whole reason Trump is there:
"Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."
"Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."
Yeah, the more I hear of him he'd be best as a vice-chair or co-chair of the DNC alongside someone who can work FT on the organizing front, rebuilding state parties, etc.
Ideally that person would be high-profile enough that he or she could do media appearances, be a draw at events to some degree, etc.
Souldriver
Member
Agreed.
There were even some cringe worthy (non)-answers, like the one about him combining two arguably full time jobs.
Is he referencing some Nixon "When the president does it, it's not illegal" shit?
Flying Toaster
Member
Whoever takes the job has to make it 100% the only job they have.
Their deflection game is getting weaker by the day. No one wants to hear about something Hillary did or said now that Trump's in charge. Let it go. That pundit denounced neo nazis with more force than his guy ever has.
whyamihere
Banned
Ah.
Lololololololololol
whyamihere
Banned
...
metalslimer
Member
Hasnt Bannon described himself as part of the alt right?
Also one thing is for sure, this presidency will end with the president having to abide by conflict of interest laws.
Also one thing is for sure, this presidency will end with the president having to abide by conflict of interest laws.
Dying.
tedrotheredro
Member
Souldriver
Member
I don't know where to put it, because it seems like the conversation is everywhere on gaf, so I'll do it here.
About calling the Trump voters racist or not:
Yes, the people who voted for Trump are racist (if they support him), or stupid or uninformed or ignorant (if they don't really know him yet voted for him), or selfish or apathetic (if they support him despite knowing his positions), or... To put it short, it definitely shows a negative trait of them. There's no other way of putting it.
But apart from a core group, they are definitely not all unredeemable assholes. Trump simply managed to make them vote based on their negative traits. But I believe that you can just as easily tap into other characteristics and aspects of those same voters, which would make them vote in a totally different way. There are Trump voters out there, who pulled the lever thinking "that'll teach those thugs" yet voted Obama in '08 because of the Hope message. There are Trump voters who think all Muslims are terrorists, but could've been pursuaded to vote democrat if he thought it meant more job security. And so on.
Every person is a mixed bag. And I believe you can -if triggered- make everyone vote based on a particular issue that makes you think "wtf is wrong with you". It's the job of society and political figures in particular to not make them vote based on those ideas. If you are going to pinpoint racists as racists in the political arena and judge them for it, they'll vote like a racist. Instead, make them vote based on economic or environmental or social issues. They'd still be racists, but it won't dominate their persona and political behavior.
Trump followed the nationalist fascist playbook very well, which almost by definition tries to make people vote based on their negative traits: fear, anger, hate.
(I wish we could just say "fuck those racists", call them for what they are, and otherwise ignore their irrelevance. But they're not irrelevant. The voter base is not big enough to ignore the people who have nasty ideas.)
About calling the Trump voters racist or not:
Yes, the people who voted for Trump are racist (if they support him), or stupid or uninformed or ignorant (if they don't really know him yet voted for him), or selfish or apathetic (if they support him despite knowing his positions), or... To put it short, it definitely shows a negative trait of them. There's no other way of putting it.
But apart from a core group, they are definitely not all unredeemable assholes. Trump simply managed to make them vote based on their negative traits. But I believe that you can just as easily tap into other characteristics and aspects of those same voters, which would make them vote in a totally different way. There are Trump voters out there, who pulled the lever thinking "that'll teach those thugs" yet voted Obama in '08 because of the Hope message. There are Trump voters who think all Muslims are terrorists, but could've been pursuaded to vote democrat if he thought it meant more job security. And so on.
Every person is a mixed bag. And I believe you can -if triggered- make everyone vote based on a particular issue that makes you think "wtf is wrong with you". It's the job of society and political figures in particular to not make them vote based on those ideas. If you are going to pinpoint racists as racists in the political arena and judge them for it, they'll vote like a racist. Instead, make them vote based on economic or environmental or social issues. They'd still be racists, but it won't dominate their persona and political behavior.
Trump followed the nationalist fascist playbook very well, which almost by definition tries to make people vote based on their negative traits: fear, anger, hate.
(I wish we could just say "fuck those racists", call them for what they are, and otherwise ignore their irrelevance. But they're not irrelevant. The voter base is not big enough to ignore the people who have nasty ideas.)
They tricked 60 million people, maybe they can trick just a few more.
Shoot for the moon
Yodeling.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's almost like *endorsed Bernie Sanders* shouldn't be the mist qualifying aspect to getting a job....
This guy is less then a few months out from running the country, and he still can't pin down where he stands on anything. At this point I just want him in office already so he will actually have to act instead of just lie all the time. Then I wont have to hear anymore "just give him a chance/ he doesn't mean what he says," once he finally screws up either.
So is Fox News.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its going to be a long two years
- Status