Master Trump Thread

[iff]

When trump supporters claim trump isn't racist, here he tells 4 congresswomen to go back to the countries they came from, all but 1 of which is the USA.

 

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/07/14/politics/donald-trump-tweets-democratic-congresswomen-race-nationalities/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FNfwwa4ba4T

 

Though I do wonder what he is trying to distract attention from with this

 

 

[Nick2]

GOP/Trump supporters no longer have to hide their racist desires/wants.  It is a free for all now and they are showing who they have always been.   Remember compassionate conservative from the George Bush 2  era?  Poor attempt to act like they cared.  How else can you justify what we are doing to kids?  What kind of a country warehouses people like this?  They will continue to say they are not racist but they are 100% so and it is not going to get better any time soon.  Once the toothpaste (which we do not allow caged kids) is out of the tube it is very hard to get it back in.

[Skycaptain]

It's been reported in Britain that the main reason he's pulled out of the Iranian nuclear treaty has nothing to do with its effectiveness, but simply because Obama signed it. 

No wonder he's trying to pal up with Kim in North Korea, they must be kindred spirits, children in adult bodies treating their nation as their own personal toyshop 

[Knight of Cydonia]

On 7/5/2019 at 5:24 PM, RoseGoesToYale said:

Contrary, he had to deliver a speech on independence day from behind bulletproof glass. That's how hated he is. So we're still doin' something right.

Obama debuted using bulletproof glass for speeches. I don't think it means anything other than wanting to ensure safety.

[Homer]

Does the fact that he's orange make Doughnald the second POC in the White House?

[AspieAlly613]

On 7/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, iff said:

When trump supporters claim trump isn't racist, here he tells 4 congresswomen to go back to the countries they came from, all but 1 of which is the USA.

 

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/07/14/politics/donald-trump-tweets-democratic-congresswomen-race-nationalities/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FNfwwa4ba4T

 

Though I do wonder what he is trying to distract attention from with this

 

 

Simple Bayesian analysis of the situation, accounting for the relative number of times any given Republican makes any given argument, indicates that the argument was "the reason people immigrate here is because we're better than those other countries," not "immigrants don't belong here."  For a random person not to do that analysis is excusable.  For a major news outlet not to do that analysis is not excusable.  

[daveb]

It was pure racism, based on them being persons of color and disregarding the facts of where they come from. It's in line with his previous racist statements and actions. From birtherism and all the rest. I don't see how anyone can support the man, least of all people of color, LGBT folks, and everyone else he shows such contempt for. *shakes head*

 

I know it's not new, but I refuse to accept it as "normal". Continuing outrage is justified, in my opinion, and can be channeled towards changing things for the better.

[iff]

1 hour ago, daveb said:

It was pure racism, based on them being persons of color and disregarding the facts of where they come from. It's in line with his previous racist statements and actions. From birtherism and all the rest. I don't see how anyone can support the man, least of people of color, LGBT folks, and everyone else he shows such contempt for. *shakes head*

 

I know it's not new, but I refuse to accept it as "normal". Continuing outrage is justified, in my opinion, and can be channeled towards changing things for the better.

 

For me, it reminds me of my shock as a child when my father asked how a black pop singer was Irish. because 1)she was born here 2) one of her parents is irish.

 

it's trying to delegitimise non-white people as being "Not American" in the eyes of trump. It is disgusting.

 

the country Trump's paternal grandfather came from doesn't even exist anymore.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 7/14/2019 at 4:10 PM, Nick2 said:

They will continue to say they are not racist but they are 100%

 

I am 5'10" tall. That is an intrinsic trait of mine.

 

I don't know if when you say that they are 100% racist you mean that they have an intrinsic trait called racism or you mean that their words and actions are racist.

 

Even if you are not saying that racism is an intrinsic trait/quality of theirs--even if you simply mean that their behavior is racist--that does not tell us if you think that we are dealing with something internal that must be exorcised from them or if their behavior is mostly or entirely the result of circumstances and environment.

 

Furthermore, is this racism you refer to a social/institutional phenomenon that they are caught in the middle of, or is it a manifestation of something personal/individualistic?

 

If all of these racist people you refer to were to suddenly drop dead, would racism in the U.S. disappear?

 

It is my observation that the discourse concerning intolerance and bigotry in contemporary society is an extremely simplistic treatment of an extremely complex phenomenon. If we really want to eradicate racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., we are going to have to be more honest with ourselves about our intentions (personal disapproval is not a reliable foundation for addressing problems, in my humble opinion) and all of social reality.

[Sally]

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

I am 5'10" tall. That is an intrinsic trait of mine.

 

I don't know if when you say that they are 100% racist you mean that they have an intrinsic trait called racism or you mean that their words and actions are racist.

 

Even if you are not saying that racism is an intrinsic trait/quality of theirs--even if you simply mean that their behavior is racist--that does not tell us if you think that we are dealing with something internal that must be exorcised from them or if their behavior is mostly or entirely the result of circumstances and environment.

 

Furthermore, is this racism you refer to a social/institutional phenomenon that they are caught in the middle of, or is it a manifestation of something personal/individualistic?

 

If all of these racist people you refer to were to suddenly drop dead, would racism in the U.S. disappear?

 

It is my observation that the discourse concerning intolerance and bigotry in contemporary society is an extremely simplistic treatment of an extremely complex phenomenon. If we really want to eradicate racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., we are going to have to be more honest with ourselves about our intentions (personal disapproval is not a reliable foundation for addressing problems, in my humble opinion) and all of social reality.

Oh, BS.  

[SithLord]

3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

If all of these racist people you refer to were to suddenly drop dead, would racism in the U.S. disappear? 

 

It is my observation that the discourse concerning intolerance and bigotry in contemporary society is an extremely simplistic treatment of an extremely complex phenomenon. 

1) I hope the question was not to be taken seriously since you say the situation is complex and that question is extremely simple.

 

2) Yes, the problem is complex. But that doesn't mean we can't simplify it for better understanding, as long as we don't lose the bigger picture. To explain to a normal person that racism and sexism is imbedded into our social frameworks and for a truely equal society you'd have to strip all that away, it sounds like you're advocating for anarchy or revolution. But focusing on small things at a time, this monumental change may eventually happen. 

 

I look at it like Marx's take on Socialism and Communism. What I remember is that he wanted society to eventually go that direction and saw it as inevitable because of the poor treatment of laborers. There's more to it than that, but he didn't account for small changes to our Capitalist society that would make such a revolution unlikely, to  say the least. Laws and other social changes were made to lessen the problems of that time and make it into what we have today. 

 

Small steps forward are a lot easier to focus on than the marathon that needs to be ran. 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

1 hour ago, sithgirlix said:

1) I hope the question was not to be taken seriously since you say the situation is complex and that question is extremely simple.

 

I don't know about "the situation". It might possibly be dismissed as nothing more than politics.

 

But I do know that how the human mind works and how society works are probably more complex than anybody has ever imagined. A clinical psychologist once said to me, "I have been studying people for more than 30 years, and I am still figuring people out".

 

The statement was not about the situation. The statement was about people--that they are racist "100%".

 

So I tried to get clarification about what this "100%" racist means.

 

 

1 hour ago, sithgirlix said:

2) Yes, the problem is complex. But that doesn't mean we can't simplify it for better understanding, as long as we don't lose the bigger picture. To explain to a normal person that racism and sexism is imbedded into our social frameworks and for a truely equal society you'd have to strip all that away, it sounds like you're advocating for anarchy or revolution. But focusing on small things at a time, this monumental change may eventually happen. 

 

I look at it like Marx's take on Socialism and Communism. What I remember is that he wanted society to eventually go that direction and saw it as inevitable because of the poor treatment of laborers. There's more to it than that, but he didn't account for small changes to our Capitalist society that would make such a revolution unlikely, to  say the least. Laws and other social changes were made to lessen the problems of that time and make it into what we have today. 

 

Small steps forward are a lot easier to focus on than the marathon that needs to be ran. 

 

I do not believe that history is linear and teleological. I do not buy into the myth of progress.

 

Things like racism and sexism are probably always going be present and can only be contained, never eliminated.

 

I could be completely off base, of course.

 

Seeing the bigger picture is never a completed task, but the moment we stop trying to see it is the moment that the problems we are trying to cope with become obscured.

 

Unless you believe that humans are a bunch of pathetic fools who are delusional when they think that they can help themselves, you should not be opposed to clear thinking.

 

Clear thinking is not making a complex problem unmanageable.

 

Clear thinking--which, in my estimation, means never losing sight of the larger context / big picture--is a prerequisite for effective change.

 

Effective change could mean ridding one's own mind of erroneous thinking. Or, at the group level, a paradigm shift.

 

I would rather go ahead and make that change, not exhaust the status quo until we are forced to change.

[Sally]

8 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I do not believe that history is linear and teleological. I do not buy into the myth of progress.

 

Things like racism and sexism are probably always going be present and can only be contained, never eliminated.

 

 

But history IS linear, since it is simply a recounting of what happened over time.  

 

Containment of racism and sexism is indeed progress.  I really don't care whether someone thinks I as a woman am inferior, as long as they keep that opinion to themselves -- i.e., contain it.   That containment wasn't happening in the 19th century; it's happening now in much of the world.  

[SithLord]

8 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I do not believe that history is linear and teleological. I do not buy into the myth of progress.

That is... vague. History is most certainly linear as that's the way time works. Maybe it can be poorly passed on and looked back on differently, but it's still traveling in one direction.

 

Teleological means having a purpose? No, I don't believe in existance to life. Only to live and not fuck up the planet so others can live too.

 

You might need to explain the myth of progress. Because I believe the world should be improved for everyone, I believe there is progress possible in making things better. Give women the vote? Progress! You're making women more equal to men which is good in terms of making things better for both men and women!

 

But if you're more of a nihilist in that there's no purpose for "bettering" society as there is no "better" only different, then we're just gonna have to disagree there.

 

 

12 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Things like racism and sexism are probably always going be present and can only be contained, never eliminated.

I somewhat agree. Not sure since I am a bit of an idealist here. I do believe these things are a lot of our species' tendancy to form in-groups and out-groups, and therefore treat the out-group as lesser or at least different from our in-group. Just not sure about the larger scale of things because I believe we might evolve over a long-ass period of time. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Seeing the bigger picture is never a completed task,

 

15 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Clear thinking--which, in my estimation, means never losing sight of the larger context / big picture

These two are contradictory statements. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Seeing the bigger picture is never a completed task, but the moment we stop trying to see it is the moment that the problems we are trying to cope with become obscured.

 

Unless you believe that humans are a bunch of pathetic fools who are delusional when they think that they can help themselves, you should not be opposed to clear thinking.

 

Clear thinking is not making a complex problem unmanageable.

 

Clear thinking--which, in my estimation, means never losing sight of the larger context / big picture--is a prerequisite for effective change.

 

Effective change could mean ridding one's own mind of erroneous thinking. Or, at the group level, a paradigm shift.

 

I would rather go ahead and make that change, not exhaust the status quo until we are forced to change.

I'm gonna be honest. I really don't know what you mean here. You mean you believe in revolution? In just jumping off the cliff as opposed to climbing down one hand-hold at a time? 

 

To me, this jumping vs. climbing comparison is the only way I can make sense of what you're saying.

I see a goal, a "bigger picture", the dream of getting to the bottom of the cliff. It's dangerous and you may not be able to see the bottom because of the tress and other things in the way, and maybe the cliff isn't straight up but curved and concave or otherwise difficult along the way. In order to get down this cliff, I find a foothold, then another, then move steadily down while keeping both feet and hands on the cliff at all times. 

To me, it seems like you're advocating just jumping off the cliff which is potentially dangerous and deadly. 

 

 

No, there's no clear purpose to life. The goal of human existance is not to climb down that cliff. The cliff is just a goal, a way to make things "better" in my eyes. There may be no real "bottom" in the ideal of a world without discrimination based on things we're born as. But if climbing down that cliff makes it easier for us to live together without killing each other and making life harder for each other, isn't it a good thing? 

[Skycaptain]

Apparently there are calls to impeach him for this. People might as well save their breath. To paraphrase Winston Churchill "It would be easier for him to keep a live coal in his mouth than a stupid saying" 

 

[Sally]

He will not be thrown out of office by impeachment.  That would demand that the Senate would try him and find him guilty.  If you haven't noticed, the Senate is  Republican.  

[Gentle Giant]

@daveb Thanks for answering my question earlier. Getting back to that, wouldn’t it be possible that Trump could lose in the primary to Weld or someone else if they should run? Why do Republicans want to stick with Trump when they could have a much better candidate? Trump has shown himself to be a horrible president. Why stick with him? It really makes no sense.

 

That money Trump wasted on on the 4th of July celebration excess could have been used to make things better for the poor migrant detainees. But no he doesn’t think they should be treated humanely. I read somewhere that donations weren’t being allowed either.

 

Trump should go back to where he came from, or better yet go to prison.

[Nick2]

2 hours ago, Gentle Giant said:

@daveb Thanks for answering my question earlier. Getting back to that, wouldn’t it be possible that Trump could lose in the primary to Weld or someone else if they should run? Why do Republicans want to stick with Trump when they could have a much better candidate? Trump has shown himself to be a horrible president. Why stick with him? It really makes no sense.

 

That money Trump wasted on on the 4th of July celebration excess could have been used to make things better for the poor migrant detainees. But no he doesn’t think they should be treated humanely. I read somewhere that donations weren’t being allowed either.

 

Trump should go back to where he came from, or better yet go to prison.

Simple:  He is giving them what they want, saying what they want, and not letting "those" people get free stuff.  It does not matter if they are suffering as well as long as the "other" does not benefit.  The super rich control things now and they will play the rest of us like a fiddle...always dividing but at the same time controlling.  Our democracy is a shadow of what it was.  An illusion that will not return.

[Gentle Giant]

I guess they have no integrity then.

 

Why does Trump get to define who is anti-American? Weren’t Republicans anti-Russia at one time? Why now it’s ok that Trump sold us out to them? Why does he get to define what socialism means? Why does he get to define what a Democrat is? Why does he get away with so much crap that if anyone else did has to apologize or resign over? He is overconfident. One of these days he will slip and fall. I find it hard to believe after all that he’s shown us that he would be elected again. He will cheat to win.

[ben8884]

I think it is going tot take the people who agree with him as well. I cannot wait until this is all done and guys like Mitch McConnell will swear that they never really liked Trump and without them he would have been worse. 

[daveb]

4 hours ago, Gentle Giant said:

wouldn’t it be possible that Trump could lose in the primary to Weld or someone else if they should run?

Possible? yes

But seems very unlikely at this point.

 

People such as McConnell, Graham, et al., and other people with power and/or money, either support him or say nothing because they are getting what they want in terms of things like legislation, policy, appointees, their own self-aggrandizement, their own monetary gains, etc. If they have any objections to Trump they aren't voicing them publicly. They are swallowing whatever integrity they might have had to further their own goals. It's the "deal with the devil". I guess some also agree with him in some or all of his thinking on things like immigration, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. I do think a good many of them also would like to go back to some era where white males of property were lording it over everyone else. I think they feel threatened by the fact that that world is going away and they can't really stop that. Even with all of their kicking and screaming and dirty tricks and lack of ethics and everything else, they can only slow it down. I don't think history will judge them well.

[RoseGoesToYale]

The House has to vote on a resolution to condemn Trump's comments toward the congresswomen? Isn't condemnation a given?

 

Made me think of this:

 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

15 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

That is... vague.

 

What is vague about it?

 

I do not believe that history moves on a straight line and never leaves that line.

 

I do not believe that there is a telos--a final cause--that that line is leading to.

 

And I do not believe that history is a process of discarding bad things and accumulating good things until there will be nothing but good things remaining.

 

 

15 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

History is most certainly linear as that's the way time works.

 

According to what I have read, the idea that history is linear is a recent Enlightenment creation. Most thinkers have thought that history is cyclical.

 

And some physicists might disagree with your statement about time. To some time is looking more and more like an illusion.

 

 

15 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

You might need to explain the myth of progress. Because I believe the world should be improved for everyone, I believe there is progress possible in making things better. Give women the vote? Progress! You're making women more equal to men which is good in terms of making things better for both men and women!

 

The myth of progress says that history is an ongoing process of eliminating bad things and accumulating good things until we will eventually have nothing but good things.

 

Yes, we can make improvements. Yes, we have made improvements. But they can be taken away. The myth of progress does not recognize or believe the latter. The myth of progress sees bad things as hiccups, bumps in the road, etc. on the path to eventual perfection. The myth of progress does not allow the possibility that things are cyclical and that everything could collapse and take us back to square one. The myth of progress does not allow the idea of limits. The myth of progress certainly does not allow the possibility that some things just happen for reasons we cannot understand.

 

Stan Goff goes farther in "The P Word"--he shows how the myth of progress is steeped in racism, sexism and imperialism:

 

https://medium.com/@stangoff/the-p-word-a-half-assed-political-autobiography-cee0992f3992

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

14 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

These two are contradictory statements. 

 

I suppose they could be when taken out of context.

 

Try keeping them in their context.

 

14 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

I'm gonna be honest. I really don't know what you mean here. You mean you believe in revolution? In just jumping off the cliff as opposed to climbing down one hand-hold at a time? 

 

To me, this jumping vs. climbing comparison is the only way I can make sense of what you're saying.

I see a goal, a "bigger picture", the dream of getting to the bottom of the cliff. It's dangerous and you may not be able to see the bottom because of the tress and other things in the way, and maybe the cliff isn't straight up but curved and concave or otherwise difficult along the way. In order to get down this cliff, I find a foothold, then another, then move steadily down while keeping both feet and hands on the cliff at all times. 

To me, it seems like you're advocating just jumping off the cliff which is potentially dangerous and deadly. 

 

 

No, there's no clear purpose to life. The goal of human existance is not to climb down that cliff. The cliff is just a goal, a way to make things "better" in my eyes. There may be no real "bottom" in the ideal of a world without discrimination based on things we're born as. But if climbing down that cliff makes it easier for us to live together without killing each other and making life harder for each other, isn't it a good thing? 

 

I have simply said that clear thinking and clear communication are required for effective change.

 

Statements like "They are racists" are far from clear.

[daveb]

21 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

The House has to vote on a resolution to condemn Trump's comments toward the congresswomen? Isn't condemnation a given?

I'm not sure how it could be a "given". Yeah, part of the thing with democratic institutions is people voting on things. 

 

I personally think it's a very clear case of racism (not to mention misogyny, among other things) and should be condemned by anyone who values justice, fairness, and doing what is right.

[Gentle Giant]

Now Lindsay Graham is calling the congresswomen communists and that they hate America. Again, Trump and his people defining others with lies. Despicable!

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

33 minutes ago, Gentle Giant said:

Now Lindsay Graham is calling the congresswomen communists and that they hate America. Again, Trump and his people defining others with lies. Despicable!

 

People act like this is all something new and they are shocked and outraged.

 

My parents have told me that on their college campus in the mid-1960's people passed out literature saying that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist.

[daveb]

People can be shocked and outraged without thinking it is all something new. People should be shocked and outraged, in my opinion.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

50 minutes ago, daveb said:

I personally think it's a very clear case of racism (not to mention misogyny, among other things) and should be condemned by anyone who values justice, fairness, and doing what is right.

 

Why spend so much energy on a few words from the keystrokes and mouth of one mortal in one brief, fleeting moment in history?

 

I think that that energy would be better spent addressing root causes.

 

Condemning this President over a few statements is not radical enough. Not even close.

[daveb]

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Why spend so much energy on a few words from the keystrokes and mouth of one mortal in one brief, fleeting moment in history?

Well, this thread is about that one mortal who wields a lot of power in this "brief, fleeting moment in history" and which has a huge impact on many people's lives.

Why spend so much energy on this thread yourself?

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Condemning this President over a few statements is not radical enough. Not even close.

I never claimed to be radical and I would never try to be. I personally don't think that's a good way to produce good results. So I will do what little I can within the system we have (such as voting, voicing my opinions, and the like). If that's not radical enough for you that's not my concern. Sorry.