Not in the WH but in my fav place in the world, Ubud, Bali.
btw not much of a muslim considering that he has a beer in hand plus had pork for lunch.
Haram ba*tard!
More on Trump's manifest unfitness for office
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
Not in the WH but in my fav place in the world, Ubud, Bali.
btw not much of a muslim considering that he has a beer in hand plus had pork for lunch.
Haram ba*tard!
The definitive list of Trump's lies (so far)...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?smid=tw-share
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?smid=tw-share
And a big part of the reason we elected this serial liar was that people regarded Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.
The largest reason was reflexive partisanship: republicans voting for the R and democrats voting for the D. Almost all the explanations are post hoc rationalizations of tribalism.
The difference is that Trump told more lies in any given week than Hillary has told in her public career. The perception that Hillary was the more untrustworthy candidate was a partisan delusion. Even the perception that the candidates were equally untrustworthy was deluded. Hillary lies as politicians unfortunately do. Trump lies like most people breathe.
That may be true, but it's not very helpful. Once you accept 90% of partisans will stay with their team no matter what, you have to look at the other 10% and the undecideds. These people broke for Trump, and one of the big reasons was they didn't trust Clinton, which is just insane. Partisan delusion is easy to explain. But how genuine independent voters - even nominal Democrats - bought into the delusion is flabbergasting.
Or put forth candidates whose primary focus is jobs so partisanship is fundamentally irrelevant.
Democratic turnout, including minorities, in the key electoral states was low, for all sorts of reasons no doubt. In Bloomington (not a key state), it was butthurt Bernheads.
Or voting for Hillary offered them no value - she wasn't going to create any jobs.
I don't have any problem putting a primary focus on jobs...but this won't make "partisanship fundamentally irrelevant".
I mean from the point of view of economically suffering voters (of course). You're damn right it will. There's a reason why there are more independent voters than either Democrats or Republicans.
See if you can find a way to think outside of your partisan ideological box and see the world from the point of view of someone who didn't grow up with everything served on a silver platter like you .
I wish you were right (really, I am entirely sympathetic with your policy objectives I think). But you aren't. The reasons there are so many independents is complicated. But most behave the same as partisans. The fraction of voters that switch parties from election to election is very small. Read up
Its not a question of I'm right or wrong. It's a question of you accepting the status quo or not. As in, because they've voted that way in the past, they will again. Why do we get landslides on one side then the other? And don't forget that McCain was leading in the polls before his epically badly timed "Fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama ended with a landslide. If Obama had said that instead of McCain, who'd have won? That's a non-trivial shift, more or less entirely related to the economy, not partisanship. Or do you insist it was not the economy but rather partisanship?
From Pew in your link:
When the partisan leanings of independents were taken into account, 48% either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic; 39% identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.
Still, none of that remotely addresses my point because it's entirely based on a viewpoint of adherence to the status quo. I'm talking about a sea change and if it occurred all bets are off. If either party got real, people would flock to them. I don't think it's far-fetched. A lot of non-politician liberals are fed and are starting to run for office. They're likely to be more honest and pragmatic because they're doing it not as a career but as a cause.
We have had four such "sea changes" in American political history. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_realignment_in_the_United_States
Maybe you can herald the 5th.
lol
I don't expect it to ever happen. I'm just interested in discussing it. You can see what kind of reception it got here on a . . . politics and policy discussion forum.
But thanks for playing along. At least someone did...
From your link, this also feeds into my theory:
- Many "values voters" became Republicans. These were people like Jerry Falwell who were opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and the excesses of the 1960s and 70s
It appears that he has lied half of his time!
To think that he gets support from the so-called Christians is amazing.
I've mentioned before that I've become a regular listener/fan of Sam Harris' Waking Up Podcast. By his own estimation, he's spent nearly 10 hours discussing Trump and much of what has been discussed here with various guests.
One of the conclusions Harris has come to is that if "Trump were half as bad, he would seem more recognizably dangerous".
The link above is a transcript of his podcast soon after Trump was elected, but he makes that same point with just about any guest he has on when the conversation turns to Trump (which doesn't always happen).
If you're not interested in sifting through the entire transcript, here is a good snippet:
The irony is: If he had been merely half as bad, he would have seemed worse. He would have been more recognizably dangerous. But there were so many awful moments that the media couldn’t focus on them for long enough, or weigh their significance. And the big things were as big as they get, right? “Climate change is a hoax.” “Why can’t we use our nuclear weapons?” “Maybe nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Let the Saudis and the Japanese and the South Koreans build their own nukes.” “Who’s to say we should support our NATO alliances? What have they done for us?” “Putin is a great leader.” “Maybe we should just default on our debt, cut a better deal.” Any one of those things should have ended it.
But of course, the little things were just as weird, and should have been just as disqualifying. I mean, we have just elected a president who has bragged about invading the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants, so that he could see them naked, when they were effectively his employees—he owned the pageant. And then he even bullied some of these young women publicly, some on social media in the wee hours of the morning while campaigning for the presidency. And then he denied doing any of these things when no denial was even possible. We had all seen his tweets. And in response to the astonishment of the media, he looked the American people in the eye, and said, “No one respects women more than I do. No one.” And half the country accepted that as, what, the truth? As good theatre? As sketch comedy? I mean, there are really no words to describe how far from normal we have drifted here.
More fodder:
A Time magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...df96de-5850-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html
A Time magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...df96de-5850-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html
This cover — dated March 1, 2009 — looks like an impressive memento from Trump’s pre-presidential career. To club members eating lunch, or golfers waiting for a pro-shop purchase, it seemed to be a signal that Trump had always been a man who mattered. Even when he was just a reality TV star, Trump was the kind of star who got a cover story in Time.
But that wasn’t true.
The Time cover is a fake.
There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.
But that wasn’t true.
The Time cover is a fake.
There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.
There's plenty of stupid stuff related to Trump. I'll be happy when he's gone.
Hahaha! As they say, you can't possibly make this shite up!! (I guess there are exceptions to the rule! !)
This is, no kidding, the official Presidential photo that's hanging on the "chain of command" walls of government buildings throughout the country:
He apparently thinks this is a good picture of him . . .
This is, no kidding, the official Presidential photo that's hanging on the "chain of command" walls of government buildings throughout the country:
He apparently thinks this is a good picture of him . . .
In his eyes, thats the look of power and strength. You are suppose to bow down to that look.
How about this one? Not sure if this is the one that was hanging in government buildings or not. What a long strange trip is has been eh?
The official pictures of all our Presidents always adorn the walls of government buildings during their administrations. Obama's and GWB's were pretty nice ones. They were smiling too.
The official pictures of all our Presidents always adorn the walls of government buildings during their administrations. Obama's and GWB's were pretty nice ones. They were smiling too.
Yea, I was referring to the "Trump glare", and not presidential pictures generally. It's an "Uncle is always watching" glare.
In Asia, you are not supposed to smile in photos -- my dad's generation anyway. Smiling I think is seen as a sign of immaturity and therefore you arent suppose to be taken seriously!!
Regarding his hair -- He has to work hard to make his hair do unnatural things every day. All that sacrifice tends to shape a person's perception.
Not sure if that was the official picture or not. I would expect that he was smiling in his. I liked him as a person and I voted for him - once.
Russians never smile publicly either. Certainly not for official docs.
Btw, did you see this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/eric-trump-new-haircut_us_59510e33e4b05c37bb77c880
Looks like an Apprentice publicity shot.This is, no kidding, the official Presidential photo that's hanging on the "chain of command" walls of government buildings throughout the country:
He apparently thinks this is a good picture of him . . .
Similar threads
