Social Media Torches Trump for Thumbs Up-Obama did Same

southernbubby

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 9:48 am

Squishy wrote:

The Democratic money guys and political bosses get it. Anti-Trump is not a message that speaks to the traditional base of the Democratic party. They want to shut down the conversation as it is only appealing to the fringes. The rest of the world is turned off by the constant chicken little messages.

The traditional base is happy with a humming economy and more money in their paychecks. They like immigration being controlled. Only big business and those that think future immigrants will vote Democratic want what was going on. Cheap imported labor hurts the working class Americans. This is clear from the two major polls on immigration. The one sponsored by business looking for cheap labor has drastically different results than the fairness poll which asks questions about cheap labor effecting their neighbors' jobs. Blacks have like having the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded.

I don't want to see a one party system, but that is where we are heading unless the rank and file listen to the bosses, the money guys, and Squishy.

Yes but many of those jobs are low paying.

It looks to me that as manufacturers went to China and flooded American markets with cheap goods, we the people all bought into the glitter and hype until our homes were flooded with junk and clutter, we had gone into dept for this garbage which was now billed as necessities, and now we wonder why fewer people can afford to buy any of it.

If people want a strong economy with jobs that pay enough to bring the majority into that economy, we have to give up the idea that we can have everything we want, cheaply.

Squishy should run for president!

Jeanette

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 11:25 am

Quote:

Interesting. I would have said the same thing. As I noted, I literally don't know IRL or follow anyone who doesn't criticize Trump. Ben Shapiro even has a scale: Excellent Trump; Good Trump; Bad Trump; Awful Trump. Yet you apparently run into mindless MAGA myna birds all the time. Who are they? Where are you hanging out that attracts such people?

I was a member of Free Republic since 2000. There's been a steady erosion in their membership. There used to be some very intelligent and articulate posters. Over the years they've purged anyone that doesn't adhere to a rigid party line. It's pretty pathetic.

Right now I pretty much get my news from Twitter. I'm pretty selective with who I follow. I used to follow Ben but I find him annoying. I hate people who quote themselves as if they're the Bible. Three are other conservative voices that I appreciate hearing from but his isn't one of them.

My distaste of Trump began well before he became a serious candidate. And it was conservatism's embrace of Trump that showed me how hollow their beliefs and principles truly are.

Quote:

But I'll tell you why many people don't want to say, "I don't consider plans that don't come to fruition to be lies."

Because that opens the door to evaluate Trump's lies in ways that frequently end up in the same place. For example, I don't consider Trump's constant hyperbole to be evidence of dishonesty. Annoying? Frequently. But not in the same category as, "I did not have s-x with that woman."

So if you want to claim that other Presidents have made statements that, because they were unable to fulfill them, turned out to be untrue, you have to be similarly forgiving of Presidents who are accustomed to selling real estate and declaring that everything is in move-in condition, so to speak.

This line of argument is precisely the reason why Trump gets away with what he does and he's never held to account by his base. As long as they can divert to something, anything that the other side ever did that was remotely similar, they're in the clear.

It's like, there's a guy who's a mass murderer but you once spoke lashon hara which is as bad as murder. Are you going to tell me that you never spoke lashon hara? Huh? Huh? Do you want me to bring sources showing you how bad LH is? Are you going to cut your ties with any organization that ever honored anyone who spoke lashon hara? What were we even talking about again?

Quote:

So it's not about his golf or whatever. It's that you don't like his self-centered tweeting. Fair enough. Stand in line behind a long, long line of conservatives. But be honest: "I don't like Trump's self-centered tweeting. It's annoying, distracting, and obnoxious." Don't drag golf games or poses with medical staff into the mix.

It's not the tweeting, it's what the tweeting reveals about him and his approach to the presidency. If his staff could somehow restrain the tweeting, do I think he's be a more effective President? No. This is who he is. He isn't capable of doing better or thinking more about the country or mounting a more effective response to tragedy. This is who the guy is.

I don't think I've been the one harping on his golfing although you'd think at least some of his followers would have an issue with it after he bashed Obama nonstop for far less.

33055

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 12:04 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Quote:

But his base likes his scraping and pandering to their issues. He says what is on his mind as many of them do. Even worse for the Democrats is their blue collar workers and unemployed also like that he bypasses an out of touch media and appeals directly to them. Individualism is built into the American psych.

If DT didn't tweet directly to his base, they would have not have received his message.

Celebrities and the media bashing Trump are not making in roads. They are more and more being marginalized. When you have a message that resonates with the voters, criticizing the message and messenger without an equally or better received message is not a good strategy for winning hearts and minds. It is a useless position.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 1:31 pm

Squishy- you keep saying that Trump bashing hurts democrats. In fact, yesterday Dems flipped a GOP- held Kentucky state house seat. This is the 37th seat the Dems picked up since Trump won.

Trump won that district over Hillary by 72%. Yesterday a Dem picked it up by 68%.

Last Tuesday the Dems picked up a Florida house seat that voted for Trump.

In January, a Dem took a state senate seat in Wisconsin that Trump won.

His presence as POTUS keeps flipping places from red to blue.

I think it's because any person who can read what he writes and listen to what he says, would think, as my very Conservative father (who probably voted for Trump anyway) said "he's a Meshuganeh".

I think Trump has damaged the US generally, but as parties go, I think he has damaged the republicans far more than he has hurt Dems. There was barely anything republican about him before he ran. His kids couldn't even vote for him in the primaries because they were registered Dems. He basically hijacked the Republican Party and made a mockery of them.

If I didn't think he had completely different financial motives, I'd have believed he was a Dem plant, sent to ruin the Republican Party.

The Dems have a long way to go as far as fixing their own party, but there is no greater assistance they have than Trump bullying minority group after minority group, inspiring ppl to vote against Republicans.

As I keep saying, narcissistic megalomaniacs hurt those closest to them more than they ever hurt anyone else.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 1:38 pm

Laiya wrote:

So here's what I find hard to understand. Our last president was a gentleman, charming.

But how does that begin to outweigh his efforts to begin the process of giving nuclear arms to Iran, along with his many other disasters? How valuable was his politeness?

And if a president is achieving positive results, why should his communication style matter?

I agree with you that smooth talking doesn't outweigh progress.

Most people who dislike him don't see it as the difference between charming vs being unlikeable. It's being a decent human being versus being an outright bully who brags about abusing people.

I don't want to get into the specifics of what you think he achieved vs what I think he didn't.
My point is that that's not the argument ppl are having. The ppl opposed to him think that he's doing severe damage to our country. You might disagree with that point of view, but it's not about lack of charm.

Fox

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 2:35 pm

Jeanette wrote:

This line of argument is precisely the reason why Trump gets away with what he does and he's never held to account by his base.

Perhaps this is the part that I truly don't understand. What exactly is it that Trump "gets away with"?

Will he come away from office in a better financial position? I assume so; few Presidents have left office in recent years to retire to a middle-class lifestyle. But whatever financial benefits he's reaping seem to be more of the "who you know" variety than outright corruption.

Is he getting away with being pugnacious, combative, and difficult. Yes, Boruch Hashem! As distasteful and/or self-serving as most of us find his tweets on occasion, I believe the world is a better, safer place as a result of his in-your-face persona.

However much we might like dignified demeanor and measured words in our President, much of the world sees that as a sign of weakness. I found the response of many Chinese to be interesting after Trump's visit there: they characterized him as "more honest" than Obama.

To most of us, including me, that seemed odd. However much you might have disliked Obama's presidency, he didn't give the impression of being dishonest. Apparently to the Chinese, though, the behavior we see as dignified appears deceitful. He seemed too willing to criticize his country publicly, which they viewed as disloyal.

Trump's personality has also been well-positioned to take advantage of changes in Saudi Arabia. From the very start, there were small signs: Op-eds in the Saudi official newspaper criticized Palestinian intransigence; Trump was allowed to fly directly from Riyadh to Israel; Peter Thiel was invited to address an important economic conference. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants to make changes, and he sees Trump as a strong leader who will support his agenda.

We learn in Mishlei that leaders do not have the same level of free will as ordinary people. Hashem takes a more direct role in influencing their behavior and thinking. When the Iran deal was before Congress, I must have heard a dozen drashas on what we should learn from Hashem's allowing such a treaty to be made.

Of course, that doesn't exempt any leader from criticism. However, we have not had a President for many years who was defiant and aggressive when it came to protecting his country, even verbally. Perhaps that's what we need right now, even if it's not what we necessarily like.

Dandelion1

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 4:49 pm

Jeanette wrote:

There are lots of ways to shut down a conversation:

1. Change the subject.

2. Throw out a loaded epithet like "liberal " that does nothing to further the conversation but generates defensiveness and us-vs-them thinking. Apikores, Nazi and racist are also terms that serve this purpose.

3. If you can't attack their arguments, attack their tone. Tell them they're being condescending. "You think you're so smart because you [use big words, use grammar and punctuation correctly, brush your teeth in the morning and wash your hands after using the bathroom]."

4. When all else fails attack the person. Give them a cruel nickname. Tell them they're a nasty woman. Call them ugly, fat, Liddle. Remind them that they're losers who lost the last election. Call them hysterical and crazy. That always works.

I'm still not clear on how anything is being "shut down". Some people are more skilled and effective debaters than others. Someone who does any of the 4 things you mentioned above should be called out for what they are doing. Some people may be misled by these childish techniques, but your average intelligent listener would likely see this as subterfuge, as intellectually dishonest and lazy.

The only way I see conversations being shut down in today's arena, is when I hear these stories about college students standing up and turning around to prevent an invited speaker from speaking, or this bizarre insistence upon "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" so that people do not have to hear or be subjected to any ideas that are not their own. If that isn't "shutting down conversations" I don't know what is.

Jeanette

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 5:10 pm

Fox wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

1. Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest are unprecedented in American history. It's the kind of despotism the constitution is designed to prevent, but that depends on having a Congress that cares.

2. I Do not see a single country that has a new respect for the US because we elected Trump. On the contrary, they're mostly bemused, baffled and horrified. For all his noise I have seen no indication that Trump is constitutionally capable of putting anyone's interests before his own, or even recognizing that this country has interests of its own that need to be defended. This is as obvious to the rest of the world as it is to us.

Trump has done nothing to protect the country against Russian interference in our next election. Aderaba, he welcomes it if it will help him win.

Laiya

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 5:43 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I appreciate your response, and I take it at face value. But I have to say that I have yet to read a single clearly articulated reason for concern that Trump is damaging our country.

If people have reasoned positions, then why are they only expressing hatred and personal animus toward his style, personality, method of communication, appearance even, etc? Again, why is all this stuff even part of the discussion--let alone what feels like the only discussion?

Eta. The very premise of this thread is re Trump being targeted for his communication style

Last edited by Laiya on Wed, Feb 21 2018, 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Laiya

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 7:03 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I'm not sure what conclusions should be drawn from this about Trump's likeability (or hated-ness). There are so many factors at play. Democrats were shellacked in 2010; yet, Obama still won re-election.

Meanwhile a recent gallup poll found Americans are more satisfied with the US's place in the world than we were under Obama; in fact, than we've been in the past thirteen years.

Another poll found that Trump's approval rating is higher than Obama's was at this point in his presidency. But we should be careful about drawing too many conclusions from polls, too.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 9:56 pm

Laiya wrote:

This is long, but bear with me Smile

Because it's not really just the"style" but the intent behind it. I think the vast majority of people have busy days and perhaps don't spend too much time actually listening to his full length speeches. I took the time to do that and would encourage others to do so as well. (Not his scripted speeches but his actual speeches.)

After the Dems pushed Bernie out, I was open to listening to what Trump had to say. I watched the Republican debates. I watched him debate Hillary. And nothing pushed me toward her like watching him in action.

His "communication style" is manipulative rhetoric designed to put people down and tear people apart. I heard him say something in one speech to provoke a media response, and watched him mislead an audience a few weeks later about what I had heard him say with my own ears. He tells us not to believe our own ears.

If you've been fortunate enough to never have to deal with a manipulative abuser in your life, it might be more difficult to detect, particularly if you're not following him closely.

Here's an example of a problematic tactic he uses: since before he took office, he has been elevating loyalty to him as a virtue. He talks not-stop about the people who love him, how they stay loyal to him. During the campaign he literally said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. As thought this was admirable. He was lauding placing support for him over personal values. All this was designed to create unwavering commitment from his supporters.

So what? You might ask. Who cares if a leader wants loyalty? What's the big deal?

It's a danger to a democratic republic when a party elevates support for a leader over support for the survival of the country's values. We don't and shouldn't want that from either party. This is what creates autocracy.

We want leaders who will freely allow dissent, who will not try to diminish or shut down media. He lies about easily provable facts to create discord and deflect when he feels the pressure is getting too much. He doesn't care who or what he harms.

He dog whistles to white supremacists in exchange for their votes, encouraging more hate crimes and emboldening white supremacists.

To those of us who closely follow him and listen to what he says, it's frustrating to argue with people who disagree because it feels like talking to people from the flat Earth society. Like, if you cannot see this on your own, I don't think I can succeed in explaining it to you. (With the exception of people who don't closely follow him.)

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 10:00 pm

Laiya wrote:

To add to above:

What do I personally believe his whole motive in all this is? His businesses. I believe that because he's declared bankruptcy in the US too many times and is deemed a financial risk, US institutions won't lend him money. He gets his money from Russian backers. But he's in their pocket.

There was a part of me that thought that maybe he genuinely was taken for a ride and didn't know the Russians were hacking, but the way he totally freaked out when Mueller indicted thirteen hackers instead of reacting like a normal president (or even citizen) would, and was basically screaming in all caps on Twitter that he did not collude, made me think that he probably did. Like when you walk in on your little kid with a huge mess on the floor and the first thing out of his mouth is "it wasn't me!"

His intent was not necessarily to take down America. His intent is probably protecting his own businesses.
But Putin has other motives.

It's also possible that he didn't collude but maybe he has a Manafort- like issue going on (offshore bank accounts, avoiding paying taxes on millions in income) that he's scared will be exposed with this investigation.

My own opinions aside, the Mueller investigation has thus far not indicated that Trump himself colluded. There are a number of his former campaign officials who have already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about their Russian contacts, and other crimes they've committed. Others have just been indicted.

But the way Mafia-style takedowns work is that they start at the bottom, and the lower tier person prefers to take a guilty plea and possibly less prison time in exchange for cooperating against someone higher up in the chain. So the higher up the person is who takes the plea, that means that someone even higher than them is getting investigated.

Point is, the investigation is far from over and some of us believe he's a danger to our country.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 21 2018, 10:06 pm

Laiya wrote:

The reason it's telling is because it's actually very common for Republicans to turn out in midterms. It has not been common historically for Dems to turn out in midterms, and these have been special elections that until this past year have been very very red. I didn't check out every single flipped district, but some have not been blue in years, that Roy Moore spot in decades.

It seems like Trump might be bringing more Dems to go vote. But I guess we'll find out in 2018. And I agree with you about polls.

PinkFridge

Thu, Feb 22 2018, 9:19 am

Squishy wrote:

And this is what gives me pause. When I hear say, Mike Gallagher chortle about the Tweets and how much people enjoy them and wish they could be as unfiltered, I'm concerned. OTOH you have Hugh Hewitt (who I'm not a major fan of but listen to) who wishes the president wouldn't tweet (and introduces Tweets in real time with a few bars of Rockin' Robin).

PinkFridge

Thu, Feb 22 2018, 9:25 am

Laiya wrote:

It's one thing to say, we don't expect our leaders to be the greatest moral models (though it would be nice on at least a superficial level). But Trump has redefined acceptability in communication styles, moral conduct, some level of reserve and deliberation we would expect in a president. Now with all that I can see people who like what's been happening and what he does - vs. who he is - making the decision to vote for him in 2020. But we had so many good choices to avoid a third term of Obama. That he got elected in 2016 is to me one of the clearest signs of ikvesa d'Meshicha. Something l'maaleh min hateva, and something big, went down 2 years ago.

PinkFridge

Thu, Feb 22 2018, 9:32 am

Fox wrote:

Why can't one be defiant and aggressive and be elegant at the same time?
I learned this about the battle between Yaakov and the malach: While the malach did some damage, Yaakov won. And - yes, remember this was a metaphysical battle but we can still learn this lesson - you know when the malach lost? When he hit below the belt. On a physical level by doing damage to Yaakov's descendants, and on some metaphysical level.

But that's it: when you hit below the belt, taunting, nasty nicknames, ona'as devarim, in public, not some private meeting, you lose credibility. I would hate to think that this is what presidents will have to do from now on. It's terrible for our kids, too. We know that say, sports figures were never tzaddikim but at least they used to keep up a public persona.

Laiya

Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:13 am

PinkFridge wrote:

PF, I don't think any of the other Republican candidates, who may have had both traditional communication styles and good leadership, could have been elected.

Why that is the case, is an important question imo.

Whatfor, I don't have time right now to respond properly, but I really appreciate your posts and you make some interesting points. So often, I've felt the same frustration as you (flat earth society), except from the opposite side. And you helped me to finally understand a bit where these views are coming from.