US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[chronovore]

lol, the future president of this country is talking about removing citizenship for flag burning.

we are fucked

What's weird is that there's no way for him to have this happen. There will be no exception for flag burning, he's just still saying what the easily-riled want to hear. That's it. That's the extent of the threat.

[etiolate]

He's already said terrible things in front of crowds of people and cameras. I don't think he'd package them differently.

I figured this was where you were going, but if you give examples of this then we would have to test whether they were truly terrible things and whether they were repackaged by the press to feed the aforementioned outrage cycle.

[Take My Breh Away]

Flag tweet was apparently trying to run interference on Trump's Son-In-Law's conflict of interest issues after Trump said he was going to be an unpaid advisor

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-son-in-law-could-face-his-own-conflict-of-interest-questions-1480377903?mod=e2twp

The real-estate company controlled by Jared Kushner, President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has hundreds of millions of dollars in loans outstanding from domestic and foreign financial institutions, markets condominiums to wealthy U.S. and foreign buyers and has obtained development financing through a controversial U.S. program that sells green cards.

Those and other business activities could raise conflict-of-interest issues if Mr. Kushner is named to a staff position in the Trump administration. Executive branch employees are prohibited from participating in any matter in which there is “a close causal link” between that matter and a “real possibility” of a financial gain or loss, according to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

He's playing the public like a damn fiddle with those tweets.

Have some Kelly. A guiding light in these uncertain times

[Take My Breh Away]

DP due to 500 error. Thanks Obama

[helios]

He's already said terrible things in front of crowds of people and cameras. I don't think he'd package them differently.

I figured this was where you were going, but if you give examples of this then we would have to test whether they were truly terrible things and whether they were repackaged by the press to feed the aforementioned outrage cycle.

Dude literally said he could kill someone and not lose any votes. He said that most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. He's told a crowd of people to assault protesters.

He's the President-Elect, not just some dumbass with a twitter account (I mean, he still is). He has chosen Twitter to be his platform to speak to the public for his hot takes. Should we ignore him when he says crazy shit on twitter just because it's twitter? I don't think so. These tweets are giving us some idea of what he wants to do as president and I don't think they should be ignored.

[etiolate]

He's already said terrible things in front of crowds of people and cameras. I don't think he'd package them differently.

I figured this was where you were going, but if you give examples of this then we would have to test whether they were truly terrible things and whether they were repackaged by the press to feed the aforementioned outrage cycle.

Dude literally said he could kill someone and not lose any votes. He said that most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. He's told a crowd of people to assault protesters.

He's the President-Elect, not just some dumbass with a twitter account (I mean, he still is). He has chosen Twitter to be his platform to speak to the public for his hot takes. Should we ignore him when he says crazy shit on twitter just because it's twitter? I don't think so. These tweets are giving us some idea of what he wants to do as president and I don't think they should be ignored.

You've had the mexican immigrant thing packaged to you in outrage.

http://ijr.com/2015/07/359423-cnn-actually-fact-checks-donald-trumps-immigration-comments-well-you-decide-how-fair-it-is/

Original Quote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/

"Most" is as false as all within this context.

As for not losing votes if he shot someone: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/

It's ridiculous bravado, but you're falling into outrage cycle by taking it as a literal issue.

The offering to pay legal fees for someone knocking the crap out of a protester is awful. Though I wonder how awful each person would find if it reframed according to their tribal leanings.

[I'm a Puppy!]

When there are Americans who defend Trump, they're not the smartest or the best. They're the racists, sexists and bigots or incapable of applying logic equally. And some, I assume, are good people.

[helios]

Ridiculous bravado is saying that he'll be the greatest president ever, not that he could kill someone and not lose votes. I don't think he'll actually kill someone, but saying something like that is worrying.

For the Mexican quote: I read the original quote and it's still bad. I don't see how "most" is false in that context when he says that "some" are good people implying that most aren't.

Either way, he's still President-Elect, pretty much every word that he speaks or types can be newsworthy. If he was using smoke signals or Morse code to say crazy shit, it should still be reported on.

[naff]

Ridiculous bravado is saying that he'll be the greatest president ever, not that he could kill someone and not lose votes. I don't think he'll actually kill someone, but saying something like that is worrying.

For the Mexican quote: I read the original quote and it's still bad. I don't see how "most" is false in that context when he says that "some" are good people implying that most aren't.

Either way, he's still President-Elect, pretty much every word that he speaks or types can be newsworthy. If he was using smoke signals or Morse code to say crazy shit, it should still be reported on.

Don't mind Etoilet. You just spur on boring pseudo-intellectual shit-posting making this look like a yt comments section if you do.

Don't fall into an "outrage cycle" brehs 

[chronovore]

When there are Americans who defend Trump, they're not the smartest or the best. They're the racists, sexists and bigots or incapable of applying logic equally. And some, I assume, are good people.

My aunt is in among those. I mentioned her in the HOF'd politics thread, where she had gone full-Trump. She didn't like Hillary for the same reasons most of us didn't like Hillary; there were "reasons," imaginary or not. I do not know why she thinks Trump will be a good President. I assume there are also some imaginary reasons that a "successful" businessman could run the country (Ross Perot ran on that very same assumption), or that someone who speaks their mind is a good thing (Trump doesn't; he capitalizes on righteousness, rage, and willing subterfuge).

Now that the election's over, she's hoping we can all just settle down and get along, but along the lines of liberals saying stuff that doesn't support the winner. She was also upset by Patton Oswalt's deleted taunt. Her wall posts have been set to Public, so when I've responded, fellow boritos have occasionally added rejoinders.

She's a legitimately good person. Though not blood-related, she has been a better support for some of my family than those who are. She's /such/ a nice person that I'm unable to wield a clue-by-four, but am still reticent to engage her on why she feels Trump will be anything other than a total shitshow.

[etiolate]

I think it's ultimately harmful to report it in the way it is being done. You have to have some sense of importance and worth. The idea in the Mexico comment is that there is a lack of control on what is coming into the country. That actually resonates with people. When the press decides that its more provocative to go with him saying Mexicans are rapists then they let him win the point. Not only that, but everyone knows the underlying point he is getting at and when we see the press and others perform this outrage that he is calling Mexican immigrants racists, we all understand that everyone is lying about what is being said and they know they're lying. So the people learn that the press doesn't care about being honest. So what does Trump get to say? The media is all lies. You really need to understand that you aren't all that clever. (You as in everyone.) People are aware of what is being done.

You undermine your authority by engaging in a serious manner in such a way. It's a matter of learning on how to deal with trolls and swindlers.

[benjipwns]

DP due to 500 error. Thanks Obama

 

[brawndolicious]

Saying stupid shit and getting away with it was never a magic superpower or whatever.

People just want to believe that Trump and the Republicans will try something new that will bring back all the high paying low-skilled jobs that we forgot we had in the basement. Give it time and whenever this administration fails badly, his words will be the insult on top of the injury. You don't attack a bully until he leads the team in a group project and makes everyone fail miserably.

Fucking grow some thicker skin and realize this is going to be a long term struggle.

[zomgee]

Pull yourself up by the pussy.

[Phoenix Dark]

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/803776288557125632

save us mitt

[chronovore]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/28/white-nationalist-richard-spencers-ex-classmates-decry-him-by-raising-money-for-refugees/?utm_term=.3f3fc89134b5

“We are of different political parties and views, but unite in recognizing that these values are under attack by our white supremacist classmate Richard B. Spencer ’97,” the fundraiser description reads. “Spencer’s views are un-American and a threat to civil society. We reject them and urge everyone to join us in condemning him and his agenda.”

St. Mark’s School of Texas, you might be Christian and Texan, but you're alright.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I liked HRC because I'm a neolib shill but here in Seattle to fit in I had to pretend not to like her during the primary. Then during the general I had to pretend to pretend to like her.

[VomKriege]

It's sad but I think a lot of Trump voters are either numb to his excentricities or just decided  to overlook them completely, no matter how dissonant, and that include the whole "conflicts of interest" stuff no matter how much it will be said that Clinton was held by a stricter standard. At this point there's obviously little rationality going on there. As was said before, Berlusconi continued to be vile when into office and that didn't stop him being elected several times. I don't believe those should go unreported however character assassination (if I may call him that) is probably not how he is gonna be defeated come next elections.

Though at this point we're only in transition and there's not a ton of subtantative stuff to be discussed anyway.

[VomKriege]

http://ultimaratio-blog.org/archives/8128#more-8128

A review of the US Defense budget and the hurdles a Trump administration would face in increasing it.

TLDR :
Obama instituted a cap on the Defense budget that will stay in effect if not disabled by both chambers.
The cap can be partially bypassed by filing spending under the account for ongoing military operations.
Defense budget is also under pressure of mounting expenses for armed forces healthcare.
It may be difficult for the administration to vastly increase spending.

[Atramental]

[VomKriege]

Trump to announce plans regarding his private business in a couple of weeks :
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests

“While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.”

[Joe Molotov]

He's already said terrible things in front of crowds of people and cameras. I don't think he'd package them differently.

I figured this was where you were going, but if you give examples of this then we would have to test whether they were truly terrible things and whether they were repackaged by the press to feed the aforementioned outrage cycle.

Dude literally said he could kill someone and not lose any votes. He said that most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. He's told a crowd of people to assault protesters.

He's the President-Elect, not just some dumbass with a twitter account (I mean, he still is). He has chosen Twitter to be his platform to speak to the public for his hot takes. Should we ignore him when he says crazy shit on twitter just because it's twitter? I don't think so. These tweets are giving us some idea of what he wants to do as president and I don't think they should be ignored.

You've had the mexican immigrant thing packaged to you in outrage.

http://ijr.com/2015/07/359423-cnn-actually-fact-checks-donald-trumps-immigration-comments-well-you-decide-how-fair-it-is/

Original Quote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yeah, we've all read the original quote, dude. He's saying that Mexico is sending us drug dealers and rapists. Not sure how else you want it to be packaged. Were we supposed to give him credit for saying that some of them might be good people?

[agrajag]

(Image removed from quote.)

A picture is worth a thousand words

[agrajag]

When GAF bans its people and ships them off to The Bore, they're not sending their best. They're sending you. They're sending you. They're sending rejects that couldn't even make it on GAF. They bring trolling. They bring gay innuendo. They're shitposters. A few of them are okay I assume.

[Great Rumbler]

(Image removed from quote.)

[I'm a Puppy!]

Gay innuendos really suck. 

[etiolate]

He's already said terrible things in front of crowds of people and cameras. I don't think he'd package them differently.

I figured this was where you were going, but if you give examples of this then we would have to test whether they were truly terrible things and whether they were repackaged by the press to feed the aforementioned outrage cycle.

Dude literally said he could kill someone and not lose any votes. He said that most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. He's told a crowd of people to assault protesters.

He's the President-Elect, not just some dumbass with a twitter account (I mean, he still is). He has chosen Twitter to be his platform to speak to the public for his hot takes. Should we ignore him when he says crazy shit on twitter just because it's twitter? I don't think so. These tweets are giving us some idea of what he wants to do as president and I don't think they should be ignored.

You've had the mexican immigrant thing packaged to you in outrage.

http://ijr.com/2015/07/359423-cnn-actually-fact-checks-donald-trumps-immigration-comments-well-you-decide-how-fair-it-is/

Original Quote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yeah, we've all read the original quote, dude. He's saying that Mexico is sending us drug dealers and rapists. Not sure how else you want it to be packaged. Were we supposed to give him credit for saying that some of them might be good people?

are you virtue signaling in response to me? wtf you think this is

As said, you know the point within the quote. You know that COMMITTING to the mexicans are rapist line is dishonest in nature. If you really abhorred Trump and felt he was a danger to your friends then you'd ditch this bullshit.

But you won't. Because you're full of shit.

[VomKriege]

Must be because I'm a non-native speaker but I don't really understand the defense made for those comments (a couple of times on this board). Is the argument that Trump didn't qualify all Mexicans rapists but only the implied majority of immigrants ?

[agrajag]

Must be because I'm a non-native speaker but I don't really understand the defense made for those comments (a couple of times on this board). Is the argument that Trump didn't qualify all Mexicans rapists but only the implied majority of immigrants ?

To be fair, no one knows what Etiolate is talking about.

[nachobro]

Must be because I'm a non-native speaker but I don't really understand the defense made for those comments (a couple of times on this board). Is the argument that Trump didn't qualify all Mexicans rapists but only the implied majority of immigrants ?

seems that way. it's not ALL mexicans everywhere, just MOST mexican immigrants. not sure how that makes the comment better.

[Joe Molotov]

Just remember, calling most Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers is manufactured outrage, but trolling Nintendo fans online is literally committing the Holocaust.

[Samson Manhug]

are you virtue signaling in response to me?

[etiolate]

Must be because I'm a non-native speaker but I don't really understand the defense made for those comments (a couple of times on this board). Is the argument that Trump didn't qualify all Mexicans rapists but only the implied majority of immigrants ?

The point is the argument is based around assuming and magnifying a quantity statement by Trump. (All/most Mexicans are rapists!) It's a dishonest tactic that works within outrage news cycles but doesn't really serve anyone. The comment itself is a statement about border control. It changes the idea of illegal immigrants from say your Tortilla Curtain heroine to the reality that you don't know what is coming over the border. That there are criminals that come here. (And the drug problem that traffics over that border.)

Essentially, people use it to imply he is saying something about Mexicans, but they don't even truly believe he is saying that when they make the claim. They just know it gets a reaction to say so and gets them positive response in their social circles to say so. It's just a self-serving emotional brain fart.

it's also a failed tactics, as the Dems lost the vote on people concerned with immigration control. Not because everyone is secret racists, but because the world is having immigration problems as we speak and the left thought playing that soundbite without commentary on the point was a grrrreat idea.

[Rufus]

are you virtue signaling in response to me? wtf you think this is

As said, you know the point within the quote. You know that COMMITTING to the mexicans are rapist line is dishonest in nature. If you really abhorred Trump and felt he was a danger to your friends then you'd ditch this bullshit.

But you won't. Because you're full of shit.

Changing your Facebook avatar as the only act of solidarity and hollow statement like "our prayers are with you" is virtue signaling. Expressing disgust with something doesn't make it 'virtue signalling' by default, though I understand that's now how it's being used.

On to the meat of your post, what do you now expect Joe to actually do? How is letting that go (the only thing I can imagine you to mean with this) going to help, or indeed help more? Explain it as you would to a child.

Essentially, people use it to imply he is saying something about Mexicans, but they don't even truly believe he is saying that when they make the claim

Let's assume that's true for the moment. To what extent does that actually matter? It's obviously attracting people who take the statement about Mexicans as literally as he is saying it.

[etiolate]

Clarify: That what's true? what is the "it" and what people is it attracting?

[Rufus]

 

You know what? Never mind.

[etiolate]

Your use of it made your question unclear.

[Rufus]

Cleared it up, whatever good that's going to do.

[Human Snorenado]

are you virtue signaling in response to me?

newsfeed

[helios]

are you virtue signaling in response to me? wtf you think this is

As said, you know the point within the quote. You know that COMMITTING to the mexicans are rapist line is dishonest in nature. If you really abhorred Trump and felt he was a danger to your friends then you'd ditch this bullshit.

But you won't. Because you're full of shit.

Who is saying that he said that Mexicans are rapists?

[etiolate]

It matters, particularly in regards to the press, because our ability to find each other sincere matters. If you want to grill Trump then you can't tread in the outrage cycle. Trump is a buffoon, but that doesn't mean the other side doesn't have to try. You need to act superior to be superior. You need to be honest and sincere. You have to appear, in some way, real. As I said in the post people should be responding to, people pick up on the dishonesty and begin to ignore any point you may have. If you don't believe yourself, why should they? As well, focusing on that sidesteps the issue/policy. Trump won on that issue. It's better to actually be able to address that issue with some argument than pretend it's about racism. There are consequences for crying wolf too much.

You deal with trolls by not falling for any appeal to emotion. You ride the high horse by being serious. You have to establish your sincerity and give it value. Make the playing field at a level the troll can't risk.

[VomKriege]

Essentially, people use it to imply he is saying something about Mexicans

Because... he is ?
I mean he say he want to build a friggin' WALL (his word, again). Think of all the examples of actual or figurative "walls" stretching a long national border. Don't you see some commonality ? Does it need to be anymore blatant ?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

If so there's this I guess :
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/11/what-trump-has-said-judge-curiel/85641242/

[close]

It's not just a matter of a stance on immigration control.

[etiolate]

(Image removed from quote.)

[brawndolicious]

Again, why dissect an argument by Trump? He's not like Romney who's "binders of women" argument was tone deaf at worst.

He's an actual idiot who can't wrap his mind around complex shit and throws outrageous ultimatums about everything that he thinks makes him look strong. From hating brown people to grabbing women. It's not like he's a fucking poet.

[tiesto]

I know quite a bit of Indians who support Trump, which is puzzling. Interesting article about it I just saw:

http://wearyourvoicemag.com/more/politics/explaining-the-indian-americans-for-trump-2016-movement

[Steve Contra]

Having Etiolate on ignore

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Too bad half the country is as dumb or dumber than him

[close]

[Great Rumbler]

etoilet

[CajoleJuice]

the fuck is virtue signaling jesus christ why do i enter this thread

[Samson Manhug]

It's a way to dismiss someone who disagrees with you and has the moral high ground. You don't like Nazis? Stop virtue signaling, SJW scum.

[Madrun Badrun]

Now I'm imaging a scene of a crewman looking though a spyglass and saying 'Captain they are flying our virtues' but as the ship gets closer they raise the racist virtues and everyone runs to man their stations.   

[etiolate]

bless you Arvie

[Phoenix Dark]

I assumed virtue signaling meant obsessively playing videogames and/or having stock in Nintendo, which basically signals you're a god damn virgin.

[Rufus]

the fuck is virtue signaling jesus christ why do i enter this thread

Buzzword for "appealing to your peers via public displays". For what must have been only five minutes it had a "slacktivism" component built into it. Mostly used against the left by the right, even though it can apply very broadly, especially now that it's generalized into a social media insult.

The 'signalling' was probably directly inspired by signalling theory.

[etiolate]

Virtue signaling is tribal behavior. You signal to your tribe that you are one of them. It never really says much besides that.

[ToxicAdam]

Which came first, the passive-aggressive person or social media?

It's starting to feel like a machine that cranks these people out.

[Great Rumbler]

Virtue signaling is tribal behavior. You signal to your tribe that you are one of them. It never really says much besides that.

So...Trump.

[naff]

Virtue signaling is tribal behavior. You signal to your tribe that you are one of them. It never really says much besides that.

using catch-all terms like "virtue signalling" and "outrage cycle" to negatively describe normal human interaction and reactions is idiotic, and falls into the pseudo intellectual professional mystique bucket (use abstract phrases and buzz words to describe otherwise simple, intuitive things). people talk shit about things which have no impact all the time. it's some buzz word created by a middling to average journo to illustrate a point. I don't think people are going around saying things like "fuck that piece on fox news was dumb" to their friends or social media followers (virtue signalling. fuck. me) with the intention of making some revolutionary statement, yes they are "signalling" to people their distaste for something, it doesn't actually say anything apart from "I don't like this thing" what the fuck, who cares, yes people do this. also, the outrage cycle created by one early onset alzheimers sufferer and subsequent virtue signalling from a total hack was enough for nearly half the voting public, so maybe the merits of this social phenom should be discussed further. but relaly this is sub social psych 101 shit, basic af. speaking of virtue signalling, fuck your cuck shit etoilet.

[etiolate]

Virtue signaling is tribal behavior. You signal to your tribe that you are one of them. It never really says much besides that.

So...Trump.

The Wall is virtue signaling. It's unfeasable, but it represents a big tribal signal.


Naff - You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. This forum may want to take a break from using the term pseudo intellectual until they get some actual intellectuals. You rambled from "ITS CATCH ALL" to "Okay maybe we should discuss it". Nobody is saying these things are complex at a surface value. More interesting when you dig into it. If they present problems, then you better discuss them.

For example, California passes a lot of stuff that it cannot afford primarily as a virtue signal. Virtue signaling is mostly benign as a facebook post, but if you don't realize when you're doing it and how utterly meaningless it is, then you proceed to practice it in areas where such a behavior is harmful.

[Syph]

I assumed virtue signaling meant obsessively playing videogames and/or having stock in Nintendo, which basically signals you're a god damn virgin.

confirmed sony-shill, go back to neogaf

spoiler (click to show/hide)

seriously wtf is virtue signalling

[close]

wait nvm i get it
it's definitely a thing
see: newsfeeds everywhere

also the only time i've ever used the ignore list was on gaf because someone had a spider avatar and it scared the shit out of me
dont censor brehs, just scroll if you must

[naff]

Virtue signaling is tribal behavior. You signal to your tribe that you are one of them. It never really says much besides that.

So...Trump.

The Wall ... virtue signalling ... unfeasible ... signal.

Naff ... pseudo intellectual ... actual intellectuals ... "ITS CATCH ALL" ... "Okay maybe we should discuss it".

virtue signal. Virtue signalling.

im not saying im an intellectual, im merely a pedant, and I think your use of the terms indicates you want to be seen as intellectual and above others in your understanding and reasoning behind the current events being discussed. your explanation behind trumps Mexico is sending the US their deplorables speech is funny, the lecturing and elaboration or, "teaching us how to suck eggs" is just annoying.

saying we should discuss it further was a joke m8. you say we should rise above the rhetoric and implore us to stop misconstruing trumps words with the obvious, blunt interpretation and assess the finer points, but you come across as wilfully ignorant to the meaning of the content yourself, also taking his words at anything less than face value would be incongruous with his whole schtick, when he's all about "telling it like it is", i don't think he's really concerned with subtle interpretation.

also, when joe points out people have read the original quote, you scream virtue signalling again