Trump protestors

[Phi for All]

Katrina I the biggest example. I remember live reports of babies being raped, roving gangs murdering people, helicopters being shot, and etc, etc. A congressional review after showed it was all exaggerated. More recently we saw the "riots" in Ferguson. Media vans and reports lined the streets. Some night media personnel easily out numbered protesters. Yet the reports were consistently sensational showing police officers with high powered assualt rifles marching through clouds of tear gas as mask wearing protestors ran the streets.

 

Like the Russian meddling into our elections, and the Republican stonewalling of the judicial appointment process, I don't know why more People aren't protesting media in a trust position that can't be trusted. I see this as a national security issue ultimately. An informed public is critical in any democracy. If you can't trust the information you see ON THE FRICKIN' NEWS, how can your decisions be meaningful for you and your family? How can we feel anything but manipulated by this modern media process? Life in the US has become a minefield of misinformation, and there are no islands to steer towards if Trump sets his sights on defunding National Public Radio, which I'm sure his new stategist is just itching to do. Bannon must hate NPR.

[Ten oz]

 

SwansonT,

 

Well many places in this election, people drew wide sweeping character and thought assumptions based on a few actions and lacks of action. 1 - Like the assumption that if Hilary deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER the government asked for government records she had on an ill-advised server, that she obviously had something to hide. Facts, not assumptions, no room to compromise, she was asked for government records and did not turn over everything on her server. Sure it is possible she is innocent and just deleted e-mails as to what to order for lunch, but the equally plausible assumption is that she had something to hide. 2 - Like Trump not releasing his Taxes, the assumption is that he has something to hide, and this means he paid no taxes, owes Russia and China millions, has business deals all over the world that will cause conflict of interest between his businesses and the interests of the U.S.

 

3 - Bannon runs an organization that fosters views of the alt right. I myself find this disqualifying, but I make wide sweeping assumptions as to what kind of policy this means he might argue for and against. But it is not a black and white slam dunk that you know what Bannon will advise, why Trump wants him in that position and whether Bannon has any helpful ideas to add to how the office should proceed. Like my conversations with a black co-worker at an apartment building in Newark, where I learned that he had 4 children with 3 different women, was interested in spreading his seed, and knew that government programs would help his women raise the kids, lead me to assume that other black men in Newark, might be taking the same tack.

 

Regards, TAR

1 - The FBI investigated that. The charge was followed through with action.

 

2 - Trump has not released his Taxes. There has been no follow up. He bragged during the debate that not paying taxes made him smart and hasn't released.

 

There is a massive double standard here you are willfully ignoring. You are treating every question you consider negative directed at Trump as being equal to everything that happened with Clinton and a way to say it is all the same. It is not the same! One candidate turned over their taxes and the other did not. One candidate was investigated by the FBI and had tens of thousands of emails made public and the other was not. One candidate's team was illegelly cyber attacked and the other was not. From Trump we got no taxes, no emails, no hacks, etc. Stop pretending it is all the same when it clearly isn't. U.S. intel agencies aren't claiming Russian hackers attacked Donald Trump.

 

3 - Bannon works for a hate group, you know it and believe it is disqualifying, but because you met a black man in Newark with lots of kids; c'est la vie?

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Understood, but I have talked to many men over my life in many different settings, be that school or the Army or business or volunteer work or social, and have come to expect certain behavior and mindset from certain people that is different than what I expect from others. Profiling if you will. In both good and bad expectations. I don't make sweeping generalizations based solely on skin color, although skin color, combined with other characteristics and behavior does lead me to expect various reactions and mindsets, combined with the actual facts of where somebody lives, what they do, and what they don't.

 

Ten Oz,

 

Good point about the protests sometimes looking more significant then they are. I counted 80 people spread out on the street in a frame on CNN entitled Miami Fl. talking about another day of protest. Years ago I was at the National Mall on a nice day and people were walking around enjoying the Capitol and we came across a small group of people, maybe 20 with signs protesting the issue of the day surrounded by a few barriers and police and a news van and we walked on by. That night, I saw a piece about this protest on the mall in Washington and it looked pretty big...then I recognized it as the nothing I walked by that afternoon, which didn't have anything like the feel the TV shot portrayed.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

Like the Russian meddling into our elections, and the Republican stonewalling of the judicial appointment process, I don't know why more People aren't protesting media in a trust position that can't be trusted. I see this as a national security issue ultimately. An informed public is critical in any democracy. If you can't trust the information you see ON THE FRICKIN' NEWS, how can your decisions be meaningful for you and your family? How can we feel anything but manipulated by this modern media process? Life in the US has become a minefield of misinformation, and there are no islands to steer towards if Trump sets his sights on defunding National Public Radio, which I'm sure his new stategist is just itching to do. Bannon must hate NPR.

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately Senator Lindsey Graham is at least calling for an Senate investigation to determine the extent of the cyber attacks against the DNC. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russia-dnc-hack-lindsey-graham_us_582bb306e4b0e39c1fa703d5

 

Other Senators like Bernie Sanders who are out doing the press rounds giving their opinion on what Clinton should have or could have done seriously need to turn their attention toward the attacks and stand vocally with Senator Graham.

 

As for the information we receive from the media, I have nothing. I don't know where it goes from here.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not trying to make equivalent situations, but trying to make analogies of where one takes a few facts and makes broad assumptions that fit their narrative. Sometimes it is valid, sometimes not, but one can not automatically assume that their assumptions are obviously correct and the other guy or girls assumptions are obviously fabricated. In both cases there is confirmation bias.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

But at the same time, you can't always just say that everything is a wash because there are people with in-built biases who believe things without regard to the facts on both sides.

 

Because there are actual facts.

[tar]

for instance one of the tenants of the alt right, I learned last night is that multiculturalism demonizes white males unfairly as xenophobes, sexists, homophobes and bullies...gee, that is how I feel exactly

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not trying to make equivalent situations, but trying to make analogies of where one takes a few facts and makes broad assumptions that fit their narrative. Sometimes it is valid, sometimes not, but one can not automatically assume that their assumptions are obviously correct and the other guy or girls assumptions are obviously fabricated. In both cases there is confirmation bias.

 

Regards, TAR

No analogies needed. The charges against Clinton were investigated, period. It is a matter of fact. Suspicions about Clinton's server and her actions surrounding Benghazi were officially chased to the ground. Clinton's campaign was cyber attacked. Again, that is a matter of fact. Clinton also did willing release her taxes. No bias in those statements. It all happened. it is all a matter of record. As for Trump, no investigations, no hacks, no taxes released.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Sure there are actual facts, but there is also actual spin and cherry picking and in many cases during the election one situation proved a label.

 

Regards, TAR

[imatfaal]

for instance one of the tenants of the alt right, I learned last night is that multiculturalism demonizes white males unfairly as xenophobes, sexists, homophobes and bullies...gee, that is how I feel exactly

 

It is lies and propaganda. You don't honestly think they promote themselves by being honest do you? And since when does "multiculturalism" do anything? It is an idea and approach to living; even its supporters would not be in the business of demonizing any sector of society - because that would suddenly be not-Multiculturalism

[tar]

imatfaal,

 

Yet Hillary had the basket of deplorables.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

for instance one of the tenants of the alt right, I learned last night is that multiculturalism demonizes white males unfairly as xenophobes, sexists, homophobes and bullies...gee, that is how I feel exactly

Why do you feel that way?

[Ten oz]

for instance one of the tenants of the alt right, I learned last night is that multiculturalism demonizes white males unfairly as xenophobes, sexists, homophobes and bullies...gee, that is how I feel exactly

And electing someone who even you concede isn't competent to lead helps resolve that feeling how?

 

9/11, Benghazi, Katrina, Super Storm Sandy, Bombing of the Cole, and etc weren't events our gov't had marked on a schedule. In addition to the policies a politician campaigns on there are emergent situations that arise which require immediate and sober responses. It isn't enough to say that as a white male you feel a certian way.That is no justification for allowing incompetence into the White House. Sure, maybe Trump surrounds himself with smart people but what happens when those smart people disagree? If Generals, Admirals, Advisors, and etc disagree and President has a choice to make what happens? What knowledge base does Trump pull from to make hard choices? It is reckless to dismiss his incompetence to lead. Reckless to justify his election with stories about black men you disapprove of.

[Delta1212]

imatfaal,

 

Yet Hillary had the basket of deplorables.

 

Regards, TAR

I think that comment was a mistake. But it's also worth noting that in context, it was a (true) comment that the members of a rather deplorable movement in the United States promoting racism and white nationalism were backing Trump as their preferred candidate, not a statement that everyone backing Trump was a member of this movement, which is how it was spun.

 

One of the real problems with it was explicitly naming "half" of his supporters as being deplorable, which takes it out of the realm of purely factual and turns it into one of those "not meant to be taken literally" generalizations without solid facts to back them up that are so dangerous to play around with no matter who they are directed at.

[Ten oz]

Delta1212,

 

Sure there are actual facts, but there is also actual spin and cherry picking and in many cases during the election one situation proved a label.

 

Regards, TAR

Because both exist doesn't mean they do so in equal amounts. It is your responsibility to wade through the information. There are many numbers and different numbers add up to different amounts. That doesn't excuse someone who claims 2 + 2 = 7

I think that comment was a mistake. But it's also worth noting that in context, it was a (true) comment that the members of a rather deplorable movement in the United States promoting racism and white nationalism were backing Trump as their preferred candidate, not a statement that everyone backing Trump was a member of this movement, which is how it was spun.

 

One of the real problems with it was explicitly naming "half" of his supporters as being deplorable, which takes it out of the realm of purely factual and turns it into one of those "not meant to be taken literally" generalizations without solid facts to back them up that are so dangerous to play around with no matter who they are directed at.

I don't. Conservatives atack at 100%. They accuse Clinton of having killed people, chanted "lock her up" at rallies, their nominee threatened (is still considering) to direct the DOJ to prosecute her if he won, her campiagn was illegally cyber attacked, and etc, etc. Conservatives goes full scorched earth but then cry foul over a comment like "deplorables". Trump is not competent to lead and Conservatives do not care. No taxes released, facing fraud charges, caught bold face lying time after time, no clear policy positions, and etc. Yet liberals are expected to apologies for "deplorables". It is nonsense. Trump was endorsed by hate groups, did talking about grabbing womenbecause he is a celebrity, was caught lying over and over, and etc. Even on election day he claimed Tom Brady had called him and gave his support. A claim Tom Brady quickly denied. Whether or not Trump and many of his followers are deplorable is absolutely on the table for discussion. And it is ridiculous that Conservatives think bait and switch conversations by bringing it up.

[Delta1212]

Conservatives do a lot of things that I don't think are good ideas. If I did, I would probably be more conservative.

[swansont]

 

SwansonT,

 

Well many places in this election, people drew wide sweeping character and thought assumptions based on a few actions and lacks of action. Like the assumption that if Hilary deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER the government asked for government records she had on an ill-advised server, that she obviously had something to hide. Facts, not assumptions, no room to compromise, she was asked for government records and did not turn over everything on her server. Sure it is possible she is innocent and just deleted e-mails as to what to order for lunch, but the equally plausible assumption is that she had something to hide. Like Trump not releasing his Taxes, the assumption is that he has something to hide, and this means he paid no taxes, owes Russia and China millions, has business deals all over the world that will cause conflict of interest between his businesses and the interests of the U.S.

 

Bannon runs an organization that fosters views of the alt right. I myself find this disqualifying, but I make wide sweeping assumptions as to what kind of policy this means he might argue for and against. But it is not a black and white slam dunk that you know what Bannon will advise, why Trump wants him in that position and whether Bannon has any helpful ideas to add to how the office should proceed. Like my conversations with a black co-worker at an apartment building in Newark, where I learned that he had 4 children with 3 different women, was interested in spreading his seed, and knew that government programs would help his women raise the kids, lead me to assume that other black men in Newark, might be taking the same tack.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

For all of the panties-in-a-bunch whining about the appearance of impropriety surrounding Clinton, to dismiss it here with Trump is rank hypocrisy.

 

And also, though I have no wish to revisit this, let's get our facts right. Hillary never deleted 33,000 emails. Someone was directed to do it and as far as she could know, that directive was carried out in a timely fashion (but it hadn't been). So stop ascribing these actions to her. If you are going to appeal to her being responsible for the actions of a hireling's employee, then that standard had damn well better apply to Trump and all of his transition team. Bannon is a white supremacist, so your line of argument has to be that Trump owns that baggage, unless you've decided to double down on the hypocrisy, at which point there is no utility in discussing this with you, since I have no desire to waste time with intellectual dishonesty. So pick your path. You can't have it both ways.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not sure I think Trump is incompetent to lead. I think he is a salesman, a negotiator and it appears that he manipulates people into thinking he is for them, when he is using them to gain an advantage...but I thought Hilary was untrustworthy as well. There are things, that politicians do, to gain the trust of groups of people that sometimes are done at the expense of other groups. Like the Republicans, Drug Companies, Iranians comment, or the basket of deplorable comment. Trump used fear of crime and drugs and ISIS and political correctness and quid pro quo and Washington elite running your life. Hillary had the hate of the basket of deplorables to be afraid of.

 

Thing is, I am IN the basket of deplorables and have to fight my way out and defend myself against every label, and I am a citizen of the U.S. in addition to being a person that is owed the benefit of the doubt and consideration as equally as anybody that is not a white male.

 

For me, it is this we against them thing, where I am the they that I don't think is .

 

And the protestors and several on this thread are relitigating the campaign points which are very we against them, at the same time, as they are suggesting that Trump either attempts to be less divisive or be disqualified and not allowed to lead.

 

I saw a quick statement that was taken off the screen too soon after I started paying attention to it, to know if it was what it looked like, but it was a statement by a younger Trump that if he ever ran for president he would run as a Republican because the republican electorate was the more stupid and easily won over. This is indication to me that Trump will not automatically back conservative programs and such, nor be the demon that dems think he will be, because he is republican and did not denounce the KKK , etc.

Trump can surround himself with different opinions and people that disagree with each other to unite the republican party and still wind up being a person capable of leading the country.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

That quote came up during the primary. I think it was apocryphal, though.

[tar]

and in any case, it is the demonstrators that have their panties in a bunch

[swansont]

Ten Oz,

 

I saw a quick statement that was taken off the screen too soon after I started paying attention to it, to know if it was what it looked like, but it was a statement by a younger Trump that if he ever ran for president he would run as a Republican because the republican electorate was the more stupid and easily won over. This is indication to me that Trump will not automatically back conservative programs and such, nor be the demon that dems think he will be, because he is republican and did not denounce the KKK , etc.

 

 

 

Never said it.

http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/

and in any case, it is the demonstrators that have their panties in a bunch

 

Is that supposed to be relevant, or clever? It does not address my objection whatsoever.

[Ten oz]

 

 

For all of the panties-in-a-bunch whining about the appearance of impropriety surrounding Clinton, to dismiss it here with Trump is rank hypocrisy.

 

And also, though I have no wish to revisit this, let's get our facts right. Hillary never deleted 33,000 emails. Someone was directed to do it and as far as she could know, that directive was carried out in a timely fashion (but it hadn't been). So stop ascribing these actions to her. If you are going to appeal to her being responsible for the actions of a hireling's employee, then that standard had damn well better apply to Trump and all of his transition team. Bannon is a white supremacist, so your line of argument has to be that Trump owns that baggage, unless you've decided to double down on the hypocrisy, at which point there is no utility in discussing this with you, since I have no desire to waste time with intellectual dishonesty. So pick your path. You can't have it both ways.

When Clinton has been accused of something investigations have followed. Conservative complain about things Clinton may or may not have done as if those complaints have not already been formally reviewed. It is beyond hypocrisy. It is dishonest.

[tar]

the Trump supporters are satisfied with the victory and looking forward to a better economy and increased law and order within our borders and a more respected place on the world stage in terms of trade deals and the stock market is up to all time highs since the election, in contrast to the doom and gloom forecast should he win the election

[DrP]

QUOTE: "A more respected place on the world stage.."

 

 

Ha Ha Ha HA HA!!! you are so funny!

 

 

 

wrt the economy - didn't the Obama gov do quite well with that?

 

Also - you can't say anything about the initial scramblings of the market - you'll have to wait to see what happens over the next 4 years.

Edited November 16, 2016 by DrP

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not sure I think Trump is incompetent to lead. I think he is a salesman, a negotiator and it appears that he manipulates people into thinking he is for them, when he is using them to gain an advantage...but I thought Hilary was untrustworthy as well. There are things, that politicians do, to gain the trust of groups of people that sometimes are done at the expense of other groups. Like the Republicans, Drug Companies, Iranians comment, or the basket of deplorable comment. Trump used fear of crime and drugs and ISIS and political correctness and quid pro quo and Washington elite running your life. Hillary had the hate of the basket of deplorables to be afraid of.

 

Thing is, I am IN the basket of deplorables and have to fight my way out and defend myself against every label, and I am a citizen of the U.S. in addition to being a person that is owed the benefit of the doubt and consideration as equally as anybody that is not a white male.

 

For me, it is this we against them thing, where I am the they that I don't think is .

 

And the protestors and several on this thread are relitigating the campaign points which are very we against them, at the same time, as they are suggesting that Trump either attempts to be less divisive or be disqualified and not allowed to lead.

 

I saw a quick statement that was taken off the screen too soon after I started paying attention to it, to know if it was what it looked like, but it was a statement by a younger Trump that if he ever ran for president he would run as a Republican because the republican electorate was the more stupid and easily won over. This is indication to me that Trump will not automatically back conservative programs and such, nor be the demon that dems think he will be, because he is republican and did not denounce the KKK , etc.

Trump can surround himself with different opinions and people that disagree with each other to unite the republican party and still wind up being a person capable of leading the country.

 

Regards, TAR

It is frightening to me how many Trump supporters/defenders I have seen this past week excuse themselves for having voted for him by indicating he may have just been lying or exaggerating about his positions during the campaign. You say you couldn't trust Clinton yet seem hopeful that Trump can't be taken at his word. It is madness in my opinion. One should never vote for a candidate on the assumption they lying.