The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Lark]

Trump's not a populist. Every one of his and the GOP's policies, benefit the extremely wealthy.

Its a different sort of populist or populism, to do with exploiting the zeitgheist.

 

[rav3n]

Its a different sort of populist or populism, to do with exploiting the zeitgeist.

No doubt it's exploitation of the not so bright.

 

[Lark]

No doubt it's exploitation of the not so bright.

Do you think the US or UK will self-destruct first?

 

[rav3n]

Do you think the US or UK will self-destruct first?

Hopefully neither, if people pull their heads out of their asses. As it stands, the Tory revolt against Johnson's attempt to 'one ring to rule them all', is a positive sign for the UK.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I keep thinking of the madness of King George.

But without the blue pee?

 

[Jaguar]

Benefit the wealthy. Yeah, right. Property tax (SALT) deductions are capped at $10,000.00 and that's beneficial? Ha! Laughable.


Trump tax reform, SALT deduction limits hit home in wealthy New York suburbs | Accounting Today

 

[Z Buck McFate]

You interpret this that way. It does not make it true or correct. It is just your interpretation. It is like the twisting that some do to say someone is speaking with dog whistles.

There are no dog whistles or secret languages, just biased interpretations designed to demonize someone. This is nothing new, but it typical of those looking for evil intent and trying to justify their bias against someone.

You claim he puts the majority of the country in "them" category. But again, that is your interpretation.

Here is the simple truth: Trump is adversarial to those who attack him. Everyone else is counted in his "us" and "we".

If Schumer and Pelosi would start really trying to work with him and call off their media attack dogs, proposing infrastructure bills and real national health care bills, Trump would sign them. He would likely even sign a DACA amnesty if it had mandatory eVerify and Wall funding.

But they can't because they piss off their billionaire masters and Trump would do a 1984 style landslide.

My first instinct is to point out that it seems like Trump perceives everything outside of unquestioning loyalty and obeisance as an "attack" - and in that sense, I'd agree with the bolded. But I imagine that isn't what you meant by "attack". So firstly, I guess it'd be helpful to hear - specifically - who you think "attacks" him. Because if you simply mean everyone who hates him - including constituents - then that's still fucked up (to exclude constituency who hates him from the "our" in "our country").

The belligerent "us vs. them" in his vernacular is clear to me. I am able to maintain a modicum of intellectual curiosity in regard to why it isn't clear to everyone, and I'm aware that simply hitting that big red "the OTHER side is falling prey to confirmation bias, and I'm the one who's got it Right" button is an easy trap (and just another form of confirmation bias in itself). From the outside, it can be pretty clear when people are doing this. And yet, I've been reading through his tweets this week and it still seems clear to me. Democrats, the media (when they report something he doesn't like - even Fox news makes this list sometimes), "the squad"..... you really get the sense, when he says "our country" or "we", that he truly intends for everyone who lives in this country (no matter how much they disagree with him - or even flat out hate him) to feel included in that "we"?

The thing is, I do see a lot of people on both sides freaking out in a manner that belies the extent to which they are perceiving things in an implausible way to maximize righteous indignation. Melania's "I don't care" jacket is a good example. Was it stupid? Definitely. But did she wear it because she didn't care about the hurricane victims and wanted the world to know she didn't care? It's kind of difficult for me to understand how people actually believe that. She's a vapid simpleton, but she's not actively malicious. It's definitely a rampant problem, on both sides.

And yet on the other side of that issue is when something is definitely there and one side tries gaslighting the other into believing it's not. Trump has done this, several people in his administration have done this - they confidently assert something that is patently not true, regularly - which is precisely why so many people really fucking hate him and why his mental health has been called into question over and over again. While the media does absolutely delight in every tiny thing that makes him look bad (and they'd have more credibly if they'd dial it back a notch or two), the fact that he gaslights isn't fake news. It's practically pointless to find a 'same page' about this with a supporter, but that's not what I'm after here. (Because baby steps). I'd actually like some clarification though about the above post. Are you disagreeing with me specifically about whether or not he truly intends everyone to feel included in the "we" or "our" when he tweets "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing in the wider sense and saying it's a demonizing biased interpretation (on my part) to read systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his tweets? (I guess part of why I'm asking is because I don't see how you could possibly agree to the latter and simultaneously consider the former an unmerited 'interpretation' on my part, but I don't want to make leaps myself).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I keep thinking of the madness of King George.

When did three tablespoons of anything ever do anybody any good?!

 

[SearchingforPeace]

My first instinct is to point out that it seems like Trump perceives everything outside of unquestioning loyalty and obeisance as an "attack" - and in that sense, I'd agree with the bolded. But I imagine that isn't what you meant by "attack". So firstly, I guess it'd be helpful to hear - specifically - who you think "attacks" him. Because if you simply mean everyone who hates him - including constituents - then that's still fucked up (to exclude constituency who hates him from the "our" in "our country").

The belligerent "us vs. them" in his vernacular is clear to me. I am able to maintain a modicum of intellectual curiosity in regard to why it isn't clear to everyone, and I'm aware that simply hitting that big red "the OTHER side is falling prey to confirmation bias, and I'm the one who's got it Right" button is an easy trap (and just another form of confirmation bias in itself). From the outside, it can be pretty clear when people are doing this. And yet, I've been reading through his tweets this week and it still seems clear to me. Democrats, the media (when they report something he doesn't like - even Fox news makes this list sometimes), "the squad"..... you really get the sense, when he says "our country" or "we", that he truly intends for everyone who lives in this country (no matter how much they disagree with him - or even flat out hate him) to feel included in that "we"?

The thing is, I do see a lot of people on both sides freaking out in a manner that belies the extent to which they are perceiving things in an implausible way to maximize righteous indignation. Melania's "I don't care" jacket is a good example. Was it stupid? Definitely. But did she wear it because she didn't care about the hurricane victims and wanted the world to know she didn't care? It's kind of difficult for me to understand how people actually believe that. She's a vapid simpleton, but she's not actively malicious. It's definitely a rampant problem, on both sides.

And yet on the other side of that issue is when something is definitely there and one side tries gaslighting the other into believing it's not. Trump has done this, several people in his administration have done this - they confidently assert something that is patently not true, regularly - which is precisely why so many people really fucking hate him and why his mental health has been called into question over and over again. While the media does absolutely delight in every tiny thing that makes him look bad (and they'd have more credibly if they'd dial it back a notch or two), the fact that he gaslights isn't fake news. It's practically pointless to find a 'same page' about this with a supporter, but that's not what I'm after here. (Because baby steps). I'd actually like some clarification though about the above post. Are you disagreeing with me specifically about whether or not he truly intends everyone to feel included in the "we" or "our" when he tweets "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing in the wider sense and saying it's a demonizing biased interpretation (on my part) to read systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his tweets? (I guess part of why I'm asking is because I don't see how you could possibly agree to the latter and simultaneously consider the former an unmerited 'interpretation' on my part, but I don't want to make leaps myself).

Do you really want "clarification"? Are you willing to consider the steps to understand it? If so, great.

But we need to make sure we can talk to each other, not past each other.

First, off, "gaslighting" as a phrase is often used as a psychological defense measure when confronted with contrary ideas. It precludes openess and the simple intellectual humility that one might be in error.

If everything I write is "gaslighting" to you, then "clarifying" is useless, as nothing I write will clarify anything to you.

Second, a simple question: Did Trump call Neo-Nazis and KKK "fine people" after Charlottesville in 2017?

 

[Jaguar]

Did Trump call Neo-Nazis and KKK "fine people" after Charlottesville in 2017?

What is the Unite The Right group?
Various alt-right, neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist, white supremacist, white nationalist, Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, Identitarian and other far-right groups.

What Trump should have known about Unite The Right:
The Unite the Right rally, which was scheduled to take place on August 12, 2017, was the most visible display of white nationalist and white supremacist hate en masse in the United States in years. And it was branded as such long before it took place. The Unite the Right rally was the third such event in Charlottesville in 2017 — and each of these rallies was led and supported by self-proclaimed white nationalists and racists, apparently invigorated by an April 2017 decision by the Charlottesville City Council to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from Lee Park. At the time, Confederate statues and monuments across the country were under increased scrutiny, especially following the murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, by an avowed racist who enjoyed Confederate symbology.

1. In May 2017, white nationalist Richard Spencer led a rally and torchlit parade through Lee Park, where attendees chanted “You will not replace us” and “Blood and soil.” In response, the chair of the Charlottesville Republican Party released a statement saying, “Whoever these people were, the intolerance and hatred they seek to promote is utterly disgusting and disturbing beyond words.”

2. In July 2017, members of Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan also protested against the removal of the Lee statue in Charlottesville, with one member telling USA Today that he was protesting the “cultural genocide” of white people he believed was behind the call for the statue’s removal.

3. So by August 2017, when the Unite the Right rally was scheduled to take place, it was fairly clear that the organizers behind the rallies on behalf of keeping the Lee statue in place had a very specific ideological bent. That was clear in a police affidavit detailing who was expected at Unite the Right — including roughly 250 to 500 Klansmen and more than 150 “Alt-Knights,” the military division of the Proud Boys.


If someone wants to try and argue that Trump was too lazy to even do a basic inquiry into the events leading up to the August debacle, or checking out the composition of the group Unite the Right before calling them "fine people," then I don't know what the hell he's even doing in The White House. The POTUS shouldn't consistently require people to make up excuses for his overall stupidity.


Full article:
Trump and Unite the Right: Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false - Vox

 

[Jaguar]

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

Trump invites Taliban terrorists to Camp David for tea and crumpets. Isn't that cute.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Do you really want "clarification"? Are you willing to consider the steps to understand it? If so, great.

Yes. Like I tried to explain, I'd like clarification about what you're disagreeing with. Is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

But we need to make sure we can talk to each other, not past each other.

I have actually tried explaining how I know things can go wrong on both sides, specifically to show that I'm aware of how things go wrong for both sides. If there's something specific in what I'm saying that makes you feel like I'm "talking past" you, feel free to point it out and explain how. (But dismissing a swath of information by saying "this is talking past me" without explaining why you see it that way though - that's not helpful).

First, off, "gaslighting" as a phrase is often used as a psychological defense measure when confronted with contrary ideas. It precludes openess and the simple intellectual humility that one might be in error.

If everything I write is "gaslighting" to you, then "clarifying" is useless, as nothing I write will clarify anything to you.

I didn't actually accuse you of gaslighting. I was trying to explain how either end of the 'openness' spectrum is a problem. Where there's no openness, a person evaluates incoming information as true or not true according to whether it confirms or negates what they already believe. On the other end, where there's too much openness, a person changes what they believe (too easily) according to incoming information - and that's still a kind of confirmation bias (there's probably actually a specific term for this that isn't coming to mind right now), but it's more about deciding something is true or not according to belief in an external source (so, a truth value isn't dependent upon one's own belief system so much as a kind of blind faith in someone else's belief system - giving someone else's judgment more credit/weight than one's own judgement).

My point in making this distinction was to show that openness, in itself, is not always a good thing - it must be combined with at least a modicum of one's own sensibilities to be a character strength. If a person can't take full accountability for their own beliefs (and for how the consequences of their words and actions make an imprint on the world) because they're giving too much of that power/authority to someone else, then openness becomes a liability.

As I already explained, I see lots of stories/headlines that - to me - have a 'truth value' that is rather clearly fueled more by histrionic partisan acrimony than rational evaluation. I gave Melania's "I don't care" jacket as a rather clear example. Both sides are prone to willful (albeit unconscious) misinterpretation that maximizes righteous indignation, and it's an example of how being too 'open' can become a liability - people reach for pitchforks because they're deferring their own reasoning to partisan stories/headlines (too much openness is usually aimed at one's own tribe).

There's a sweet spot between the two ends of the spectrum - where we take in the information, evaluate it, and then take responsibility for now much of it we ultimately accept and reject.

I am comfortable with the degree to which I do this. I am comfortable with how confident I am in my own ability to read Trump's tweets with at least a modicum of intellectual curiosity. There's a lot of criticism about his administration that I am able to dismiss because it seems fueled more by partisan acrimony than rational evaluation, but many (if not most) of his tweets still seem like junior highschool caliber "us vs. them" bullying divisiveness to me. It is not based on "dog whistles and secret language" - and telling me that this is my opinion because of "dog whistles and secret language" is akin to me telling you that yours is because you "drank his kool-aid." Regardless of how much I may be thinking it, it's not effective communication. Saying "you're drinking his kool-aid" doesn't effectively explain how there is a very palpable belligerent divisiveness in his words, does it? Even if you are drinking his kool-aid, you won't 'come around' and see the divisiveness by simply being told I think that's what you're doing. It would require a cogent explanation of how the belligerent divisiveness is there to persuade you.

So back to my question: is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

Second, a simple question: Did Trump call Neo-Nazis and KKK "fine people" after Charlottesville in 2017?

By not explicitly excluding them, he included them as "fine people". He waited too long to explicitly condemn white supremacy, and still hasn't done so with the gravity it deserves. But please don't springboard off this before you've answered what I asked you first.

****

Tacking this on to the end because it's more to the point of the thread than direct response to what I quoted:

I raised the issue of Trump's tendency to gaslight - and the tendency within his whole administration to similarly gaslight - more to speak to the point of this thread. Gaslighters need others to defer their own sensibilities/judgment. It's a pathological need for power, a need to be able to dictate what shared reality is and for others to defer - in spite of what other's sensibilities tell them about how it might be incorrect or wrong. Trump systematically demonstrates this need for power over others. This observation isn't based on "dog whistles and silent language." It's based on the way he systematically confidently asserts something that's patently untrue, and then has a very bad reaction when people don't defer their own judgment about it (and mock him for even trying). This is something he does, regularly. It doesn't matter if it's enough to warrant a mental health label - the behavior itself is there.

This is all on top of the fact (again, addressing larger issue of thread here) that he's consistently demonstrated that he can't take criticism; he dishes it out compulsively like a spoiled toddler having a tantrum, but he absolutely can not handle others dishing out criticism/disapproval about him. He has repeatedly tried pointing out how others should apologize to him, and how others (especially 'the media') should be held accountable for things they say about/against him - yet he can not handle being held accountable for inflammatory/patently untrue accusations he dishes out himself (e.g. the way he has cried "FAKE NEWS" about things that have been proven true). This is another way in which his need for power to overwrite shared reality is clear - not "dog whistles and secret language", but brazenly displayed.

He thinks he (and his family/administration) are above the rules. The clearest example coming to mind is that he obstructed the Mueller investigation, and he wants to be able to get rid of the proven fact that he did it by simply claiming he didn't; he has repeatedly claimed the report exonerated him on the charge of obstruction, when Mueller very clearly stated in the report that it was not an exoneration and listed very concrete ways in which he did obstruct and attempt to obstruct (and the things that didn't happen because people didn't follow through on his orders). Yet Trump feels so bizarrely entitled to overwrite reality and create a new one in which he was exonerated that it's absolutely mystifying. And with his base, it's working. No one over there seems compelled to read the fucking thing for themselves, and they simply rely on his claim that he was exonerated by it - even though that claim is patently false.

It's not acceptable for a low level manager at Best Buy to display these kinds of character flaws, and it sure as hell isn't acceptable for a POTUS to have them.

I've seen people make light of his character flaws by saying he's simply "clumsy" with language. But there are natural consequences for being clumsy with language. Usually those consequences force people to learn and be less clumsy - much like someone who is physically clumsy must learn to be more careful if they want to have fewer injuries as a result. We are not doing any individual favors by absorbing the consequences of their behavior (making excuses for them, letting them get away with it because 'they don't know better'), because then it becomes nothing more than enabling someone to continue treating others in a shitty way. So even in best case scenario, in which he's a 'good guy' who is exceptionally, mindnumbingly "clumsy" with language - someone that "clumsy" isn't fit to be a manager at Denny's.

Again - these are the points on which I don't expect to find any 'same page' with Trump supporters anytime soon. These are reasons I think Trump is clearly unfit for office. I really hope that someday, someone is capable of writing a cogent explanation for the Left about why his supporters enable it, and how all of these exceptional circumstances are all dismissed as routine <current president Derangement Syndrome>. (I don't mean in this forum, I mean I hope that people in the 'big leagues' can start producing this kind of thing). But on the forum level, I suppose it starts with the tinier victories (and 'baby steps') of understanding smaller things piece by piece.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I keep thinking of the madness of King George.

When did three tablespoons of anything ever do anybody any good?!

(Does no one else remember this line from the movie? Because it's on my personal top 100 list of favorite movie lines.)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

(Does no one else remember this line from the movie? Because it's on my personal top 100 list of favorite movie lines.)

I last saw it a decade ago.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Yes. Like I tried to explain, I'd like clarification about what you're disagreeing with. Is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

I have actually tried explaining how I know things can go wrong on both sides, specifically to show that I'm aware of how things go wrong for both sides. If there's something specific in what I'm saying that makes you feel like I'm "talking past" you, feel free to point it out and explain how. (But dismissing a swath of information by saying "this is talking past me" without explaining why you see it that way though - that's not helpful).



I didn't actually accuse you of gaslighting. I was trying to explain how either end of the 'openness' spectrum is a problem. Where there's no openness, a person evaluates incoming information as true or not true according to whether it confirms or negates what they already believe. On the other end, where there's too much openness, a person changes what they believe (too easily) according to incoming information - and that's still a kind of confirmation bias (there's probably actually a specific term for this that isn't coming to mind right now), but it's more about deciding something is true or not according to belief in an external source (so, a truth value isn't dependent upon one's own belief system so much as a kind of blind faith in someone else's belief system - giving someone else's judgment more credit/weight than one's own judgement).

My point in making this distinction was to show that openness, in itself, is not always a good thing - it must be combined with at least a modicum of one's own sensibilities to be a character strength. If a person can't take full accountability for their own beliefs (and for how the consequences of their words and actions make an imprint on the world) because they're giving too much of that power/authority to someone else, then openness becomes a liability.

As I already explained, I see lots of stories/headlines that - to me - have a 'truth value' that is rather clearly fueled more by histrionic partisan acrimony than rational evaluation. I gave Melania's "I don't care" jacket as a rather clear example. Both sides are prone to willful (albeit unconscious) misinterpretation that maximizes righteous indignation, and it's an example of how being too 'open' can become a liability - people reach for pitchforks because they're deferring their own reasoning to partisan stories/headlines (too much openness is usually aimed at one's own tribe).

There's a sweet spot between the two ends of the spectrum - where we take in the information, evaluate it, and then take responsibility for now much of it we ultimately accept and reject.

I am comfortable with the degree to which I do this. I am comfortable with how confident I am in my own ability to read Trump's tweets with at least a modicum of intellectual curiosity. There's a lot of criticism about his administration that I am able to dismiss because it seems fueled more by partisan acrimony than rational evaluation, but many (if not most) of his tweets still seem like junior highschool caliber "us vs. them" bullying divisiveness to me. It is not based on "dog whistles and secret language" - and telling me that this is my opinion because of "dog whistles and secret language" is akin to me telling you that yours is because you "drank his kool-aid." Regardless of how much I may be thinking it, it's not effective communication. Saying "you're drinking his kool-aid" doesn't effectively explain how there is a very palpable belligerent divisiveness in his words, does it? Even if you are drinking his kool-aid, you won't 'come around' and see the divisiveness by simply being told I think that's what you're doing. It would require a cogent explanation of how the belligerent divisiveness is there to persuade you.

So back to my question: is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

By not explicitly excluding them, he included them as "fine people". He waited too long to explicitly condemn white supremacy, and still hasn't done so with the gravity it deserves. But please don't springboard off this before you've answered what I asked you first.

****

Tacking this on to the end because it's more to the point of the thread than direct response to what I quoted:

I raised the issue of Trump's tendency to gaslight - and the tendency within his whole administration to similarly gaslight - more to speak to the point of this thread. Gaslighters need others to defer their own sensibilities/judgment. It's a pathological need for power, a need to be able to dictate what shared reality is and for others to defer - in spite of what other's sensibilities tell them about how it might be incorrect or wrong. Trump systematically demonstrates this need for power over others. This observation isn't based on "dog whistles and silent language." It's based on the way he systematically confidently asserts something that's patently untrue, and then has a very bad reaction when people don't defer their own judgment about it (and mock him for even trying). This is something he does, regularly. It doesn't matter if it's enough to warrant a mental health label - the behavior itself is there.

This is all on top of the fact (again, addressing larger issue of thread here) that he's consistently demonstrated that he can't take criticism; he dishes it out compulsively like a spoiled toddler having a tantrum, but he absolutely can not handle others dishing out criticism/disapproval about him. He has repeatedly tried pointing out how others should apologize to him, and how others (especially 'the media') should be held accountable for things they say about/against him - yet he can not handle being held accountable for inflammatory/patently untrue accusations he dishes out himself (e.g. the way he has cried "FAKE NEWS" about things that have been proven true). This is another way in which his need for power to overwrite shared reality is clear - not "dog whistles and secret language", but brazenly displayed.

He thinks he (and his family/administration) are above the rules. The clearest example coming to mind is that he obstructed the Mueller investigation, and he wants to be able to get rid of the proven fact that he did it by simply claiming he didn't; he has repeatedly claimed the report exonerated him on the charge of obstruction, when Mueller very clearly stated in the report that it was not an exoneration and listed very concrete ways in which he did obstruct and attempt to obstruct (and the things that didn't happen because people didn't follow through on his orders). Yet Trump feels so bizarrely entitled to overwrite reality and create a new one in which he was exonerated that it's absolutely mystifying. And with his base, it's working. No one over there seems compelled to read the fucking thing for themselves, and they simply rely on his claim that he was exonerated by it - even though that claim is patently false.

It's not acceptable for a low level manager at Best Buy to display these kinds of character flaws, and it sure as hell isn't acceptable for a POTUS to have them.

I've seen people make light of his character flaws by saying he's simply "clumsy" with language. But there are natural consequences for being clumsy with language. Usually those consequences force people to learn and be less clumsy - much like someone who is physically clumsy must learn to be more careful if they want to have fewer injuries as a result. We are not doing any individual favors by absorbing the consequences of their behavior (making excuses for them, letting them get away with it because 'they don't know better'), because then it becomes nothing more than enabling someone to continue treating others in a shitty way. So even in best case scenario, in which he's a 'good guy' who is exceptionally, mindnumbingly "clumsy" with language - someone that "clumsy" isn't fit to be a manager at Denny's.

Again - these are the points on which I don't expect to find any 'same page' with Trump supporters anytime soon. These are reasons I think Trump is clearly unfit for office. I really hope that someday, someone is capable of writing a cogent explanation for the Left about why his supporters enable it, and how all of these exceptional circumstances are all dismissed as routine <current president Derangement Syndrome>. (I don't mean in this forum, I mean I hope that people in the 'big leagues' can start producing this kind of thing). But on the forum level, I suppose it starts with the tinier victories (and 'baby steps') of understanding smaller things piece by piece

.

I will continue on my point, and then answer yours.

So you believe he didn't condemn those Neo-Nazis? And if he really did, would that make you want to understand why you were so misinformed? And if he really did, would you wonder why the media has condemned Trump for not condemning Neo-Nazis if he really did?

Would you be surprised he condemned Neo-Nazis at that press conference?

Here is the full transcript from Vox, a known left of center site: Redirect Notice

and the direct quote here from Trump

You had people and i'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally.

So, he condemned them at the press conference where he discussed "fine people" being on both sides, and excluded them from the "fine people".

Yet you believed contrary to facts for 2 years. Does that make you stupid? No. Does that make you into partisan? No. Does that even make you unique? No.

Here is an article from CNN contributer Steve Cortes about the subject:
Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof. | RealClearPolitics

But it does show the power of the media, which is very partisan, to manipulate.

As such, for any topic, especially in the Trump era, it is almost always necessary to view news reporting as a pseudo Democratic political ad, at least until one consults original sources.

So, what if instead of Trump disobeying laws and rules, "gaslighting" as you call it, instead a hostile and partisan media is selectively reporting misinformation and disinformation, in an blatant attempt to twist the truth?

We just had a leaked audio from the NY Times about how they geared up to push the Russian Collison Hoax for 2 years and now are moving on to pushing a "racism" agenda.

And yes, it was a hoax from the beginning, as the Obama administration used the phony pretext to spy on Trump, and then used it to try and cover up their own crimes. A lot of people who hate Trump and disagree with his policies saw it was phony from near the beginning, but there were attempts (pushed by the media, intelligence, and tech) to discredit them.

So again, do you really want clarification? Can you accept that you have been manipulated by the media to create a false understanding of Trump? Can you accept that the media has been gaslighting you (to use your word) into believing something utterly false?

There are plenty of reasons why reasonable people can oppose Trump and dislike Trump. I find, however, that many people do so because they have manipulated by some of the best psychological and emotional manipulators the world has ever seen.

Did you see the recent testimony by a left of center professor that Google was able to move between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary in 2016 by its manipulations? Here it is from C-Span Google moved millions of votes | C-SPAN.org

Real gaslighting (again, your phrase) would be Obama lying about "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" when that was never a part of his real proposal and he knew it was false, and the media let him get away with it all, but that is just for comparison purposes for when the media is supportive of a President.

Likewise, they made Mitt Romney into a sexist Nazi killer bully dog-abuser. Mitt Romney of all people (and there are plenty of reasons to criticize empty-suit Mitt, but those were not used).

Here is the truth of Trump, more or less: he is a populist nationalist. [He loves America and sees that globalization and endless wars have the made the country worse off. He wants to reshape the international order so that America is no longer the world policeman and so we rebuild America rather than let oligarchs loot it any longer.

Any politician that opposes the oligarchs will be demonized. That is why they fixed the 2016 Democratic primary to keep Bernie from winning (documented in a court case on the subject).

That is why Tulsi will not be allowed on the next debate stage. That is why Bernie will never be the nominee.

Trump wants the success of America as a whole, for its citizens to have successful lives. All citizens, no matter their race, gender, religion, etc. are included in this desire for success.

But pushing America for the Americans means opposing the multinationals that have really controlled the country for a long time. Now, anyone who is a globalist citizen of the world without loyalty to a single country might have a problem with this. The billionaire class has devastated the American working and middle class over the last 30 years since the end of the Cold War.

That is a bipartisan issue because the oligarchy is really a uniparty that uses a divide and rule strategy along with the food and entertainment strategy. These strategies have been used, of course, by rulers throughout history.

So, Trump gets demonized as the worst person in the world, "Orange Man Bad". So was Reagan and Bush and Bush and Dole.... and so on.

I was shocked as anyone that Trump won. And hoped immediately that Trump would work in a nonpartisan fashion with both sides. I didn't know that the Obama administration needed to cover for its spying, preventing this from happening.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Why doesn't Trump offer an option to able-bodied illegals immigrants that they can be granted citizenship if they agree to 2 years of military service? If the language barrier is the problem, I'm sure the military has plenty of bilingual members who could be assigned to train them. The French Foreign Legion has never had a problem training people from multiple different ethnic backgrounds with various languages.

In the process of training and serving, many of these recruits might learn valuable job skills they could put to their advantage in the US, and therefor be less likely to be stuck taking menial jobs like maid, gardener or Trump Towers janitor. Many might decide to remain in the service past the 2 year minimum and go career military.

 

[Lark]

Why doesn't Trump offer an option to able-bodied illegals immigrants that they can be granted citizenship if they agree to 2 years of military service? If the language barrier is the problem, I'm sure the military has plenty of bilingual members who could be assigned to train them. The French Foreign Legion has never had a problem training people from multiple different ethnic backgrounds with various languages.

In the process of training and serving, many of these recruits might learn valuable job skills they could put to their advantage in the US, and therefor be less likely to be stuck taking menial jobs like maid, gardener or Trump Towers janitor. Many might decide to remain in the service past the 2 year minimum and go career military.

Because it looks dangerously like conscription and the US, like most professional fighting forces, hates the idea of conscription because it can and does generally lead to decline in their human resources and calibre of fighters, the same as any service which is full of people who are too disinterested in what they have to do, the compulsion is inversely associated with the quality of any service.

Plus there's history too, the movie Gangs of New York, sort of, only sort of, covers it in its portrayal of so called "nativism" which was the first major anti-immigration panic to over ride the US, so far as I know.

Generally I just think that the US has tried to solve a lot of things with militarism which its ill suited for too, that is by no means an exclusively American thing but its been a lot less en vogue other places than the US for a long time now.

 

[Totenkindly]

I tend to think that it's because there's no real desire to convert immigrants to citizens.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because it looks dangerously like conscription and the US, like most professional fighting forces, hates the idea of conscription because it can and does generally lead to decline in their human resources and calibre of fighters, the same as any service which is full of people who are too disinterested in what they have to do, the compulsion is inversely associated with the quality of any service.

Plus there's history too, the movie Gangs of New York, sort of, only sort of, covers it in its portrayal of so called "nativism" which was the first major anti-immigration panic to over ride the US, so far as I know.

Generally I just think that the US has tried to solve a lot of things with militarism which its ill suited for too, that is by no means an exclusively American thing but its been a lot less en vogue other places than the US for a long time now.

Sure, and it occurred to me we could be replicating a strategy that contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire by conscripting foreign immigrants to the military. I hate militarism, but on the other hand, we can't continue to ignore the problem by either A) The republican solution of sending them back to the fucked regions they're fleeing from or B) the democratic solution of pretending an influx of immigrants won't be a strain on an already strained and aging infrastructure (not just referring to physical structures but services as well). Both the GOP and Dems answers to the problem are both bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approaches that fail to really address the roots of the problem.

Of course there's long term solutions like working with foreign nations to help them improve their economic situations to the point that their residents don't need to flee, but in the short term we need to find a way to better integrate current immigrants into our society. Perhaps other alternatives, not just military conscription, like we could work out deals where some foreign governments agree to pay part or full college tuition to send some immigrants to American colleges, on the agreement the immigrants return to their home countries upon graduation. The goal here being we'd be giving them valuable knowledge and job skills that they can use to better contribute to and improve conditions in their homelands, while avoiding an additional financial burden by making those nations pay for the educations. This has already been happening for a while, for example a lot of Chinese people come here to study, then return home to work.

Also, If military service is chosen, the GI Bill should allow the immigrants to get help attending college upon discharge from the military. I'm not sure the current policy toward foreigners who enlist, but if the GI Bill doesn't apply to them, that should be changed.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I will continue on my point, and then answer yours.

So you believe he didn't condemn those Neo-Nazis? And if he really did, would that make you want to understand why you were so misinformed? And if he really did, would you wonder why the media has condemned Trump for not condemning Neo-Nazis if he really did?

Would you be surprised he condemned Neo-Nazis at that press conference?

Here is the full transcript from Vox, a known left of center site: Redirect Notice

and the direct quote here from Trump

So, he condemned them at the press conference where he discussed "fine people" being on both sides, and excluded them from the "fine people".

Yet you believed contrary to facts for 2 years. Does that make you stupid? No. Does that make you into partisan? No. Does that even make you unique? No.

Here is an article from CNN contributer Steve Cortes about the subject:
Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof. | RealClearPolitics

But it does show the power of the media, which is very partisan, to manipulate.

As such, for any topic, especially in the Trump era, it is almost always necessary to view news reporting as a pseudo Democratic political ad, at least until one consults original sources.

So, what if instead of Trump disobeying laws and rules, "gaslighting" as you call it, instead a hostile and partisan media is selectively reporting misinformation and disinformation, in an blatant attempt to twist the truth?

We just had a leaked audio from the NY Times about how they geared up to push the Russian Collison Hoax for 2 years and now are moving on to pushing a "racism" agenda.

And yes, it was a hoax from the beginning, as the Obama administration used the phony pretext to spy on Trump, and then used it to try and cover up their own crimes. A lot of people who hate Trump and disagree with his policies saw it was phony from near the beginning, but there were attempts (pushed by the media, intelligence, and tech) to discredit them.

So again, do you really want clarification? Can you accept that you have been manipulated by the media to create a false understanding of Trump? Can you accept that the media has been gaslighting you (to use your word) into believing something utterly false?

There are plenty of reasons why reasonable people can oppose Trump and dislike Trump. I find, however, that many people do so because they have manipulated by some of the best psychological and emotional manipulators the world has ever seen.

Did you see the recent testimony by a left of center professor that Google was able to move between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary in 2016 by its manipulations? Here it is from C-Span Google moved millions of votes | C-SPAN.org

Real gaslighting (again, your phrase) would be Obama lying about "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" when that was never a part of his real proposal and he knew it was false, and the media let him get away with it all, but that is just for comparison purposes for when the media is supportive of a President.

Likewise, they made Mitt Romney into a sexist Nazi killer bully dog-abuser. Mitt Romney of all people (and there are plenty of reasons to criticize empty-suit Mitt, but those were not used).

Here is the truth of Trump, more or less: he is a populist nationalist. [He loves America and sees that globalization and endless wars have the made the country worse off. He wants to reshape the international order so that America is no longer the world policeman and so we rebuild America rather than let oligarchs loot it any longer.

Any politician that opposes the oligarchs will be demonized. That is why they fixed the 2016 Democratic primary to keep Bernie from winning (documented in a court case on the subject).

That is why Tulsi will not be allowed on the next debate stage. That is why Bernie will never be the nominee.

Trump wants the success of America as a whole, for its citizens to have successful lives. All citizens, no matter their race, gender, religion, etc. are included in this desire for success.

But pushing America for the Americans means opposing the multinationals that have really controlled the country for a long time. Now, anyone who is a globalist citizen of the world without loyalty to a single country might have a problem with this. The billionaire class has devastated the American working and middle class over the last 30 years since the end of the Cold War.

That is a bipartisan issue because the oligarchy is really a uniparty that uses a divide and rule strategy along with the food and entertainment strategy. These strategies have been used, of course, by rulers throughout history.

So, Trump gets demonized as the worst person in the world, "Orange Man Bad". So was Reagan and Bush and Bush and Dole.... and so on.

I was shocked as anyone that Trump won. And hoped immediately that Trump would work in a nonpartisan fashion with both sides. I didn't know that the Obama administration needed to cover for its spying, preventing this from happening.

I didn't see an answer to the one single question I asked - which I've asked twice now, because you didn't answer it the first time you responded to it either.

Why is it so difficult?