Trump Consciousness

And while Mueller also tried to set up a "perjury / obstruction" trap for Trump and his supporters, Mueller and his crew got caught in Trump's "give them enough rope to hang themselves" trap. They committed crimes investigating Russian collusion (for example they faked interview transcripts with General Flynn) which are now coming out.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...to-review-abusive-case-against-general-flynn/

The New York Times reported:​
Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter.​
Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen.​

I can't tell if this means they are investigating crimes by FBI, the Mueller investigation, and other DOJ officials or if they are just looking to remedy any possible unfair treatment of defendants.
 
John Solomon correctly predicted today's news that charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying about the Clinton Foundation investigation would be dropped. Reason: no jury in Washington DC would convict him. Judges are corrupt, jury pool is biased - 95% voted for Clinton. (See my post above about the Roger Stone trial)


McCabe is still under investigation by Connecticut prosecutor John Durham for illegal spying on Trump.

 


Before The Apprentice there was Wrestlemania. In the above video Steve Bannon explains the significance of the next video below from 2014. It shows Trump knows how to connect with the blue collar demographic that elected him. The elite despise these people (Trump supporters) because the elite are snobs (narcissists) who hate ordinary people (construction workers, factory workers, firemen, police officers). Trump drives the elite insane because he considers the ordinary people more important, better, smarter, nicer, and more ethical, than the elite. And the elite can't stand the fact that Trump is right.


 
Last edited:
https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2020/02/donald-trump-vs-barack-obama-on-jobs-and-jobs-growth-under-other-presidents.html%3foutputType=amp

While the nation has picked up 6.6 million jobs (4.5%) during the first three years under Trump, it had gained an even stronger 8.1 million jobs (5.9%) during the final three years under Obama.
Fox News won’t cover that :D

I understand though, as a brexit supporter, strong jobs figures and a vibrant economy aren’t your motivating triggers.
 
Last edited:

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
Well there is no point people just calling him a racist - you simply have to say why. Name calling is stupid if it isn't followed up by substantive argument of some sort.
Trump is a racist, of course, you can not look into his hart or his mind, but judging on his actions or his words , one can not come to another conclusion.
It is hard to believe that you have not seen any arguments for that while participating in this thread.
I am not going to detail everything, just for you to, again, dismiss it out of hand. It is all compiled in this wiki page : Racial views of Donald Trump.
So please stop your fake outrage about name calling (which it isn't, cos' its true) without evidence. The evidence is there, it is you who is refusing to look.

But even if he is not a racist, in a way that would be even worse, to illustrate with a quote about De Santis that also applies to DT: "racists believe he is a racist.”
Which means that if he is not a racist, him courting the racist vote would be a cold, calculated, cynical move.
Which do you prefer?

Amazing though, David, how you keep objecting to name calling in a discussion where you are defending the US name caller in chief.

The overwhelming impression I get, is that he will win in November, and if he does it will be because millions of people like his policies.
Well he did lose the popular vote by millions in 2016, and he lost bigly in 2018.
The GOP started out in 2016 with the presidency, the house, and the senate.
Trump lost them the house already, his maffia style demand for loyalty from the senate, could loose them the senate in 2020.
And i believe (hope) he loses them the presidency too.
The signs are there, in polls almost every candidate for the democrats could win from DT with a large margin.

Anybody would can rub two brain cells together would be better than DT, even a moderate GOP candidate.
I do not have a strong preference among democrate candidates (remember US not my country), but i am glad it is probably not going to be Biden.
The US, and sadly therefore the world, needs some stability so international relations, and environmental protections, can be restored.


I supported Obama in his first term, but it is hard to get a feel about the state of the US economy from over here...
Why, is the internet restricted since brexit? If you really want to know, it is easy to research.

..., but if Trump is so awful, do you think the Dems will replace him in the autumn?
Yes i hope and believe exactly that.
But the influence of social media, the popularity of conspiratorial thinking, and the apparent malleability of what is true, make me doubt every prediction.

That could be a serious discussion point, if it didn't get lost in all the indignation!
There are many serious discussion points, and there is a lot to be indignant about.
But complaining about DT criticism, without informing yourself, is not a valid reason for indignation, IMO.
I even tried to point out some posts in this very thread, which you promptly ignored, per usual.

The only one who can stop indignation is DT, by not not doing the stuf people get indignant about!

Well if that is true, then obviously he will be defeated come November - that is what democracy is all about. Why is it that he is massively supported by a great swathe of relatively poor people? Does he pay them to queue for hours to attend his rallies? That was one of the first things I noticed about candidate Trump. According to the BBC he was threatening to remove Obamacare - so how was it that he had an obviously poor crowd screaming that they wanted an end of Obamacare?
Because he lies to them, David, that is the importance of discussing his incredible record of lying to everybody, especially to his own supporters.

You guys make it seem as if his lying is no more than an occasional fib without any consequences.
Well this shows it is not, he lies about everything, he is believed by his followers, and it has consequences.

For instance, recently at a rally he said he is always going to protect pre-existing conditions, while at the same time his administration is in court to repeal Obamacare, which has as it's most important element, exactly that protection.

His support is rapidly becoming a cult of personality, akin to that of his boyfriend Kim Jong Un.
He tells them what to believe where to get there info, and his base follows the dear leader, they are beyond the reach of truthful information.
As you, they are only hearing sources that support DT and his lies.

They are conditioned to believe that the truth is makeable through decades of lies by talk radio, Fox, right wing "think tanks", christian apologism etc... .
Lies about communist plots, creationism, deep state conspiracies, and on and on.
The phenomenon of makeable truth is worsened exponentially by the rise of social media, DT is a result of that.

I can only speculate about what makes up the support of DT, but he is going to have the unconditional support of the religious right.
They support any candidate who opposes abortion in any form (and no David, no babies are born and then executed by doctors).
And they oppose any form of gun control.
That is a sizable part of US citizens who vote GOP anyway.

Forget what you see at rallies, they are large crowds, but what do they represent compared to the total?
Something to keep in mind, David: Historically, leaders who build personality cult support , who hold rallies with fiery speeches to motivate their supporters to go against their own interest, that has always ended well, right?

The argument of his popularity, to a certain segment of the population, is no evidence for his accomplishments.

Well nobody has the time to consume all flavours of news, I somehow doubt that you watch Fox News, for example.
I sometimes watch FOX clips on YT, but if i catch them in bold faced lies in the first sentences they utter, i switch off.
There is also a big difference between their actual news, and their opinion shows, which put emphasis on the irony of naming the channel "FOX news" (i know irony is not your thing)

Fox News informed me way back that the Mueller report was based on nothing substantial - and so it turned out.
It really didn't, David, so that actually makes my point.

I am going to risk one prediction, David: Trump will try to avoid direct debate with whoever is the democratic candidate, because this will expose people to facts they may not have heard before.
With a debate, there is less possibility to emit one side of the debate. Emitting facts, in reporting, is often the worst lie there is, FOX is certainly guilty of that.

Should that prediction come true, would that change anything about your faith in right wing media?
 
Last edited:
World peace, and Trump supporter. A miss world fan?
Bart - I'd really like you to pick one substantive issue and discuss it For example:

1) Obamacare.
2) His claim that there are now fewer people out of work than has been the case for a long time.
3) His claim that his restriction of trade with China is desirable.
4) His foreign policy achievements or non-achievements.
5) His success at cutting the number of illegal immigrants.

Alternatively you can discuss the desirability of the policies put forward by his opponents - such as an open Southern border, switching over the entire energy sector to use renewables in 10 years, healthcare for everyone including immigrants, sanctuary cities, etc.

Please - only mention lies if they are relevant to the topic you choose to discuss.

Without that, we are just dealing with trivia like whether or not he lied about the size of the crowd in 2017, etc.

I hope that Jim will reply to any discussion of the above, but I am sure I will chip in regarding foreign policy.

David
 
It is good to see a discussion that is more fact based and less outrage based.
Outrage has been the least of this thread's problems David as any objective reader can plainly see. The single biggest problem with this thread is the propaganda component most recently on display with these testimonial videos from random Trump supporters. The opposite of evidence and simply an appeal to one individual's "authority". There is no dialogue involving the poster who religiously spams the thread with this type of propaganda. As I've stated before its really the opposite of "following the evidence where ever it leads".
 
I hope that Jim will reply to any discussion of the above, but I am sure I will chip in regarding foreign policy.

David
David,

One reason I have not been participating in discussions is that, with infrequent exceptions, they don't change anyone's mind. Like with belief in psi, it's the same in politics. People mostly use logic to defend their beliefs not to form them. I am not interested in analyzing arguments for the sake of studying debating tactics, I am posting in this thread to share information with those who are interested in the same topics I am.

David, if you want my opinion on something I am happy to provide it to you but please ask me specifically about what you want to know. I don't have time to read every post and I have a few people on ignore so I can more easily find the posts by members who tend to write on subjects I am interested in reading about. So if you want my opinion on a specific issue please ask me for it - I am probably not going pick up on something from the discussions.
 
Last edited:
Outrage has been the least of this thread's problems David as any objective reader can plainly see. The single biggest problem with this thread is the propaganda component most recently on display with these testimonial videos from random Trump supporters. The opposite of evidence and simply an appeal to one individual's "authority". There is no dialogue involving the poster who religiously spams the thread with this type of propaganda. As I've stated before its really the opposite of "following the evidence where ever it leads".
Jim has posted a lot of pretty persuasive information - for example the various Black Trump supporters - do they really want to support a racist? Or another example, the former Democrat who went to her first Trump rally and wrote up the experience in glowing terms. Incidentally, I noticed that she has been picked up by Fox News and repeated her very positive account there.

David
 
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.c...oreign-aid-helps-politicians-in-poor-nations/

Capitalism Helps People in Poor Nations, Foreign Aid Helps Politicians in Poor Nations​
February 15, 2020 by Dan Mitchell​
...​
Simply stated, there’s considerable evidence that foreign aid retards economic growth by subsidizing bad policy.​
,,,​
Today, though, let’s focus on a different adverse consequence of aid, which is that it erodes the quality of governance.​
For instance, the Economist reports on some spiked research from the World Bank, which showed that foreign aid subsidizes corruption.​
Their conclusion was dispiriting. World Bank payouts to 22 aid-dependent countries during 1990-2010 were followed by a jump in their deposits in foreign financial havens. The leaks averaged about 5% of the bank’s aid to these countries. …The…working paper…passed an exacting internal review by other researchers in November. But, according to informed sources, publication was blocked by higher officials. They may have been worried about how it would look if the bank’s own researchers said that a chunk of its aid ended up in Swiss bank accounts and the like.​
...​
Jose Nino draws the most appropriate conclusion.​
In 2019, a total of $39.2 billion was spent on foreign assistance, and at a quick glance it has left a lot to be desired. …Foreign aid is not a get-rich-quick scheme for developing countries. Instead of building wealth, it comes with some not-so-pleasant consequences for the recipient nation. …governments receiving aid no longer have to be accountable to their citizens. Knowing that US taxpayers will bail them out, some governments have no incentive whatsoever to innovate or keep corruption in check. …It is the height of naivete to believe that developing countries will magically become rich via wealth transfers from First World countries. It ignores many of the institutions of freedom—private property and federalism—that enabled countries like the US to become the most prosperous societies in human history.​
The bottom line is that foreign aid doesn’t work. At least not if the goal is to improve the lives of the less fortunate.
If we want to help poor people in poor nations, the only practical answer is pro-capitalism policies such as small government, rule of law, and free trade.
 
Last edited:
Jim has posted a lot of pretty persuasive information - for example the various Black Trump supporters - do they really want to support a racist?
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...black-americans-describe-trump-as-racist-poll

More than 8 in 10 black Americans believe
President Trump is a racist and say the president has made racism a bigger issue in the country, according to a new Washington Post–Ipsos poll published Friday.
The president's approval rating among black Americans was even worse, with 9 in 10 black Americans saying they disapprove of the job he has done as president so far.
 
Top