International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

[tonyw]

They and Trump are 5 peas from the same idiot pod. They deserve each others faux outrage at each other. They all say dumb ? s**t and at the wrong time.

I think there's some truth in that statement.

Only the pretty ****ing major difference is that 'The Squad' are each Congresswomen representing, respectively, Queens, Minneapolis, part of Detroit and part of Boston. That is to say urban areas, with pretty sharply left-wing ideals. They are also four voices out of 435, and therefore wield minimal power.

Trump is the President, is supposed to represent all the people of the US and protect its constitution, and is the most powerful man in the world
(probably....although some days I worry that might now be Jeff Bezos...…)

He can do orders of magnitude more damage, and ruin a lot more lives, by being a crazy, racist half-wit than they can collectively.
Therefore when he gets the White Supremacist handbook out for his Sunday morning tweet, it's a much bigger freakin' deal than when Ilhan Omar goes on another ill-advised anti-Semitic rant.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Trump is incredibly thin-skinned when anyone says anything at all about him other than fawning praise, but has absolutely no awareness of how idiotic a lot of what he says about other people is. That's the very definition of an egomaniac. I recommend anyone interested to the 10 points on this page defining an egomaniac - https://www.powerofpositivity.com/egomaniac-behaviors/

 

[Gary Baldi]

I think there's some truth in that statement.

Only the pretty ****ing major difference is that 'The Squad' are each Congresswomen representing, respectively, Queens, Minneapolis, part of Detroit and part of Boston. That is to say urban areas, with pretty sharply left-wing ideals. They are also four voices out of 435, and therefore wield minimal power.

Trump is the President, is supposed to represent all the people of the US and protect its constitution, and is the most powerful man in the world
(probably....although some days I worry that might now be Jeff Bezos...…)

He can do orders of magnitude more damage, and ruin a lot more lives, by being a crazy, racist half-wit than they can collectively.
Therefore when he gets the White Supremacist handbook out for his Sunday morning tweet, it's a much bigger freakin' deal than when Ilhan Omar goes on another ill-advised anti-Semitic rant.

Agree, regardless of the higher level politics of it, there is no justification to saying that, especially in such a brutal manner. The last presser yesterday had more calmer and focused comments, but the moment has gone for Trump. Whatever he intended is not going to be listened to now.

AOC is the most prominent of the 4, and highlighting her hypocrisy is a worthy thing as she is as inconsistent as Trump and at odds with Democractic swing voters views, but do it on policy and policy alone.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Good post GB, in my opinion. Trump has been crass (again) but crassness hasn't been one-sided. Play the ball, not the man.

Two wrongs don't make a right, that's what we're told as kids.

Rampant whataboutism is often the first defensive recourse of the Alt right and it should be about effective as it is at nursery when a toddler gets caught doing something wrong.

 

[Paul Cannell]

I find it staggering that there are people on here claiming that what Trump said was not racist but “blunt language”. Staggering. We are heading down a shitty dark road that we haven’t been down for a while.

What Trump tweeted was not casual racism or crude rhetoric, it was a deliberate, targeted dog-whistle to discredit political opponents because of their race. It says that the views opinions (and eventually lives) of it's targets are not worth as much (eventually worth nothing) as the target audience simply because of who they are, not even where they were born. What KellyAnne Conway means to say when she asks a Jewish reporter "What's your ethnicity?" is 'who do you think you are to question me'.

Rod Liddle has written a book called 'The great betrayal' (about Brexit obvs), in it he writes “If you are a fairly recent arrival in this country, does its long existence as a nation state matter very much to you? Do you have a stake in our history? Is the UK’s history as an independent country as impinging as it might be on someone whose family has lived here for countless generations?” and he writes of anti-brexit campaigner Gina Miller as "Gina Miller nee Singh". Why?

Because it plays to an audience (one that he and his like are trying to enlarge) that he wants to give him something, money, political support .....
All three examples above demonstrate the cynical use of racism for a cause.

It is shocking that on this forum we have posters saying that racism is in the eye of the beholder, that it's part of a knockabout campaign justified by the 4 women's political stance or that it's OK because black people can be racist too.


It's the job of the moderators to watch we don't go further down this dark road.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Good post GB, in my opinion. Trump has been crass (again) but crassness hasn't been one-sided. Bugs me to say that, as I'd really like everything to always be entirely Trump's fault! Play the ball, not the man.

Calling Trump a m'fer is pretty crass is it not? But as I say, the whole thing is completely puerile and unnecessary from Trump...

 

[Gary Baldi]

Two wrongs don't make a right, that's what we're told as kids.

Rampant whataboutism is often the first defensive recourse of the Alt right and it should be about effective as it is at nursery when a toddler gets caught doing something wrong.

The reason I use it, is to highlight in some respects why people weren't annoyed to the Deporter in Chief for cages or separating kids, or other such things. If left unchecked or unchallenged, the narrative is created.

I can't talk for the alt-right on that though.

 

[brokeandobscure]

Dickhead in Chief.

Scummy, tawdry, grubby, deceitful, racist, mysoginistic, flabby dimwit.

There...I spoke my mind and I spoke it strongly...and you shall admire me for it!

It may have been mentioned before, but I saw this on a placard in a photo in one of the papers when he was over here:

"Super callous, facist, racist, sexist, lying POTUS"

 

[chuckbert]

Calling Trump a m'fer is pretty crass is it not?

True, but it is offensive and not bigoted.

But as I say, the whole thing is completely puerile and unnecessary from Trump...

And racist. Don’t forget racist.

 

[tonyw]

Rampant whataboutism is often the first defensive recourse of the Alt right and it should be about effective as it is at nursery when a toddler gets caught doing something wrong.

Rampant whataboutism won Trump the election.

He was not a popular candidate by any stretch of the imagination in 2016, and (except with the Alt Right) he mostly won on a platform of 'But Hilary......'

It's a big task the democrats have on to find someone who can beat Trump in 2020, in the face of a (most likely) thriving economy.
I suspect it's four years too late for Biden - he would've won if he'd run in 16, but he's 76 now and starting to act like it.

What's unfortunately looking likely is that, if not Biden, they'll choose someone too far to the left, who can't or won't make it back to the centre by November 20.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I fear you are right, Tony. US politics has, for years, been increasingly centred on your opponents deficiencies. Trump and his team made this an Art form. It's divisive but it works for Trump and his ilk. Let's not pretend Hilary was without blame in that campaign either...trying to label a significant proportion of Republican minded voters as deplorable played right in to Trumps hands.

The gang of 4 senators have recently said "don't take the bait" and they are exactly right to do so and call it out for what it is. However, I think they (and the Democrat movement at large are being portrayed as way too socialist for the American palate, which obviously works in Trumps favour.

Being President of the most powerful nation on the planet really ought to require the incumbent to be...well...Presidential. But he is incapable of playing to anything other than his core support and keeping that in tact is far more important to him and his backers. So far the nearly 3 years of his tenure have been based around one long campaign to secure that support. Not just dangerous and destabilising for the US, but for the wider world. Encouraging anger, resentment, division and hatred is probably the antithesis of Presidential behaviour, but they are core values to the Trump doctrine.

Mainstream Republicans must be getting sore noses from the amount of times they are having to hold them and swallow hard and pretend Trump is the best they can hope for.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Whataboutism is so effective because the collective blind spots in the Democrat party are highlighted and it made them accountable. Just a few years ago, they were all for a border wall, and now they aren't. It scratched the Clinton veneer badly and I guess that is why some hate it so much.

It holds politicians of all sides to account and I don't for one minute think whataboutism won't be used on Boris Johnson as/when he becomes PM. And the people complaining about it now will use the same tool when convenient!

 

[Sarge]

Trump making America grate ? .....

âTrump 2020â campaign banners are being proudly produced in . . . China?

China’s Jiahao Flag Co. has produced more than 90,000 “Trump 2020: Keep America Great!” banners and flags since March, according to a new report.

www.marketwatch.com

 

[chuckbert]

Whataboutism is fallacious because it is relativistic and avoids absolute criticism on matters that deserve it. For example, in this case it matters not a jot who else calls who a motherfucker, who else says something antisemitic, who else was good or bad at policy.
Donald Trump’s statement on the four democrats was racist. Whataboutism is the attempt to avoid directly admitting it. I can only think of one reason for doing so.

 

[Gary Baldi]

'Whataboutism' holds politicians to account if the 'offences' they are in return accused of are proved to be accurate. This often doesn't seem to be the case. 'What about' is often used rhetorically as an instant response to something that embarrasses, and is not always based on reported fact.

It's an annoying and rather pathetic technique that should itself be held to account. For instance, the host of any political debate on TV should insist politician A actually answers a question from politician B rather than batting it back with reference to some historical incident.

In the absence of a media where all sides are held to account, what else can we do? Where social media is becoming a closed opinion echo chamber rather than a space for debate. The fact it so irritates people on the left so much shows how utterly effective it is and why use of it won't stop. It reframes debates and conversations, while adding accountability.

Where were the shrill Democrats when Obama caged children in "concentration camps"? Where were they when his administration separated kids at the border? Why did the media make less fuss than do because it's Trump's administration? If the issues are so terribly important and awful, why did prominent Democrats think the wall that they are oh so against today, think it was a good idea a few years back?

 

[Gary Baldi]

Whataboutism is fallacious because it is relativistic and avoids absolute criticism on matters that deserve it. For example, in this case it matters not a jot who else calls who a motherfucker, who else says something antisemitic, who else was good or bad at policy.
Donald Trump’s statement on the four democrats was racist. Whataboutism is the attempt to avoid directly admitting it. I can only think of one reason for doing so.

I am always curious about how far individuals outrage goes when it comes to politics. It's an utterly fascinating social construct to look at, when you see how fake outrage has become in the modern era - to be clear, not on Trump's recent puerile comments. Do we want to live in a world where all are accountable for what they say or do, or only those who views or political side we disagree with?

If I called Obama a m'fer, would I be called racist? Or Trump did, would he? If Trump said for illegal Irish immigrants "to go home" (there are lot in the US), would the level of outrage be smaller? Or be an outrage at all? In those 2 questions, lies at core the hypocrisy of our society where whataboutism becomes a powerful tool. It teases out behaviours and attitudes that keeps all accountable.

 

[chuckbert]

I think it’s less effective than you think it is. Rather than providing balance, you come across as being unable to pass meaningful judgement while you hang on to a swinging comparative compass. It’s irritating not because it is effective, but because it’s an empty rhetorical device.

The last time a president was such an abhorrent disgrace as Trump is, was the lying rapist Bill Clinton, and he got plenty of negative media attention, and criticism from his own side of politics, so I really don’t understand what you are trying to achieve, other than deflecting attention from what ought not be defended.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

By all means call out unacceptable behaviours and explain why in a decent moral society they are unacceptable (ie they spread hatred/xenophobia/racism/sexism etc etc). However the single biggest issue I have is with HOW whataboutism is being used and has been weaponised to deflect attention away from ones own unacceptable behaviours and views.

Trumps whole MO seems to be based around "you think I'm bad, well take a look at these guys, they're really nasty". And his egotistical behaviour is so extreme and his ego so fragile that he simply cannot and will not see or admit any form of mistake, hence why he ALWAYS defaults to attack mode when others point out his own shortcomings

Why not try the "not being bad and saying bad stuff in the first place" approach - wouldn't that be refreshing, rather than the race to the bottom we all seem to be currently engaged in?

Nobody is a racist for calling someone a m'fer and also telling illegal immigrants they are not legally entitled to be there is not racist. On the other hand calling Obama a black/Afro-American/insert your own epitaph m'fer IS racist. Telling illegal immigrants that their sort aren't welcome is racist. It's not that subtle a difference is it.

As is telling American citizens to go home and fix the problems in the shithole countries of their historical ethinc origin, racist. Trump claims he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. That statement is a whole lot more believable if you replace the word racist with Presidential, then it would be accurate.

 

[Gary Baldi]

No one gets to control how something is used, even if it it annoys/exasperate/agrees with our own personal biases. And that is where I think some people struggle. Like memes, they have taken on a life of their own and whatever the original intent was, it's gone. The age of social media has both made it easier to share ideas and circumvent media narratives.

I am utterly fascinated with the way in which the focus on Epstein's crimes has been on Trump rather than a former US presidents alleged trips on his private plane. So asking comparative questions has to be done because otherwise perception is reality.

Trump's backing away from the comments is embarrassing. It's too late, regardless of what he was trying to achieve.

 

[Whingit]

I am utterly fascinated with the way in which the focus on Epstein's crimes has been on Trump rather than a former US presidents alleged trips on his private plane. So asking comparative questions has to be done because otherwise perception is reality.

Surely the current president is going to get more focus simply because he's the president. Like if it came out that Horton and KR both fixed matches here, KR would be getting much more attention for it. Why should it be Bill rather than Trump, though? Why not everyone who was cosy with Epstein?