Fire and Fury

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:
The comment was nothing to do with a Clinton / Trump issue.

Fair dos. Still tired of the fake news nonsense. Fake news isn't fake simply for writing to an audience. That's why you read multiple vetted sources. But anybody who would have done so, just taking Trump's 'style' of correspondence, it's natural to conclude he's unfit in the most basic of senses.

And this is kind of the problem here. Just tsking Trump at his own words, I could see him doing half the inglorious shit people write of him doing.

That opinion is based on how Trump acts and his advisors and officials behave that shapes my opinion for a reason. It's because of all the garbage he gets up to.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
You're doing that thing by the way, where you're supporting Trump. Throwing in a paltry "Yes hes an idiot" is null and voided by the rest of your posts in this topic, particularly the even paltrier "both sides are bad".

Trump's side is bad.

Nope. I'm criticising reporting. It's very different. Also, see my response to BastardofMelbourne regarding the "both sides" malarkey - youse are all misreading things.

If you can't see there being an issue with having widespread confirmation bias across the political spectrum, I'm kind of worried.

No, we arent misreading things. Infact, we are very intently not letting you mislead us by pretending to be the moderate you want us to think you are.

StatusNil:
The most disturbing thing here is the insinuation that Trump didn't want to win. Which I've obviously heard before, but chosen to ignore because the implications are not good for keeping one's paranoia in check. I mean, would that mean that he too was in on The Fix? That he was used to clear the field of other Republican candidates and then graciously take a dive for Her Majesty?

That would explain the sheer intensity of unmitigated hate for him on the part of partisans of the planned dynastic succession, wouldn't it? "That son of a bitch double crossed us!" Which is as good an argument for electing him as any.

As for his being a "dumb choice" for President, well, obviously that would be the case if there was a serious alternative who wasn't wholly a creature of the Corporate-SocJus complex. But as it happens, there wasn't. So, still a better choice, until he actually gets everyone nuked. It's an appalling gamble, to be sure. But an interregnum of chaos is sometimes required to allow for the cleaning up of the entrenched interests who would sacrifice any foundational principle that allowed whatever actual progress that has taken place in the US over the past couple of centuries. So how about getting with that program while there's still a chance to come through this necessary ordeal?

It's kind of amazing how successful corporations have been at displacing the anger which should be directed at capitalism instead towards marginalized people.

Anyway, please stop confusing Corporate Public Relations with Social Justice.

Saelune:
No, we arent misreading things. Infact, we are very intently not letting you mislead us by pretending to be the moderate you want us to think you are.

Okay, Saelune. Hope it doesn't get too windy up there on that cross.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And this is kind of the problem here. Just tsking Trump at his own words, I could see him doing half the inglorious shit people write of him doing.

That opinion is based on how Trump acts and his advisors and officials behave that shapes my opinion for a reason. It's because of all the garbage he gets up to.

But this is the dangerous thing. Saying "it sounds like something he would do" is incredibly dangerous, because you are giving up all pretence of critiquing received information and just embracing confirmation bias. Especially with the Chinese Whispers that is gossip, which is what this book is actually reporting.

I mean, yes, he is fairly incompetent to a dangerous degree. That doesn't mean the rest of the world should be lowering its competency to match...

Catnip1024:
But this is the dangerous thing. Saying "it sounds like something he would do" is incredibly dangerous, because you are giving up all pretence of critiquing received information and just embracing confirmation bias. Especially with the Chinese Whispers that is gossip, which is what this book is actually reporting.

I mean, yes, he is fairly incompetent to a dangerous degree. That doesn't mean the rest of the world should be lowering its competency to match...

No... it's not a scary thing. Because if there is legitimate risk or damages, it won't be up to me to deign their truthfulness. It's gossip with a strong basis of believability, because people already have a low opinion of him and have his very public actions to judge him by. Trump is a mouthy arsewipe, and him being worse than he appears in public does not surprise me. This book won't alter my opinions of him, because I already have his public actions we can unbiasedly, provenly, empirically classify him as being nothing more than a mouthy arsewipe.

You assume I've done something more than simply state; "It wouldn't surprise me..."

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
No, we arent misreading things. Infact, we are very intently not letting you mislead us by pretending to be the moderate you want us to think you are.

Okay, Saelune. Hope it doesn't get too windy up there on that cross.

As you are the odd man out, I would say the faux Jesus figure is not her. Maybe you'd like to claim she's Pilate, since you are trying to preach that we know not what we do and all that jazz. But you're not Christ either and we're not here to crucify you. We just don't want you worshipping false idols. So like, cool it, man. Plenty of us know the score here, and we don't dig your groove, alright?

Catnip1024:
Okay, Saelune. Hope it doesn't get too windy up there on that cross.

Can I suggest a different metaphor? I think you just want to say he's being sanctimonious, but being "up... on that cross" implies being a martyr for one's values, which I do not think is justified in this situation.

Nor do I think anyone's misreading the situation. This book is not necessarily gossip in the way you imply; if the author reports that (say) Steve Bannon has told him something, then he has a named source. It is at bare minimum those insider people's stated opinions on goings on, and this is a valid form of information.

Of course Bannon et al. may at various points be lying, exaggerating or otherwise misleading to play out petty grudges. Even if this is the case, it reveals the dysfunction in the White House simply by it being full of such peoeple.

StatusNil:
The most disturbing thing here is the insinuation that Trump didn't want to win. Which I've obviously heard before, but chosen to ignore because the implications are not good for keeping one's paranoia in check. I mean, would that mean that he too was in on The Fix? That he was used to clear the field of other Republican candidates and then graciously take a dive for Her Majesty?

That would explain the sheer intensity of unmitigated hate for him on the part of partisans of the planned dynastic succession, wouldn't it? "That son of a bitch double crossed us!" Which is as good an argument for electing him as any.

As for his being a "dumb choice" for President, well, obviously that would be the case if there was a serious alternative who wasn't wholly a creature of the Corporate-SocJus complex. But as it happens, there wasn't. So, still a better choice, until he actually gets everyone nuked. It's an appalling gamble, to be sure. But an interregnum of chaos is sometimes required to allow for the cleaning up of the entrenched interests who would sacrifice any foundational principle that allowed whatever actual progress that has taken place in the US over the past couple of centuries. So how about getting with that program while there's still a chance to come through this necessary ordeal?

But why would the Trump presidency make the establishment chance its ways in a positive sense? Its far more likely that the establishment will end up corrupted by this.

With Trump they see you can proudly lie, that you can be openly corrupt, that your proximity to big business doesn't have to be a weakness and that you don't have to even pretend to serve the common good.

Trump showed that doing those things can make you the most powerful man in the world so what incentive is there for politicians to be honest now? Trumps corruption was there for all to see and his electorate is okay with it.

Eh, I view the book with skepticism, but I imagine at the very least some nuggets of truth will be scattered about within. Trump has had his lawyers order a cease and desist against the publisher. They responded by bumping up the release date of the book to...hmm...about a few hours from now as I type this, which is hysterical. Either he's afraid that some truth is there, or he's afraid of his image being damaged...probably a bit of both to be honest. However I will point out that several books ripping into Trump have come out since he took office, and THIS is the one he's losing it over. Trump also claimed that this guy had no access to the White House at all, and there are no sources to anything in the book, that it's just all lies. This is despite him also sending a cease and desist to Bannon for being a source to the book. Which is, once again, hysterical.

He's really losing it over this book full of "lies" though...kind of like how he lost it over a book back in the 90's that detailed his mob connections, shady business dealings, and how much of an influence his father had on it all. He was quite upset about about the book, and pushed against it's release. It of coarse, was released. Or how he sued a writer of another book a bit over a decade ago for claiming that he was only worth 250 million at most, and not the billions he always claims he's worth. That also didn't go the way he wanted it to. Like I said, I view this book with skepticism, but Trump's reaction to this book and not any of the other recent books that chronicle his shady past and present, makes me wonder. Esspecially given that he tends to lash out when there's some truth to be found and he feels it's a threat to him in one way or another.

Nedoras:
Trump also claimed that this guy had no access to the White House at all, and there are no sources to anything in the book, that it's just all lies. This is despite him also sending a cease and desist to Bannon for being a source to the book. Which is, once again, hysterical.

That does beg an interesting question. Is everything in the book a fabrication, or did Bannon actually disclose information he wasn't authorized to? The White House is sending some real mixed messages on this one.

Nedoras:
He's really losing it over this book full of "lies" though...kind of like how he lost it over a book back in the 90's that detailed his mob connections, shady business dealings, and how much of an influence his father had on it all. He was quite upset about about the book, and pushed against it's release. It of coarse, was released. Or how he sued a writer of another book a bit over a decade ago for claiming that he was only worth 250 million at most, and not the billions he always claims he's worth. That also didn't go the way he wanted it to. Like I said, I view this book with skepticism, but Trump's reaction to this book and not any of the other recent books that chronicle his shady past and present, makes me wonder. Esspecially given that he tends to lash out when there's some truth to be found and he feels it's a threat to him in one way or another.

A certain Reuters article gives an opinion on this:

"I assume the cease-and-desist letter is aimed primarily at the public," added Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School. "The idea that he [Trump] could block publication is absurd."

Because, as I understand it:

Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer specializing in national security law, said any non-disclosure agreement would not apply to Bannon once he became a government employee. The government has far less power to limit speech by employees than private companies, Moss said.

So yeah, get fucked Trump. Finally rumours and heresay come to bite your well deserved arse.

Catnip1024:
But this is the dangerous thing. Saying "it sounds like something he would do" is incredibly dangerous, because you are giving up all pretence of critiquing received information and just embracing confirmation bias. Especially with the Chinese Whispers that is gossip, which is what this book is actually reporting.

I think there's a serviceable middle ground between "behaviour that confirms prior observed reports" and "behaviour that confirms my expectations."

Like, I would always be wary of confirmation bias, and this is fundamentally a gossip book, but none of that means that it isn't true. It just means we take everything reported with a grain of salt.

Nedoras:
He's really losing it over this book full of "lies" though...kind of like how he lost it over a book back in the 90's that detailed his mob connections, shady business dealings, and how much of an influence his father had on it all. He was quite upset about about the book, and pushed against it's release. It of coarse, was released. Or how he sued a writer of another book a bit over a decade ago for claiming that he was only worth 250 million at most, and not the billions he always claims he's worth. That also didn't go the way he wanted it to.

It's funny; you'd think he'd have learned by now that he can just let them publish the book and completely ignore it, because his voters will ignore it anyway.

Like, those two books you cite, they're not new. They were available well before the 2016 election. A significant chunk of the electorate knew about the contents of those books and voted for Trump anyway. Which really just amazes me; can you imagine the same happening for Obama? Like, imagine if Obama had a similar biography about him written in the early 90s that credibly connected him to organised crime. He never would've won the nomination, much less beaten John McCain.

bastardofmelbourne:
It's funny; you'd think he'd have learned by now that he can just let them publish the book and completely ignore it, because his voters will ignore it anyway.

That would be a valid strategy for maintaining Trump's position with voters, but not a valid strategy for protecting Trump's very delicate ego. I think we can both hazard a guess at at which is the real motivation for this. It seems to me that Trump gets very very angry about these things around publication and slowly forgets about them after (Much to the relief of his lawyers, presumably).

Besides, whether or not he wins, if Trump's lawyers dispute the book in court then the information in the book is in question. If the case goes against him: "Biased courts" etc. if he wins then: "finally vindicated against political/personal attacks" etc. But disputing the book gives his sycophants the grounds to cast doubt over the evidence, to erode yet more faith that his base has in "the liberal elite", bunch of lying, book-writing know-it-alls that they are.

Like, those two books you cite, they're not new. They were available well before the 2016 election. A significant chunk of the electorate knew about the contents of those books and voted for Trump anyway. Which really just amazes me; can you imagine the same happening for Obama? Like, imagine if Obama had a similar biography about him written in the early 90s that credibly connected him to organised crime. He never would've won the nomination, much less beaten John McCain.

I agree, any Democrats would have been skewered (waaah waaah Bengazi, etc), but let's not forget that the man was elected while being accused of sexual assault by multiple women. It would have to be quite a book to change people's minds beyond that. "Burying their heads in the sand" is the best way I could put it.

FalloutJack:
As you are the odd man out, I would say the faux Jesus figure is not her. Maybe you'd like to claim she's Pilate, since you are trying to preach that we know not what we do and all that jazz. But you're not Christ either and we're not here to crucify you. We just don't want you worshipping false idols. So like, cool it, man. Plenty of us know the score here, and we don't dig your groove, alright?

Agema:
Can I suggest a different metaphor? I think you just want to say he's being sanctimonious, but being "up... on that cross" implies being a martyr for one's values, which I do not think is justified in this situation.

Not to dwell on what was a rather flippant remark, but my point was more that Saelune has a bit of a persecution complex. Far more eager to see things as a conspiracy against them than for them. Remembers any time somebody criticises a criticism of Trump as a personal attack, but glosses over any time they criticise him.

It makes a proper conversation a little difficult.

Nor do I think anyone's misreading the situation. This book is not necessarily gossip in the way you imply; if the author reports that (say) Steve Bannon has told him something, then he has a named source. It is at bare minimum those insider people's stated opinions on goings on, and this is a valid form of information.

Guys. Guys. Reread the thread. My comment on "misreading" was in relation to a previous comment that both sides of the public and the media have swathes of members happy to engage in confirmation bias, where people leapt to the conclusion that I was insinuating Hillary was as bad as Trump.

Trump Floated Medicare For All?

image

I guess that's not that surprising; seems like he doesn't have any investment into the policy at all and has just been letting everyone else decide things for him so the bills that end up getting pushed by his administration are just the worst Republican trash. So not exactly a progressive champion either way, not that that really needs saying.

Catnip1024:
Snip

No, Saelune has a blunt truth complex. She says what is and she's tired of sparing people's feelings over it. Perhaps if you communicated better, you wouldn't get 'misread'. Or, on the other hand, the reason you cannot get us to listen to you is because we have read right through you.

Seanchaidh:
Trump Floated Medicare For All?

Oh, that's not surprising at all. Trump's promises regarding healthcare have always described a generous, publicly-operated universal healthcare system - one at clear odds with the plans drafted by Ryan and McConnell, who simply wanted to repeal Obamacare's taxes and use the money to fund tax cuts that they eventually just decided not to bother funding.

Plus, there was that time he complimented Australia on our system, which is a publicly-funded universal healthcare system with a mix of public and private insurance options.

The obstacle has always been that a) Trump understands literally nothing about health insurance; he thinks it works like life insurance, for Christ's sake, and b) any expansion of public healthcare would require a tax hike, and the ideal targets for such a tax hike are people like Trump, and Trump was never going to willingly increase the taxes he and his friends pay for the benefit of the unwashed masses.

FalloutJack:
Or, on the other hand, the reason you cannot get us to listen to you is because we have read right through you.

If you're refusing to listen to people with differing views on the grounds you "read through them", what are you doing on an internet forum in the first place?

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Trump Floated Medicare For All?

Oh, that's not surprising at all.

He's advocated single-payer in the past a few times, but he also explicitly condemned single-payer as "not the right fit right now" or some such during the 2016 campaign. It's possible that he doesn't know Medicare-for-All and single-payer are the same thing.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
Or, on the other hand, the reason you cannot get us to listen to you is because we have read right through you.

If you're refusing to listen to people with differing views on the grounds you "read through them", what are you doing on an internet forum in the first place?

1) The world is clearly flat, and if you don't give my opinion the full weight you'd give one of those Round-Earthers, then you're just biased against my point of view, even if you can clearly read between the lines and see that I'm saying it just to make a point. I mean, otherwise, what are you doing on an internet forum in the first place? Are you just closed minded and refusing to listen to people with differing views?

2) You also have your preconceived biases against anything not-right-wing, and basically never consider the other side, so you ain't much more innocent.

3) If Saelune has a persecution complex, it's kinda understandable given she's part of a minority group that routinely gets shat on in the states. If she lives in one of the deep red hotbeds of assholes in the country (not sure if she does or not), she'd likely fear for her life just about every day, probably for pretty good reason.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
Or, on the other hand, the reason you cannot get us to listen to you is because we have read right through you.

If you're refusing to listen to people with differing views on the grounds you "read through them", what are you doing on an internet forum in the first place?

I refuse to listen to people with differing views when those differing views have proven to be wrong. Nazis deserve no voice. The KKK deserves no voice. The fucking Confederacy deserves no voices.

I do not give ground to the views that racism is ok, that homophobia is ok, that sexism is ok, or that the poor need to be put down for not having enough money.

We gave these people their chances and they all blew it, predominantly by murdering loads of innocent people. Stop defending that.

Saelune:
Stop defending that.

Yeah, except that we started this with me pointing out that confirmation bias is a real and systemic issue, but you jumped the gun as usual and assumed I was talking about Hillary. For some godforsaken reason.

But no, rattle on about the KKK as usual. Ciao.

Catnip1024:
So a book full of rumours and gossip, suddenly being treated by the world media like it is gospel, on the grounds that it conforms with their preferred narrative.

C'mon, guys...

Can I be honest before I start?

I truly don't feel like you're a bad guy, Catnip. I think we're completely at different ends of the political spectrum, but I don't believe you're there out of some malice of people who aren't like you. Being one of the few people on this forum with your political leanings, you get dogpiled on a lot and I feel bad sometimes being another person quoting you. There's no malice on my part.

Ok, I'm starting now.

My questions are going to lead to one overarching question. So I'll start with the leading questions.

First off, what do you think the book is about? Obviously to sell money. If he didn't need to eat and sleep somewhere warm, he'd put it on the internet for free and go live in a shack. And more over, I do NOT discount his desire for money, that's what drives all of us. And with the hot button issue that this presidency has been, I don't think you could hit a bigger pay dirt.

So, we have that in mind. What else is there? Is it just a gossip piece? Let's define it as such. It's a Gossip piece. Alright, what now? Does that devalue the message that's coming out? That the dozens of hours of recordings that Wolff supposedly has signifying that even the people Trump chose to be around him believes that he's a danger to this world... these sentiments really don't matter much because they tangentially validates the political view points of a different party?

How would anyone feel if they were just enlisted and put into an army where even the general's subordinates were talking behind his back about how much of a jack ass he is and how he doesn't know anything? Would any of us be willing to put our lives on the line for someone like that? Would any of us be ready to follow any strategy set out by such a man that his bumbling is not only easily witness by you, but openly mocked by his go-tos?

And that brings us to our overarching question. Even if it is just a gossip rag, if it's filled with actual statements of the people who work closest with the President and how stupid they all think he is... how is that not significant to know that even his own people don't trust him? How should we if that is the case?

ObsidianJones:
I think we're completely at different ends of the political spectrum.

Well, I'm not so sure of that, but that's a debate for another day. The current "you are opposed to unlimited immigration equals you must be right wing" categorisation misses an absolute shedload of legitimate positions.

But back on topic, my comment is not really specific to any part of the political spectrum. It's genuinely from the point of view of "is this what we want political reporting to be now?" angle. Much in the same way that I will occasionally quibble over statistics.

So, we have that in mind. What else is there? Is it just a gossip piece? Let's define it as such. It's a Gossip piece. Alright, what now? Does that devalue the message that's coming out? That the dozens of hours of recordings that Wolff supposedly has signifying that even the people Trump chose to be around him believes that he's a danger to this world... these sentiments really don't matter much because they tangentially validates the political view points of a different party?

See, in my eyes, it is legitimate information, just not particularly crucial information. Certainly not the biggest story of a week in which Trump has insulted North Korea, Pakistan and Palestine (my theory is he got the latter two confused to start with).

It is on a par with the Clinton email leak, purely considering the source of the information. You have a lot of unguarded comments that don't necessarily reflect actual positions so much as moments in time (people say different things after a bad day, for instance), you have potential in-jokes which may not have been recognised as such by the writer. It all has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Because let's be honest, if somebody spent a few weeks eavesdropping on me at work or reading my emails, they could almost certainly portray me in a fairly negative light. Same for a lot of people, I imagine. Worse, spend a couple of weeks listening to office gossip about the management.

I'm all for criticism of Trump - his latest batch of tweets has me almost suspecting he is taking the piss and seeing how far he has to go before people realise it was all a joke - but jokes about how his hair is the colour it is don't seem to be really relevant, for instance. It's the sort of story one would expect to see in the Daily Mail, for example.

So this is what happens when Bush IQ jokes are elevated to the level of Frost-Nixon...

Catnip1024:

I'm all for criticism of Trump - his latest batch of tweets has me almost suspecting he is taking the piss and seeing how far he has to go before people realise it was all a joke - but jokes about how his hair is the colour it is don't seem to be really relevant, for instance. It's the sort of story one would expect to see in the Daily Mail, for example.

Sorry to but in, but I see and hear people saying stuff like this every now and then and it drives me up the wall. I also saw his latest batch of tweets, and it was not a joke. It's never a joke. I know you said "almost suspecting" and not full on thinking it's a joke, but there's this thought floating about that he's some grand troll and just screwing with everyone and that's not the case. This man's past tells one hell of a story, and it's that he believes lying blatantly all the time will let you get away with anything. He's not joking, he's doing what he's always done.

Trump doesn't allow for negativity to be shed on his "brand", his brand being him. Even if it's a truth and not even negative. For example during the election year Bill O' Reilly was interviewing Trump, and was setting up a question by stating that Trump was a rather blunt, outspoken kind of guy. Trump immediately went on the defensive, saying he went to an ivy league school, that he wasn't blunt or outspoken, etc. O' Reilly was then rather confused why Trump was being so defensive and tried to ease him into it. He didn't mean it in a bad way at all, but Trump took it that way because it could be perceived as being so. Although I'm willing to put money down, that if O' Reilly set up that statement as saying he was "amazingly outspoken" or "tremendously outspoken", Trump would have agreed. He's obsessed with maintaining a positive image and relies on the fact people forget things about him or don't know things about him to get by. I mean he claimed in that batch of tweets that this was the first time he ran for president. He didn't have to add in that little lie, but he did. Because he wants the best image, the most tremendous image, the perfect image. He's a deranged, narcissistic fool, and that's all there is to it.

And yeah, the book has a good chunk of gossip, but it paints a very relevant picture. A former Trump biographer did a review of the book, and although he was disappointed that the author included things that couldn't be proven or were just speculation, he said that the image the book paints is one he is all too familiar with. It was a picture that he's been in before. I get that it can be insufferable that people latch onto gossip and petty crap to go after Trump for, and to be honest I'd much rather people focus on all the shady, illegal crap he's done. But to be honest, I think the gossip is what pisses him off the most. Which is why I think he's so focused on crapping on this book, and not any other recent book about him. And he's not pissed because it's all lies and slander, he's pissed because there is truth in there. It's embarrassing to him and hurts his ego, which is more important than anything else to his fragile little mind.

...Sorry, that was much longer than I meant it to be.

Nedoras:
But to be honest, I think the gossip is what pisses him off the most. Which is why I think he's so focused on crapping on this book, and not any other recent book about him. And he's not pissed because it's all lies and slander, he's pissed because there is truth in there. It's embarrassing to him and hurts his ego, which is more important than anything else to his fragile little mind.

If that is that case, what exactly the point then outside of a sense of schadenfreude?

Ninjamedic:

Nedoras:
But to be honest, I think the gossip is what pisses him off the most. Which is why I think he's so focused on crapping on this book, and not any other recent book about him. And he's not pissed because it's all lies and slander, he's pissed because there is truth in there. It's embarrassing to him and hurts his ego, which is more important than anything else to his fragile little mind.

If that is that case, what exactly the point then outside of a sense of schadenfreude?

There really isn't and that's why this book is selling so well. The author has a very inflated sense of self worth which isn't helping the situation either. He's going around claiming that his book will bring down the president, which is laughable. There is relevant information in the book, there is some truth to it. But people are focusing on the gossip. This isn't a situation I'm happy with by the way. It disappoints the hell out of me that I see and hear the stories of his daughter making fun of his hair, or the bit about how he tries to sleep with his friends' wives. There is so much information available about this guy to bury him, but it's all from his pre-Apprentice life and that has sadly been forgotten about. If there's one thing he truly was successful in doing, it's burying his past by painting himself in a false light. He's no longer the mediocre businessman with mob ties who lost it all, he's Donald Trump the TV star who never lost anything and is very famous and tremendous. And now he's president.

Nedoras:
] There is so much information available about this guy to bury him, but it's all from his pre-Apprentice life and that has sadly been forgotten about.

Has it? the average opinion I see about Trump ranges from Puppet to Turbo-Hitler, I don't see what else can really be gleaned from this that isn't already known that is going to change anyone's minds.

Ninjamedic:

Nedoras:
] There is so much information available about this guy to bury him, but it's all from his pre-Apprentice life and that has sadly been forgotten about.

Has it? the average opinion I see about Trump ranges from Puppet to Turbo-Hitler, I don't see what else can really be gleaned from this that isn't already known that is going to change anyone's minds.

I honestly think it has. Sure Trump is a very unlikable guy, but the "Russian puppet" and "basically Hitler" comments that I also see everywhere are from recent events and stuff from his campaign. I don't remember much of his shady, mob connected, past being brought up on the campaign trail. It is far too late for that though, and you're right that this isn't going to change any minds. It's why I think the author is a fool for thinking this will damage anything other than Trump's ego. This book will provide gossip to those who want that, and it's actual relevance is just more confirmation that the illusion is still an illusion. To his supporters it's just something to dismiss. Hell, even the GOP itself is going after the book which gave me a laugh.

Catnip1024:

I'm all for criticism of Trump

No, you're not. You defend Trump more than even Zontar does these days. You keep trying to act like you are some reasonable, only moderately right-wing person, and condemn things that sure, should be condemned...but you do it in hypocritical defense of Trump. But your money where your mouth is.

You only say reasonable sounding things when it is to defend unreasonable people and views.

Its like yelling at a bullied kid for hitting his bully saying 'violence is always wrong', after having said "Kids are gonna be kids" when the bully hit first.

If you really had a problem with confirmation bias, you would despise Trump. He literally calls anything he disagrees with fake news while touting everything he agrees with as real news.

StatusNil:

As for his being a "dumb choice" for President, well, obviously that would be the case if there was a serious alternative who wasn't wholly a creature of the Corporate-SocJus complex.

Yeah, this is the woman who was calling black teenagers "Super predators" in the 90s and talking her husband into signing DOMA. I wouldn't exactly call her a paragon of progressive social justice.

'corporate socjus complex' lol. It's like the bizarre inverse of the overactive imagination of a child that combines animals like eagles and tigers in his doodle book cause it would just be the coolest thing ever. man, this kills me

Saelune:
you would despise Trump

As I have repeatedly said, I do despise Trump. But a) he's not on these forums to talk to, and b) he's probably a lost cause.

Most of the time I wind up arguing with you lot is because you are using poor / weak arguments against him, or engaging in the same low-level shit-slinging that he likes. There's a time and a place to be the better person.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here