Trump

[Vertigo 7]

It is my personal opinion that Trump's path to victory had very little to do with the first, the man has as much charisma as a pitpull,

I would not be so sure. I read and see a lot of resentment having been built up over a rather long period dues to many reasons (main one usually is people being disenfranchised and feeling left out). So yes maybe Trump does not have "traditional" charisma but he does have the populist version and that in spades. Paired with the notion that facts are a thing of the past its populist heaven and Trump, like the good con artist he is, can sell people the dreams they crave, be it only "payback" to those elitist that keep telling them they are less than. Once started on that path and some emotional investment has been made, it will be hard to backtrack for most and so they rather see it through, how bad can it get for them, how much do they really have to lose?

I agree with the sentiment but Trump IS one of those elitists, albeit, unearned. Trump has about as much in common with the every day Joe as my pinkie toe does with grilled asparagus. He played to the NASCAR crowd because how hard is it to entertain people that show up to races to drink ****** beer and watch fiery car crashes? He's an asshole, and those kind of people love that. Fortunately, some of them have sobered up. Others, sadly, are cheering the fall democracy because its "pwning libs" and that matters more to them than our country's stability.

Meanwhile many, especially those in the "news" business are making a killing from this, every day breaking news, back and forth "scandals" , clicks left right and all that juicy add revenue. Make it one week without indulging in what stupid tweet Trump posted and suck the air right from his bubble and see him crumble, one week with only real news. But that would require some ethics from journalists and their corporate media overlords.
MFG

Ketraar

Agreed to a point. At the same time, they're doing their jobs. That's been a running theme of the Trump administration - You do your job like you're supposed to, you're the bad guy. You give up your integrity and abandon all pretense of ethics in support of the orange one, you're "good people". I know the daily lunacy of dear leader is beyond absurd and there's no more 'shock' to be had from him, but I, for one, am glad the press has been there to document this, especially given his insistence on rewriting history. He can't tweet away this dumb things he says and does on camera, no matter how hard he tries.

[Mightysword]

It is my personal opinion that Trump's path to victory had very little to do with the first, the man has as much charisma as a pitpull,

I would not be so sure. I read and see a lot of resentment having been built up over a rather long period dues to many reasons (main one usually is people being disenfranchised and feeling left out). So yes maybe Trump does not have "traditional" charisma but he does have the populist version and that in spades.

Charisma is charisma, I'm not so sure what defines traditional or non-traditional. When I think charisma I think the like of like Bill, he made voters blush and glamorous with him, that's how he beat Bush even when Bush was riding the high of the success of the Gulf War. When I say charisma, I think the like of Obama who considered to be the one of the most eloquent president, too bad he's little more than just speech. Trump has a bit of a charm of a television star yes, but what little there was disintegrated very quickly and early in the election cycle on the podium, but he doesn't need it.

What you described as "non-traditional" charisma is exactly what I meant by the two latter points. Trump was called the man breaking the norm for a reason. It's because under normal circumstance some like him wouldn't win. But because of that resentment you mentioned, people gave him the vote. In fact, I don't believe it had to be Trump, any candidate who ran on the same platform he did would win, probably even by an actual majority margin. What you called "feeling left out" is essentially what I meant when I said this:

- They feel they had no choice in order to have a platform. (making a deal with the devil).

Overall I think we are thinking talking about the same thing, we simply just apply different vocabularies and statement, I just break them into separated categories.

Meanwhile many, especially those in the "news" business are making a killing from this, every day breaking news, back and forth "scandals" , clicks left right and all that juicy add revenue. Make it one week without indulging in what stupid tweet Trump posted and suck the air right from his bubble and see him crumble, one week with only real news. But that would require some ethics from journalists and their corporate media overlords.

Well, as rare as it may be, in this instance we are all in full agreement. I often say the same myself, and I bet that's one of the reason why some people take it I'm a Trump supporter in the last 4 years, I'm less a supporter of Trump and more against the muppetry of the news cycle. We live in an age where the mantra "any coverage is good coverage" is a tried and true wisdom ... the media gave Trump a 24/7 omnipresence for 6 months leading to the election and it was a surprise he won? Even the so call 'liberal wing' of the media, the one that chunk out daily article smearing and denouncing him, I bet secretly they all wish for the good day of Trump to continue, after all I don't think there have been anyone make it easier for them to get click.

As you suggest, cut out this omnipresence and one can easily recognize how deflated the Trump's bubble can be. But that's the dream.

[Ketraar]

Charisma is charisma, I'm not so sure what defines traditional or non-traditional.

Well I went for the simplest version of it meaning that it attracts people, whereas "the traditional" meaning would kinda imply some eloquence to be needed. I agree to the spirit of the point, just wanted to emphasise the notion that there is no (longer) need for eloquence to be charismatic, in fact one could argue the opposite since being off-norm is often attraction enough.

Agreed to a point. At the same time, they're doing their jobs.

But are they? There are so many legislative things happening in the background that I would argue are much more important for news outlets to consider as their job (assuming that means their main function still is to inform people, which one could argue its not, especially in the US media). While news debates any moronic tweet posted ad nauseam, people's lives are being made worse, rights removed, regulations and protections of all kind stripped. But since the attention span of most people, especially on social media is rather short, making in-depth analysis of legislation is hardly as profitable as the latest outrage. Sure there needs to be some coverage of character, but any sensible amount has been long surpassed and the outrage machine on both sides has been cranked up to 11. And dont get me wrong, I'm aware of the existence of Fox News and AOL, but CNN for example, used to be about news and not bout 8 highly paid shouters of same stuff telling how wrong the other are. Look at the amount of books, shows, youtube channels there are dedicated to do commentary about commentary of things posted on twitter. "this person OWNED that person" videos have gazillion of views, is that news? Does that inform people? I think not and as pointed out, if you fill the airwaves 24/7 with stuff about something, this something is going to be popular and then people cant act surprised as to why.

I said it not too long ago and I'll say it again, this keeps looking too familiar and for some reason people are repeating the same actions. As Vaas Montenegro said, "do you know the definition of insanity?"

MFG

Ketraar

[Masterbagger]

I would not be so sure. I read and see a lot of resentment having been built up over a rather long period dues to many reasons (main one usually is people being disenfranchised and feeling left out). So yes maybe Trump does not have "traditional" charisma but he does have the populist version and that in spades. Paired with the notion that facts are a thing of the past its populist heaven and Trump, like the good con artist he is, can sell people the dreams they crave, be it only "payback" to those elitist that keep telling them they are less than. Once started on that path and some emotional investment has been made, it will be hard to backtrack for most and so they rather see it through, how bad can it get for them, how much do they really have to lose?
Meanwhile many, especially those in the "news" business are making a killing from this, every day breaking news, back and forth "scandals" , clicks left right and all that juicy add revenue. Make it one week without indulging in what stupid tweet Trump posted and suck the air right from his bubble and see him crumble, one week with only real news. But that would require some ethics from journalists and their corporate media overlords.

Page 1 of this thread.

Because, unfortunately, many in the US electorate are extremely angry with the Democrats, traditional Republicans, and politicians in general.

I think the GOP lost their way and and an outsider was sent in their place. Many of the reservations I saw people have about Trump back then were because he had spent his life in NY rubbing elbows with liberals who loved him until he started making jabs at Obama. He didn't really fit the mold of a conservative. I don't think Trump would have even tried to run or ever had a chance of winning if not for the specific circumstances of that year. Both parties are to thank for President Trump.

[Vertigo 7]

Charisma is charisma, I'm not so sure what defines traditional or non-traditional.

Well I went for the simplest version of it meaning that it attracts people, whereas "the traditional" meaning would kinda imply some eloquence to be needed. I agree to the spirit of the point, just wanted to emphasise the notion that there is no (longer) need for eloquence to be charismatic, in fact one could argue the opposite since being off-norm is often attraction enough.

If that were true, that would also mean everyone would have welcomed the covid lockdowns and that would also mean the only reason the lemming militia is sharpening their hand grenades is because Trump told them to.

Agreed to a point. At the same time, they're doing their jobs.

err, not sure how that happened, but that was me, not Berhg

But are they? There are so many legislative things happening in the background that I would argue are much more important for news outlets to consider as their job (assuming that means their main function still is to inform people, which one could argue its not, especially in the US media). While news debates any moronic tweet posted ad nauseam, people's lives are being made worse, rights removed, regulations and protections of all kind stripped. But since the attention span of most people, especially on social media is rather short, making in-depth analysis of legislation is hardly as profitable as the latest outrage. Sure there needs to be some coverage of character, but any sensible amount has been long surpassed and the outrage machine on both sides has been cranked up to 11. And dont get me wrong, I'm aware of the existence of Fox News and AOL, but CNN for example, used to be about news and not bout 8 highly paid shouters of same stuff telling how wrong the other are. Look at the amount of books, shows, youtube channels there are dedicated to do commentary about commentary of things posted on twitter. "this person OWNED that person" videos have gazillion of views, is that news? Does that inform people? I think not and as pointed out, if you fill the airwaves 24/7 with stuff about something, this something is going to be popular and then people cant act surprised as to why.

I said it not too long ago and I'll say it again, this keeps looking too familiar and for some reason people are repeating the same actions. As Vaas Montenegro said, "do you know the definition of insanity?"

MFG

Ketraar

Oh, no I see it happening. Moscow Mitch sitting upon his throne, his turkey necked waddle flapping gently in the breeze high upon the ramparts of the play fort he built out of the 2 years worth of bills that he's never going to allow to be voted on, but his rubber stamp is about worn out from all the unqualified judges that bought their nominations from Trump. Meanwhile, the long overdue amendment to the constitution to guarantee equality for women that has finally been ratified by enough states but, you know the GOP, if it ain't white, male, straight, and christian, it's of no import, so this senate is not going to act. And then there's today's version of the EPA that's perfectly fine with the next generation of children being born with 3 arms and toes growing out of their foreheads, provided the planet is inhabitable for the next generation.

I do agree that Trump has dominated the coverage, and issues like the above need more attention than they're getting. And there is, arguably, attention being brought to the fact that Trump is not the only super villain occupying a government position. The coverage is short sighted and largely not emphasizing the long term impacts of things like pulling out of the Open Skies treaty. But it is being covered, at least.

[Ketraar]

err, not sure how that happened, but that was me, not Berhg

Not sure either but I have fixed it in my post.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

Both parties are to thank for President Trump.

Aye, no argument there. Now I only wish the left acknowledge their part in that as well. But their denial is your gain ... I guess.

As someone who grew up and educated in a dictatorial country, I recognize oppression and censorship when I see them. After all that's one of the reason I left and came to the US to begin with. It felt like I jumped out of a frying pan and into the fire in this regard. I don't know what American society looked like in 20th century, but the one in the 21st feel awfully similar to the one I left behind. The acts are the same, with the only difference is who are doing it. Instead of government, here you have political correctness and hyper aggressive activism. I saw people got destroyed in my country based on some dubious claim from the government, here I saw people got destroyed by some dubious claim to satisfy the enraging mass on social media. In Vietnam people had to watch what they said less they want to become a target of the government wrath without much of a recourse, in the US people also have to watch they says because someone can use it to destroy their public life even before they have a chance to defend themselves. And I found myself asking: what is the difference? It's for this reason that when someone like Trump who appeared to defile political correctness, it resonated with me. In the end his own personality proved too much for me to cast a vote for him, but it was close. The direction I saw the society heading terrified me far more than Trump's antic.


And I bet some will likely see what I just said as a rant from a 'closet Trump supporter', I can't change your mind but I will offer an alternative: the Rust Belt. Forget far right or white supremacists, these are THE people who put Trump in the White house. From the way people posting here while there are hard-core Trump-haters, I don't think there is anyone a hardcore Democrat. Comparing to us, the blood of those people are more blue than most. After all, they form 'THE' blue firewall that Democrat has been able to rely on over 30 freaking years. And that firewall collapsed in 2016, ironically to the most un-presidential candidate in history. So I ask: what now? Will these people now be grouped together with the usual "Trump voters"? Do a bunch of people whose blood is blue for 30 years suddenly turned white supremacists over night? You want the rich-poor narrative? Most of these people are POOR. You want to talk about race? This region had twice voted for a Black president, you can't pin that card on them.

The reality simply demands the acknowledgement of something else beyond the usual stereotype. These are just 2 out of 'many' reason why people may find Trump's appealing or even voted for him. Someone can disagree with Trump on 100 trivial little thing he does, but he will get their votes if the one issues matter the most to them appear on his platform and his platform alone.

I said it not too long ago and I'll say it again, this keeps looking too familiar and for some reason people are repeating the same actions. As Vaas Montenegro said, "do you know the definition of insanity?"

And I have been saying the same thing since the eve's of Trump victory. It's not like they don't understand. In the wake of Trump's victory there were a lot of soul searching. Trump's success in forming his coalition was recognized (begrudgingly) by his opponents, just like how they were also modestly honest about their own short coming. But at the time I said "we'll see if these sentiment last till the next election". And ... my guess is not, seeing the kind of 'news' dominating the front page in the last 4 years basically revert to the same script and pattern prior to Trump's win.

But I hope I guess wrong, and the surface are just the voice of a few vocal minority. I dearly hope the majority of average liberal and democrat voters are more grounded to reality.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

I've seen a thread "Split from Trump" which I read "Split for Trump" and it made perfect sense to me...

I think the GOP lost their way and and an outsider was sent in their place. Many of the reservations I saw people have about Trump back then were because he had spent his life in NY rubbing elbows with liberals who loved him until he started making jabs at Obama. He didn't really fit the mold of a conservative. I don't think Trump would have even tried to run or ever had a chance of winning if not for the specific circumstances of that year. Both parties are to thank for President Trump.

Looking at last presidential elections from the outside, huge strategic errors were made by Hillary's staff. They lost when they began to go personal like Trump was doing, and that was exactly what an egocentric self-appointed "boss of everyone", pathologic and careless liar like him hoped for. He is close to unbeatable on that, as he doesn't care about telling gargantuan and obvious lies (like the "Obama is from Nigeria" one), while "normal people" does.
If they ever wanted a chance, they needed to keep the debate on technical and political levels, but they got caught in the trap and epically failed like an autopilot in an asteroid field at travel speed.
What you say and who you tell it to is very important in politics (and marketing: is it so different in recent years?) and the vast majority of voters trusts what anybody says on tv, whatever he/she says. They don't have the means / the time / the desire to check if it's true, and these people is the target of Trump and so many semi-dispotic, far-rightish parties and politicians all around the "western world". USA and Europe are not so much different on that, just check the polls and the composition of the single parliament houses around the two continents and you'll notice how similar is the strategy of Trump to the ones of Salvini in Italy, Le Pen in France, Johnson in UK and most of the right wing parties all around EU: lies, surrealistic promises, personal attacks, hate / fear of the foreigners (but only if they're poor). Trump isn't doing anything to contain COVID pandemic, for instance, and he knows that. But he also knows that furiously and constangly blaming China is going to give him points before starting the presidential campaign. No matter who's going to be his rival, lies are going to rain heavily again.

[Gavrushka]

I see Twitter have used a fact checker link against a Trump tweet. - I think social media has an obligation to call out any person in a position of influence who makes a false statement. This isn't a barrier to freedom of speech, but does highlight false (fake) news.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

I see Twitter have used a fact checker link against a Trump tweet. - I think social media has an obligation to call out any person in a position of influence who makes a false statement. This isn't a barrier to freedom of speech, but does highlight false (fake) news.

That's how "the internet" is supposed to work, in a utopistic world.

[Gavrushka]

I feel the social media platforms are the modern day oligarchs, and they are the uber-influencers. Thing is, I feel they do the 'right' thing, only when it makes commercial sense. It almost feels like 'utopia' and 'internet' form an oxymoron in this context. - Instant news, its validity seldom checked, makes for a pretty crappy dystopia, and Trump knows just how to exploit it for his own gain. - I just hope commercial gain and morality align more strongly on the instant news platforms.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

That would be ideal...

[RegisterMe]

If Twitter is consistent in its fact checking of Trump posts it's going to make him apoplectic. Which could be highly amusing.

[Gavrushka]

If Twitter is consistent in its fact checking of Trump posts it's going to make him apoplectic. Which could be highly amusing.

Trump is always apoplectic, but his persistent ire comes with many different DefCon settings.

[Vertigo 7]

If Twitter is consistent in its fact checking of Trump posts it's going to make him apoplectic. Which could be highly amusing.

Trump is always apoplectic, but his persistent ire comes with many different DefCon settings.

Yeah, that's certainly true, but in this case, what's he gonna do? Rant and rave and threaten to leave twitter? That would be hilarious and a welcome respite. Sue them? That would be equally hilarious as he would have to prove that he isn't lying in court. Attempt to ban twitter in the US? That would be the fastest way to unite the left and right against him. Send the lemming militia to protest at their HQ? That's probably the most likely outcome but I'm curious as to how many will be willing to appear to be stupid enough to protest against fact checking? Not that I would be surprised.

Besides, it's not like Trump is the only one subject to fact checking on Twitter.

[RegisterMe]

Well he's already trotted out some freedom of speech tripe demonstrating his lack of understanding of the 1st Ammendment (again).

[felter]

Trump is having a hissy fit over what Twitter has done, all he is doing is showing his ignorance to what freedom of speech and censorship is along with the meaning of what the amendments mean and who they actually are meant for.

Quite recently most of the social media platforms in America have been sued or should I say, someone or some entity have tried to sue them for censorship and freedom of speech. These are normally the ones who have had their accounts shut down for whatever reasons, could be racism or just pure hate to spreading false news. Anyway due to these failed attempts, I have learned that freedom of speech and censorship only effects government agencies in America and does not hold up against private entities, the likes of Fakebook, Twitter, news agencies and the likes. Trump is accusing Twitter of censorship, they are a private entity and hold no allegiance to any government they are not paid for or owned by any government meaning they can do whatever they want on their platform, it is their platform after all. If they want to remove a post or even close down an account that is their prerogative. It has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech, they are not stopping those people going somewhere else and saying whatever it is, no they are just not allowing it on their platform, ultimate words here is THEIR PLATFORM.

Trump is saying he is going to take action against Twitter and the rest of social media but he can't there is nothing he can do without changing the laws about Censorship and freedom of speech and that would have to be done through Congress which would be political suicide to anyone who attempted to do this, no matter where their allegiance on the political spectrum stood.

So once again Trump is showing he is in a job that he has no idea what that job is or how to do it properly, correctly or legally.

[Vertigo 7]

Trump is raising eyebrows, even among republican senators, for his firing of IGs. Chuck Grassley said in an official statement:

Though the Constitution gives the president the authority to manage executive branch personnel, Congress made clear that if the president is going to fire an inspector general, there ought to be a good reason for it. The White House Counsel’s response failed to address this requirement, which Congress clearly stated in statute and accompanying reports.

The senator received a response from the white house lawyers yesterday, no idea what it said, but Grassley responded by saying:

I don’t dispute the president’s authority under the Constitution, but without sufficient explanation, it’s fair to question the president’s rationale for removing an inspector general. If the president has a good reason to remove an inspector general, just tell Congress what it is. Otherwise, the American people will be left speculating whether political or self-interests are to blame. That’s not good for the presidency or government accountability.

Nor is placing political appointees from the overseen agency into an acting leadership position within an inspector general office acceptable, especially when those individuals are keeping their appointments at the same time. The White House Counsel’s letter does not address this glaring conflict of interest.

Sounds to me like blind loyalty is starting to evaporate from congress. While it has been far too long since hearing a republican senator, other than Romney, wish to act on behalf of the people instead of the president or some corporate interest, it's welcome none the less.

[Observe]

I have never understood why Twitter hasn't outright banned Trump long ago. Still, flagging his false statements is a step in the right direction at least.

[Vertigo 7]

I have never understood why Twitter hasn't outright banned Trump long ago. Still, flagging his false statements is a step in the right direction at least.

The honest ugly answer 2 fold. 1 ad revenue, 2 he's the current sitting president. I wouldn't be surprised if he does get banned after he gets tossed out of the wh. But so long as he is in the oval office, banning him now would generate a massive shit storm.