22 Work Weeks on the Golf Course

[Zzzptm]

Looks like this thread is full of a bunch of suckers falling for leftwing main stream media bullshit. 

27 times, this guy tweeted about how bad it was for Obama to play golf.

96 times, this guy headed down to the golf course.

I hate to ask, but does Trump get a pass on the golf thing because he's neither black nor a woman? There's a huge range of venality in politicians, but it seems to me that a lot of Republicans have to strain at gnats while swallowing elephants in order to justify supporting Trump.

For the record, "main stream media" historically was a term used to describe large media outlets, typically with cross-memberships in their boards of directors, that would squelch stories that were discomforting to their corporate masters. These were normally along corporate lines, such as "Kill the story on cow hormones in milk or the dairy guys pull their advertising from our national network." The secondary, and equally valid concern was that members of government that enjoyed a close relationship with the major media outlets and/or intelligence agency staff placed on editorial boards would do the same thing, but for stories that were embarrassing to the government.

The truth of the matter is that no one side was monolithic in its controls. That they existed and could be abused, I think, was well documented. But that the MSM as a whole was discredited was not demonstrated.

The ability of a foreign power to penetrate a mindspace by saying "this is a story the MSM is trying to kill" is a powerful ability, indeed, as it will succeed where those who hear it fail to corroborate the story. The second sort of highly effective attack is to go personal against the reporter or source immediately after a bad story emerges from such. Never mind the truth or falsehood of the story itself, the person reporting it is a problem child with an axe to grind, and so on.

The combination of these attacks has deeply penetrated the conservative mindspace so much that one can pretty much count to 10 every time a story damages Trump... because, when you get to 10, a complete distraction is being tweeted and retweeted in the conservative mindspace via Russian bots set up precisely to keep Americans distracted from the very real faults and problems within the current administration.

This is exactly what Russia did successfully in Georgia and Estonia during a war (Georgia) and an international dispute (Estonia). Russia followed the same playbook, but with less success, in Ukraine, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and other nations.

I'm of the mind that I'm not changing the opinions of Trump's most dedicated supporters, except perhaps by some miracle. The support they have for Trump is very strong and it would be fruitless for me to change that mindset. But I will lay out what I see as rational arguments so that when someone goes sane, there's a trail of breadcrumbs I've left out that will lead back to reality. One of the hardest things I had to face was how sources I once trusted as alternative news had become subverted by Russian intel and that I was being duped by them. Once I tore off that band-aid, the recovery was refreshing and healing. I didn't have to go through the stress of cognitive dissonance as much.

[Charger]

By the way, most of the most worrying news I heard about Trump actually came from his own Twitter account or from videos that showed him talking.

That is the big problem with Trump...he just blabbers stuff out without thinking. But in that sense though he is real. Which is quite rare in political world, but then again Trump is not a politician and it shows..in both good and bad. Sadly though mostly in bad and it really does hurt him too since as I said a lot of the good he has done gets buried in all of that nonsense.

[Billy Underdog]

The scary thing is that in this populistic political world we live in today, people only react to (and believe in) statements and rhetorics made by politicians, but they don't pay any attention to what they're actually doing.
Then we end up with people rooting for politicians who essentially are harmful for themselves, both on an individual and a worldwide level.
Just had this problem in Norway, the minister of Justice withdrew "voluntarily" because of some bad facebook statements about immigration, so not to pull the whole government down with her (as the prime minister had said if she'll get a confidence motion voted against her, the whole government will leave as a result).
The Christian conservative party were the ones in the position to pull the whole thing one way or the other. They want a government lead by the Right party, but not with the "Development" party (FrP, our most far right, to which said minister of Justice, as well as the minister of Finance belong to) in coalition.
When it became clear that the christian conservative party might actually vote against her despite then loosing the Right lead government, suddenly she's withdrawing though both the leader of Right and Prime minister and the leader of FrP and minister of Finance "begged her not to". Yeah, right...
And everyone on the left side is cheering having gotten rid of her, and seemingly already have forgotten that we could easily have gotten rid of the whole damn bunch. So it's pretty much status quo, actually the guy who's replacing her temporarily is even worse.
And the leader of the christian conservatives as well as the one for the labour party (supposedly the leaders of the left side coalition, though still being pretty far to the right) even got death threats for threathning the position of their beloved version of Trump.
And that's the way it goes pretty much all over Europe and the U.S. at the moment.
Truly horrible times we're living in.

One thing we're seeing pretty much all over the line right now are politicians trying to take power away from the judicial state powers to the legislative state powers (themselves). When was the last time that happened in Europe? Germany 1933...

History isn't only repeating itself, it goes around in circles...

[Zzzptm]

Indeed. I do find Trump's attacks on the FBI to be very concerning... it's like, dude... you know these are the guys that are *protecting* us from foreign espionage? Why are you tearing into them and giving Russia a pass? This is why I appreciate the comments from the one senator from South Carolina who said, "If you're innocent, *act* like it!"

[Zzzptm]

MODERATION NOTE: stuff that was mostly not about Trump, golfing, or the batshit insanity of people who believe Trump is playing golf or whatever has been moved to the thread about the rules that I screwed up in the other part of the forum.

If you want to talk about whether or not the right words were used in the discussion, go there.

If you want to carry on with the current discussion, keep discussing here.

[Typhon]

By the way, most of the most worrying news I heard about Trump actually came from his own Twitter account or from videos that showed him talking.

That is the big problem with Trump...he just blabbers stuff out without thinking. But in that sense though he is real. Which is quite rare in political world, but then again Trump is not a politician and it shows..in both good and bad. Sadly though mostly in bad and it really does hurt him too since as I said a lot of the good he has done gets buried in all of that nonsense.

Agreed.  I do prefer a President who actually says what's on his mind rather than previous guys who almost never did.  To me they tended to come off as being phony.  And although the tweets are part of the problem, what really angers me is that the media is quick to report anything that makes the president look bad, because they don't like the guy.  While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention.  That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.  You're not suppose to report the news that way. 

[Vyn]

To me they tended to come off as being phony. 

Yeah, it got to the point where it wasn't about maintaining professional decorum, or perception management, it seemed like elitism or like you said - being phony.

Interesting perspective on this: George Washington was very well known for his white horse. After he was elected president, he would travel around to different places in a carriage. But they'd have his horse along too. When he was about a mile from his destination, he'd leave the carriage and ride his horse into town.

President Washington indicated that he pulled that charade because he felt people wanted to see him on his horse (intimating someone who was vital, strong, and in charge) rather than riding in a carriage like he was royalty.

And although the tweets are part of the problem, what really angers me is that the media is quick to report anything that makes the president look bad, because they don't like the guy.  While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention.  That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.  You're not suppose to report the news that way. 

There are so many people on our news channels anymore that aren't journalists, but just pundits. They blab about shit without anything to back up their assertions that eventually people confuse actual news with some jackhole's opinion. Of course they do this because it draws more viewers and clicks. Which translates into more ad revenue. I think politics are actually secondary. Trump is such a polarizing figure, you can go to Fox and read a story, then go to CNN and read the same story, but both are framed with bias so much neither one is true.

The whole media/entertainment industry in the USA is a damn clown show anymore.

[Billy Underdog]

While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention.  That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression. 

Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example ) are the same as your impression.

[Zzzptm]

I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.

Then there's the matter regarding how, despite promises to 'drain the swamp', Trump's appointees to Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Education have all been criticized for increasing the level of regulatory capture of those departments.

And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

If the good things can be enumerated, accounted for, and then put in perspective with criticisms of the administration, we'd have something less nebulous than "lots of good things" to evaluate.

[Typhon]

And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

I see no difference between this, and previous presidents receiving huge campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals.

[Typhon]

I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.

The Jobs Report comes out every month stating the number of jobs that were added to the country's economy.  Been that way for years.

[Zzzptm]

And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

I see no difference between this, and previous presidents receiving huge campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals.

The difference is that campaign contributions have, at the very least, the veil of not directly benefiting the politician. This stuff is a direct benefit. Is that a matter of semantics? I think so, as I find both disgusting. There's also the move to not bribe a politician, but to make a substantial donation to the charity his wife oversees... that's also quite unethical.

But it's also a matter of legal definitions. Most of those thinly-veiled ruses are thinly-veiled because that veil offers a degree of legality to the proceedings. But if instead the stuff is done out in the open, it's not just bad optics, it's also grounds for legal actions.

At the very least, though, we have a politician who ran hard on an anti-establishment and anti-elite message who is, if anything, further abetting and aiding those establishments and elites. The hotels and resorts thing is just the personal aspect of that. At the same time, there are heads of departments that are making huge giveaways to the industries they are supposed to be regulating. That's not draining the swamp, that's lining up pigs at the trough for more goodies than the last few presidents would give them.

[Zzzptm]

I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.

The Jobs Report comes out every month stating the number of jobs that were added to the country's economy.  Been that way for years.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2.06 million jobs created in 2017 were actually the fewest in a year since 2011.

[Typhon]

The difference is that campaign contributions have, at the very least, the veil of not directly benefiting the politician. This stuff is a direct benefit. Is that a matter of semantics? I think so, as I find both disgusting. There's also the move to not bribe a politician, but to make a substantial donation to the charity his wife oversees... that's also quite unethical.

But it's also a matter of legal definitions. Most of those thinly-veiled ruses are thinly-veiled because that veil offers a degree of legality to the proceedings. But if instead the stuff is done out in the open, it's not just bad optics, it's also grounds for legal actions.

At the very least, though, we have a politician who ran hard on an anti-establishment and anti-elite message who is, if anything, further abetting and aiding those establishments and elites. The hotels and resorts thing is just the personal aspect of that. At the same time, there are heads of departments that are making huge giveaways to the industries they are supposed to be regulating. That's not draining the swamp, that's lining up pigs at the trough for more goodies than the last few presidents would give them.

Well I firmly believe that lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% was a good thing.  Will that help the so-called elite?  Yes, but it is beneficial to everybody.

[Billy Underdog]

While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention.  That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression. 

Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example ) are the same as your impression.

So you couldn't even mention one specific thing, Typh? Interesting...