Trump Consciousness

[David Bailey]

Excuse me for interposing, but it might save Michael some time: David, you are confusing two issues here.

The first is whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. And it seems to have been established that they did, which is (the first part of) Michael's point.

The second is whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia in that interference. And it seems not to have been established that he did, which you are correct about, but which does not contradict (the rest of) Michael's point as you seem to think it does: that Trump denies that the first issue has been established.

I guess technically you are right - though if someone wants to play about with a website and send 'fake' messages to Facebook - or whatever is supposed to have happened - it is all pretty small beer. We live in an internet world, and nobody can prove that any election is free of interference at that, trivial, level.

The phrase is meant to contain the suggestion that they hacked into the voting process, and I don't think there is any suggestion of that. In any case voting is best done by paper votes - it is much safer - but that is hardly Trump's fault!

So after hounding him for colluding for three years, the idea is to hound him for not admitting that the Russians tried to promote hi - if indeed they did.

Something makes me feel they don't like that guy :)

David

 

[David Bailey]

What's wrong with the examples in the link malf posted?

If you want more, then mine some from this other link (note that I think that some of these are weak, but others are strong, and there's definitely a pattern): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

It would be tedious to plough through the whole list, so let's take the first item (presumably chosen to be the strongest)

Trump treated black employees at his casinos differently from whites, according to multiple sources. A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

I suspect you could compile a similar list of remarks from all sorts of politicians (who are not usually the kindest of individuals) that sound wrong now, but were fairly normal 30 years ago. If you collect such remarks against one candidate, that simply isn't playing fair.

Also, people might make such remarks in a semi-humerous way - possibly with the black guys laughing too, you have to put yourself back in time to get this.

Biden, for example, seems to have opposed the desegregationalist bussing policy - something raised in the candidates debate. How does that compare with an offhand, possibly humorous, remark? Shouldn't everyone be shouting "Biden is a racist!"

David

 

[Laird]

So after hounding him for colluding for three years, the idea is to hound him for not admitting that the Russians tried to promote hi - if indeed they did.

Something makes me feel they don't like that guy

OK, but this is just the way it is with politics in the USA, isn't it? It's nothing unique to Donald Trump's presidency - and if it is, it's more than likely simply because US politics has for some time been becoming more and more polarised, no?

I mean, Barack Obama was hounded over allegedly not being born in America, which also turned out to be false, right? And before him, Bill Clinton was hounded over illicit "romantic" liaisons; granted, those actually happened, but surely excessive import was assigned to them for political reasons by his opponents? Doesn't something make you feel, too, that "they didn't like either of those guys"?

 

[David Bailey]

I think most folks are sidestepping the underlying issue - the collapse of any semblance of integrity in almost all human beings. An example of this is the turning of the blind eye towards subversion of rights, laws and fair ethics when they believe the potential result satisfies their desire. And don't think I claim to be some saint. My deep dive into my own being has revealed plenty to work on, to change.

But when culture abandons striving for personal integrity, to be fair, to establish fair laws and to apply those laws equally, none of any of the issues debated, for example, in this thread, matter.

There's the actual truth we have almost completely abandoned and I don't need a poll to tell me this. I just need to be honest most importantly with myself.

I completely agree with this, and I think it is scary - it shows how quickly we can degenerate to an essentially tribal level.

Indeed this is also a component of my Support for Trump. I approve of the guy (as a politician) anyway, but if media and politicians can just gang up on someone they find inconvenient, we are sinking very low.

For example #metoo should have recognised that there are serious legal problems to the whole calling process - particularly when it turns out that the complainant turns out to have political affiliations on the opposite side. Also a quasi-legal process like selecting a Supreme Court justice should not be asked to hear uncorroborated evidence from decades back. Otherwise we are creating a climate similar to that in the days when people were called out for witchcraft, and had essentially no defence at all.

David

 

[Laird]

I suspect you could compile a similar list of remarks from all sorts of politicians (who are not usually the kindest of individuals) that sound wrong now, but were fairly normal 30 years ago. If you collect such remarks against one candidate, that simply isn't playing fair.

Come on, David. Playing the old "he's not the only racist in town, and besides, racism was OK back then" card doesn't cut it. The proposition that you are trying to defeat is "That Donald Trump is a racist". Your response doesn't do that in any way. It's a non-response.

Also, people might make such remarks in a semi-humerous way - possibly with the black guys laughing too, you have to put yourself back in time to get this.

This is such a lame suggestion which smacks of a sort of desperation to absolve the man no matter what.

 

[David Bailey]

OK, but this is just the way it is with politics in the USA, isn't it? It's nothing unique to Donald Trump's presidency - and if it is, it's more than likely simply because US politics has for some time been becoming more and more polarised, no?

I mean, Barack Obama was hounded over allegedly not being born in America, which also turned out to be false, right? And before him, Bill Clinton was hounded over illicit "romantic" liaisons; granted, those actually happened, but surely excessive import was assigned to them for political reasons by his opponents? Doesn't something make you feel, too, that "they didn't like either of those guys"?

I agree - those charges should never have been brought, although in the case of Bill Clinton, he has since been accused of rape. The accuser also accuses his wife, Hillary Clinton, of pressurising her not to report this crime.

The point is well made by Sam Hunter (above) - we really must return to a more normal level of political discourse.

David

 

[Laird]

a quasi-legal process like selecting a Supreme Court justice should not be asked to hear uncorroborated evidence from decades back.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of having a judge on the Supreme Court who not only sexually assaulted a woman early in his life, but also lied about it later in his life, amongst many other indubitable lies that he told about his school life.

 

[Laird]

The point is well made by Sam Hunter (above) - we really must return to a more normal level of political discourse.

I think that's something that we can all (as inclusively as possible!) agree on!

 

[David Bailey]

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of having a judge on the Supreme Court who not only sexually assaulted a woman early in his life, but also lied about it later in his life, amongst many other indubitable lies that he told about his school life.

OK - so are you saying that any person applying for certain posts, should have their career stopped in its tracks by an uncorroborated accusation from years ago? Think about what that really means.

As I mentioned above, Hilary Clinton faced an accusation that she pressurised a victim into not reporting a rape, should that have terminated her bid for the White House?

If a teacher of any sort, gave someone a bad mark in an exam, that person could take revenge by making such an accusation. The accusation need not be true, because if the accuser had plausible contact with the guy, he (or indeed she) would have no defence.

It would also open the gates for blackmail - indeed I think it is probable that Stormy Daniels played that very trick on Trump shortly before the election and got a payment from him (it seems hard to imagine why Trump would ever have needed to resort to a prostitute, and indeed he certainly denies anything happened).

David

 

[Laird]

OK - so are you saying that any person applying for certain posts, should have their career stopped in its tracks by an uncorroborated accusation from years ago?

I'm saying that credible claims from credible people with respect to a proposed Supreme Court judge should be aired and investigated, especially when the accused blatantly perjures himself, and when the record shows a pattern of behaviour which is at least compatible with the claim. Whether those claims should stop a career in its tracks depends on their exact nature and credibility.

Hilary Clinton faced an accusation that she pressurised a victim into not reporting a rape, should that have terminated her bid for the White House?

I don't know enough about the "application process" for US president to say one way or another - except that it seems to be quite different from that for the Supreme Court. All I can affirm is that the process, whatever it is, should be followed closely, and that, in any case, if those claims were (are) credible, then they should be aired and investigated, so that voters have all of the information that they need to make their choice.

it seems hard to imagine why Trump would ever have needed to resort to a prostitute

I am not familiar with the details of the case, but from what I remember, Stormy was (is?) a porn star, which does not (necessarily) make her a prostitute. Could the sex have been consensual and unpaid?

 

[Steve]

the collapse of any semblance of integrity in almost all human beings.

And who is a major player for influencing the public in this area? Our leaders.
When Trump or Johnson lie as they both obviously do, and act without integrity in their personal or indeed political lives by going back on agreements etc, what example is set?

 

[David Bailey]

And who is a major player for influencing the public in this area? Our leaders.
When Trump or Johnson lie as they both obviously do, and act without integrity in their personal or indeed political lives by going back on agreements etc, what example is set?

If you add the Democrat leaders in the US, and the Labour Party in Britain to that list, then I would broadly agree. It is a disaster that this happened, but I feel it is an infection that spread from the US, where the Dems seem to have suffered what is known as 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' - ALL decency went out of the window.

People have been encouraged to spot members of the Trump administration and verbally abuse them, or even assault them.

The ANTIFA movement has been permitted to use physical intimidation on the streets.

Sexual accusations - usually of the kind that can't be corroborated - are commonplace.

etc.

Something similar has happened in Britain over Brexit. It is important to remember that the decision to hold a BREXIT vote was made by the entire parliament, MPs also chose the exact question to be asked on the ballot papers, and yet everything is being thrown into a campaign to reverse the outcome of the vote, which was 17,410,742 votes to leave and 16,141,241 to remain.

David

 

[Laird]

Sexual accusations - usually of the kind that can't be corroborated

But that's the nature of sexual allegations in general: sexual offenders don't generally offend where there are witnesses - so there's nothing unusual here in the allegations against Trump.

 

[David Bailey]

But that's the nature of sexual allegations in general: sexual offenders don't generally offend where there are witnesses - so there's nothing unusual here in the allegations against Trump.

You really don't get it! What is different about Trump, is that a the witch hunt against him, and his candidate for Supreme Court, has legitimised any accusation against either of them. If that goes on, Trump will not be the last to suffer, this will become the way politics and life will be done.

Imagine if the day dawns when you get some significant promotion, and someone pops up and accuses you of groping her - so you lose the promotion and maybe your job as well.

How will you feel assuming you were innocent - as you clear your desk because you have no way to defend yourself? Will you feel that it is just as well you got booted out, because if you had groped her, you would have not been able to continue in your work, or angry at the utter injustice?

Accusations have to reach some standard of proof before they can be used for anything.

Reading back over this conversation, perhaps you know something about Judge K that I do not.

David

 

[Laird]

You really don't get it!

Odd. It seems we both think that way of each other. I think the worse situation by far is one in which women who bravely bring up the sexual harassment and assaults to which powerful men have subjected them are routinely disbelieved just because there was nobody else present. This doesn't seem to even figure in your thinking. Go figure. Do you just not care that if you get your way, women in that situation will have no voice, and that powerful men will get away with abusing their power in predatory and victimising ways?

Reading back over this conversation, perhaps you know something about Judge K that I do not.

I watched the full hearing in which Christine Blaisey Ford provided her testimony, and in which Brett Kavanaugh responded. I read widely after that various analyses by various pundits, and related news pieces on the whole saga. It became obvious to me that Brett both dodged uncomfortable questions and blatantly lied to the hearing, especially regarding the nature of various comments in his high school yearbook relating to alcohol/sex, as well as with regard to the degree of his (binge) drinking. Christine had no such credibility problems. She answered every question directly and unevasively, and I did not become aware of any blatant lying on her part.

[Edit: corrected Diane => Christine. It's been so long since I looked into all this that I'd misremembered her first name. Apologies.]

 

[Larry]

Odd. It seems we both think that way of each other. I think the worse situation by far is one in which women who bravely bring up the sexual harassment and assaults to which powerful men have subjected them are routinely disbelieved just because there was nobody else present. This doesn't seem to even figure in your thinking. Go figure. Do you just not care that if you get your way, women in that situation will have no voice, and that powerful men will get away with abusing their power in predatory and victimising ways?



I watched the full hearing in which Christine Blaisey Ford provided her testimony, and in which Brett Kavanaugh responded. I read widely after that various analyses by various pundits, and related news pieces on the whole saga. It became obvious to me that Brett both dodged uncomfortable questions and blatantly lied to the hearing, especially regarding the nature of various comments in his high school yearbook relating to alcohol/sex, as well as with regard to the degree of his (binge) drinking. Christine had no such credibility problems. She answered every question directly and unevasively, and I did not become aware of any blatant lying on her part.

[Edit: corrected Diane => Christine. It's been so long since I looked into all this that I'd misremembered her first name. Apologies.]

She seemed totally credible to me. She also passed a lie detector test

 

[Steve]

You really don't get it!

Imagine if the day dawns when you get some significant promotion, and someone pops up and accuses you of groping her - so you lose the promotion and maybe your job as well.

Maybe if I’d been foolish enough to talk the way Trump talks in this recording, I’d say “it’s a fair cop”. I’d consider myself at least partly to blame even if I were innocent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37595321

 

[Aliceinunderland]

As I said to Laird, without a concrete example, the charge is absurdly vague. I don't think that vagueness is accidental, it is because few if any specific allegations would actually stick.

David

"Slurring Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? Calling for a ban on all Muslims coming into the country? Suggesting that a U.S.-born judge overseeing a Trump University lawsuit should recuse himself because of his Mexican heritage (“He’s a Mexican,” Trump said)? Saying people in the United States from Nigeria will never “go back to their huts”? Referring to Haiti and African countries as “s---hole countries” while wishing the United States would take more people from places like Norway? Tweeting that four black and brown members of Congress — three of them born in the United States — should “go back” to their countries of origin? Launching a slimy birther crusade against President Barack Obama? Constantly resorting to racially charged language?" from 'sailing anarchy' aug 19
Take your pick.
I'm guessing you're not of black or brown skin, living in the US? So do you really understand how it effects people? And how it has never 'been ok'.
An interesting aspect of Racists is that were they to take a DNA-test they'd likely find some evidence of non-white racial-mix. Trump belongs to an invading race, so how about he "go back"? It reminds me of Hitler's irrational hatred of Jews, when he didn't even look Aryan and there was a suggestion of his having a Jewish grandfather (see pg 148 'For your own Good' by Alice Miller) Whether it is true or not, the uncertainty implies a reason for his racist mania. Racism is disgusting and too easily used as 'valid' grounds for murder.

 

[Aliceinunderland]

I think the worse situation by far is one in which women who bravely bring up the sexual harassment and assaults to which powerful men have subjected them are routinely disbelieved just because there was nobody else present. This doesn't seem to even figure in your thinking. Go figure. Do you just not care that if you get your way, women in that situation will have no voice, and that powerful men will get away with abusing their power in predatory and victimising ways?

I agree. But it takes a very perceptive, brave and conscientious man to say the above.
I have sat through two attempted rape cases. The woman's labia, previous sexual history and even the clothes she wears are discussed and evaluated. It's not something a woman takes on lightly. But our cultural climate of sexual predation, 'locker-room talk' and general low-status of women is not favourable to recognition and compassion.

 

[David Bailey]

"Slurring Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists?

That is greatly misunderstood. The point is that open borders attract criminals, because they can more easily escape justice in a foreign country, and the US looks like a candy store for all sorts of criminals.

Calling for a ban on all Muslims coming into the country?

It was actually a ban on Muslims from specific countries - because many terrorists come from those places. Not too far from where I live, a Muslim chose a pop concert that he probably knew was attended by teenage girls and their mothers - and blew himself up killing 23 of them and injuring 139 others.

Suggesting that a U.S.-born judge overseeing a Trump University lawsuit should recuse himself because of his Mexican heritage (“He’s a Mexican,” Trump said)? Saying people in the United States from Nigeria will never “go back to their huts”?

Those were obviously unfortunate remarks, but remember that in the past, people used to joke about such issues - I know it is hard to believe, but they did. That is why the Black and White Minstrel Show was very popular.

Referring to Haiti and African countries as “s---hole countries” while wishing the United States would take more people from places like Norway? Tweeting that four black and brown members of Congress — three of them born in the United States — should “go back” to their countries of origin?

I suspect some of those countries are s-holes - he spoke the truth in a typical Trump fashion.

I'm guessing you're not of black or brown skin, living in the US? So do you really understand how it effects people? And how it has never 'been ok'.

Well I am white and live in Britain, where we also have a substantial non-white population. I fear that excessive political correctness, and efforts to push black people into posts they would not otherwise have been considered for, will worsen racial tensions.

An interesting aspect of Racists is that were they to take a DNA-test they'd likely find some evidence of non-white racial-mix. Trump belongs to an invading race, so how about he "go back"?

Only the Democrats such as Kamala Harris, are so obsessed by race that they get their DNA tested. She actually used her supposed non-white ancestry to help her career. Giving non-white people an unfair advantage, is a sure way to inflame racial tensions.

It reminds me of Hitler's irrational hatred of Jews, when he didn't even look Aryan and there was a suggestion of his having a Jewish grandfather (see pg 148 'For your own Good' by Alice Miller) Whether it is true or not, the uncertainty implies a reason for his racist mania. Racism is disgusting and too easily used as 'valid' grounds for murder.

At the moment, I am afraid, 'racism' is used by the new Left, as a tool to gain power.

Hitler was mad.

David