swilow
Bluelight Crew
In the New World of Trump, yes.
I think the phrase "alternative facts" may be considered by future historians, picking through the radioactive rubble of the past, to crystallize this age.
2017 Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter Escher's Waterfall
- Start date
- Status
In the New World of Trump, yes.
I think the phrase "alternative facts" may be considered by future historians, picking through the radioactive rubble of the past, to crystallize this age.
It will be included in one of those guides illustrating the warning signs of impending authoritarianism.
The idea of "alternative facts" (like "fake news") is all about
a) manipulating the narrative and attempting to control the way people understand current events and interpret history (with a special emphasis on conspiracy BS and a range of jingoistic tropes)
b) attacking and attempting to discredit the free press
and
c) having a euphemistic turn of phrase for his frequent - and utterly shameless - lies.
"Alternative facts" is just another trumpist misnomer - there doesn't seem to be anything factual about any of trump's rhetoric.
I don't know about the source of this article, or how trustworthy it is, but it's interesting nevertheless;
Staffers begin circulating resumes as Donald Trump administration circles the drain
The idea of "alternative facts" (like "fake news") is all about
a) manipulating the narrative and attempting to control the way people understand current events and interpret history (with a special emphasis on conspiracy BS and a range of jingoistic tropes)
b) attacking and attempting to discredit the free press
and
c) having a euphemistic turn of phrase for his frequent - and utterly shameless - lies.
"Alternative facts" is just another trumpist misnomer - there doesn't seem to be anything factual about any of trump's rhetoric.
I don't know about the source of this article, or how trustworthy it is, but it's interesting nevertheless;
Staffers begin circulating resumes as Donald Trump administration circles the drain
Erikmen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Messages
- 20,707
^ Spot on!
These absurds people are getting used to hear and see everyday are abnormal. For how long is this going to happen, it's a nightmare day after day after day. During the past 8 months there are not so many good things to account for, on the contrary.
These absurds people are getting used to hear and see everyday are abnormal. For how long is this going to happen, it's a nightmare day after day after day. During the past 8 months there are not so many good things to account for, on the contrary.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
DoctorMolecule
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 732
Like a boy who found his dad's gun
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
As I posted earlier, Chief of Staff General John Kelly seemed to appear distressed when Trump was speaking about North Korea and Kim Jong Un.
The White House claimed that he was fatigued from trying to keep up with the energetic Trump.
White House says John Kelly was just tired from 'trying to keep up' with Trump in UN photo
Apparently, someone matched the photo timestamp with what Trump was saying at the time. Kelly had his hand on his face after Trump called North Korea a "band of criminals."
You decide. Tired or distressed?
The only other time General Kelly looked tired or distressed was when Trump decided that during the rally in Charlottesville "both sides" contributed to the violence.
So was Kelly tired or distressed?
You decide.
The White House claimed that he was fatigued from trying to keep up with the energetic Trump.
White House says John Kelly was just tired from 'trying to keep up' with Trump in UN photo
Apparently, someone matched the photo timestamp with what Trump was saying at the time. Kelly had his hand on his face after Trump called North Korea a "band of criminals."
You decide. Tired or distressed?
The only other time General Kelly looked tired or distressed was when Trump decided that during the rally in Charlottesville "both sides" contributed to the violence.
So was Kelly tired or distressed?
You decide.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Umm, I hate trump as much as anyone but, most countries get a majority popular vote? Care to back that up? Im pretty sure most countries do NOT elect their head of government with a majority vote of the population. With the parliamentary systems of say, Canada, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc, the population doesn't directly vote for the head of government whatsoever. Even less so than the electoral college system.
Like I said, I hate trump, I hated Clinton too but I hate trump so much more. In fact he's the first president in my life time I've hated. I didn't think bush was a good president but I never hated him, it would have been like hating a retarded puppy who keeps peeing in the carpet and doesn't know what it did wrong.
Trump is a disgrace. That he was elected at all is even worse. I kinda hope Russia did tamper with the vote, it's a lot less depressing if I let myself think he wasn't voted in fair and square. Sadly I tend to think he was.
^ i think erik's referring to the gerrymander that means trump got elected with the minority of the vote.
It's not really related to the Westminster system you refer to, because the countries you mention don't have a president, but i imagine all of those places have done all they can to iron out the sort of electoral discrepencies that lead to trump getting elected despite having more than 2 million less votes than his opponent.
Everyone involved in propping up and normalising this criminal administration should be "distressed".
They should also be deeply ashamed.
Trump's proving himself to be an even more dangerous, erraric warmonger than clinton (either one), obama or even bush (take your pick)
It's not really related to the Westminster system you refer to, because the countries you mention don't have a president, but i imagine all of those places have done all they can to iron out the sort of electoral discrepencies that lead to trump getting elected despite having more than 2 million less votes than his opponent.
As I posted earlier, Chief of Staff General John Kelly seemed to appear distressed when Trump was speaking about North Korea and Kim Jong Un.
The White House claimed that he was fatigued from trying to keep up with the energetic Trump.
White House says John Kelly was just tired from 'trying to keep up' with Trump in UN photo
Apparently, someone matched the photo timestamp with what Trump was saying at the time. Kelly had his hand on his face after Trump called North Korea a "band of criminals."
You decide. Tired or distressed?
The only other time General Kelly looked tired or distressed was when Trump decided that during the rally in Charlottesville "both sides" contributed to the violence.
So was Kelly tired or distressed?
You decide.
Everyone involved in propping up and normalising this criminal administration should be "distressed".
They should also be deeply ashamed.
Trump's proving himself to be an even more dangerous, erraric warmonger than clinton (either one), obama or even bush (take your pick)
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Ah it's nice to agree with you on something after the last few days.
At least we can agree they all fucking suck. Now let's not ruin it by talking about the specifics of why they sucked cause the consensus will probably fall apart before long.
I'm distressed that he keeps calling Kim Jong Un "rocket man". God as if our international reputation wasn't bad enough already. I didn't like Obama either but at least international perception of the US picked up under him, it was just starting to finally improve after bush threw away all the good will we had post 9/11. Now trumps making us all look like idiots again.
And I really don't want the history books to say war broke out in part over something as retarded as that. I mean come on, even if you support trump otherwise, it's not him that'll pay the price if we go to war. So he should be treating the situation with more seriousness and caution and care. And he could start by GETTING OFF FUCKING TWITTER.
Who's benefit is this childish name calling for? It doesn't help anything with North Korea to SAY THE LEAST. It's for public consumption. But he's already win, he won RECENTLY. Which means he's putting domestic PR he doesn't even need ahead of the safety of the members of our military, and that of our allies, for the sake of a childish comment that at best does nothing and at worst harms our national interest. And for what? The support of the people who ALREADY support him? And that's the MOST intelligent reason he could have. It could just be he really is that childish and pathetic.
What the fuck?
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I know what he's referring too, and my point stands. This is why I said head of government and not head of state.
The Westminster systems equivalent of head of state has no relevance to the US system, so I'm using the head of government office in the prime minister for the comparison. And in such systems, the party elects the leader, you elect the party (and even that is not by simple popular majority vote either) The leader of the winning party becomes head of government. The US president is head of government. He's also head of state but since it's a single office in then American system that's irrelivent.
But as was my point, that means in practice the people have even less direct involvement in who's head of government than in the American congressional system with the electoral college. At the very least, it's not a popular majority vote as erik said.
Some parliamentary republics have a majority publicly elected head of state in the office of president, but it's a largely symbolic office with little real power. And in all the countries I mentioned they are constitutional parliamentary monarchies where the head of state is arguably either the queen or the Governor General. And in neither case are they elected at all. But even in a republic where they are, it's not an equivalent office and has no say in matters of policy. So comparing how the head of states are elected in those cases is apples and oranges. We're talking about voting for the leader of the country in charge of policy (the head of government). The US president, or the prime minister in parliamentary systems.
And in ALL cases, republic or not, the head of government isn't elected by majority vote in a westminster parliamentary system. And in the constitutional monarchies, neither is the head of state, not that it matters since it's not a job of much functional power generally speaking. Given how many democracies that rules out, I doubt very very much that most countries elect their head of government by popular vote.
I actually largely support the electoral college system, but my point wasn't about the electoral college being a good thing, which is way too frustrating an argument for me to want to be involved with. It was that most other countries are NOT doing a majority public vote as Erik suggested. Which is a matter of fact easily proven or disproven and much less frustrating to debate.
As a dual American-Australian citizen brought up in the US but having spent all my adult life in Australia, I'm quite familiar with both systems.
Last edited:
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Chief of Staff General Kelly, National Security Adviser General McMaster, Secretary of Defense General Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (although he's not doing a great job) are not enabling Trump.
They are trying to prevent Trump from doing incredibly stupid things and to possibly do some good things. Kelly is reorganizing the staff and it's become much more efficient and streamlined. Mattis convinced Trump that torture was not effective and to reject it and also froze the transgender ban policy. McMaster has professionalized the national security policy process and is a formidable strategist who has been a significant contributor to policy in Afghanistan.
All of these individuals can influence Trump some of the time. Trump needs people around him have authority, know what they are talking about, and refuse to be sycophants.
They are trying to prevent Trump from doing incredibly stupid things and to possibly do some good things. Kelly is reorganizing the staff and it's become much more efficient and streamlined. Mattis convinced Trump that torture was not effective and to reject it and also froze the transgender ban policy. McMaster has professionalized the national security policy process and is a formidable strategist who has been a significant contributor to policy in Afghanistan.
All of these individuals can influence Trump some of the time. Trump needs people around him have authority, know what they are talking about, and refuse to be sycophants.
LucidSDreamr
Bluelighter
He's just incapable of speaking articulatkey about anything since he doesn't read and is poorly educated. If he could sound intelligent...he definitely would have by now to show off his high IQ he always brags about.
His bluster is just a distraction from the above fact.
Erikmen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Messages
- 20,707
Precisely!
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Well I'm so glad I wrote so much detail into my point so you could ignore it entirely.
It's pathetic. I'm not sugar coating this one. You were simply wrong, my comparison DOES apply, you sure as hell can't argue that you can only compare with other countries identical to the American system when your whole point hinges on you saying they're NOT identical.
You said that most countries elect their leader by popular majority vote, that's the obvious and unambiguous statement you made. And no matter WHAT you say about gerrymandering or different political systems, that's total horseshit. I carefully took the time to point out why, which you entirely ignored, and you know why? Cause I'm an idiot and I keep hoping one day someone will have the spine to either admit they made even a small mistake, or reconsider even the tiniest part of their opinion, anything really.
This is why I hate this shit, even with a basic simple error in fact that barely even matters you can't bare to be wrong, like I said, it's pathetic. What's wrong with you people, why does ANYONE discuss ANY of this when its all such a total obvious waste of time. I do it cause I'm retarded.
And space junk, you're not stupid, you know I'm right on this one. This isn't some complex socioeconomic subject, it's a basic question of fact which you know yourself. Whatever.
EDIT: In my continued retardation, I went over it all a couple more times just to be extra extra extra sure I hadn't missed anything. Even if he IS referring to something else, you can't BOTH argue that most countries don't do whateverthefuckhestalkingaboht that the US does, then rule out all the other countries for having a different system. Exactly what countries ARE "most" countries?
It's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering I don't care.
It's pathetic. I'm not sugar coating this one. You were simply wrong, my comparison DOES apply, you sure as hell can't argue that you can only compare with other countries identical to the American system when your whole point hinges on you saying they're NOT identical.
You said that most countries elect their leader by popular majority vote, that's the obvious and unambiguous statement you made. And no matter WHAT you say about gerrymandering or different political systems, that's total horseshit. I carefully took the time to point out why, which you entirely ignored, and you know why? Cause I'm an idiot and I keep hoping one day someone will have the spine to either admit they made even a small mistake, or reconsider even the tiniest part of their opinion, anything really.
This is why I hate this shit, even with a basic simple error in fact that barely even matters you can't bare to be wrong, like I said, it's pathetic. What's wrong with you people, why does ANYONE discuss ANY of this when its all such a total obvious waste of time. I do it cause I'm retarded.
And space junk, you're not stupid, you know I'm right on this one. This isn't some complex socioeconomic subject, it's a basic question of fact which you know yourself. Whatever.
EDIT: In my continued retardation, I went over it all a couple more times just to be extra extra extra sure I hadn't missed anything. Even if he IS referring to something else, you can't BOTH argue that most countries don't do whateverthefuckhestalkingaboht that the US does, then rule out all the other countries for having a different system. Exactly what countries ARE "most" countries?
It's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering I don't care.
Last edited:
Erikmen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Messages
- 20,707
I am a bit tired of discussing about this JessFR. I feel you just want to hear what I have to say just to try to invalidate it. I am quite familiar with both systems too. But this is Trump we are talking about. There other facets of this situation and I really think a man like that would not be chosen to lead a country considering all he has shown to the world to this date. It has happened in the US and we are all somehow facing the consequences. I am not that eager to argument like I feel you are. Maybe because it's so obvious to me. Call it what you want.
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Wait wait wait, was there a point where you WERE discussing this? Maybe I did miss something cause it sure wasn't with me.
And that's PART of why I'm pissed. I'm ultimately on your side, I hate him too. But it's STILL not enough.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. Fine, I'm wrong, you're right, all countries do, whatever the fuck your said or meant to say, problem solved.
EDIT: I'll say one last thing, if you really think I wouldn't have honestly listened to your response and seriously considered a valid point had you made it, you don't know me. But you didn't. But yeah, unless it was that you misspoke and meant something else or that there's actually piles of countries or something, I'm not seeing many other ways I might have come to think I was wrong in what I said.
But, had you just said you misspoke, I would have left it right there with my respect. But again, that didn't happen.
And that's PART of why I'm pissed. I'm ultimately on your side, I hate him too. But it's STILL not enough.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. Fine, I'm wrong, you're right, all countries do, whatever the fuck your said or meant to say, problem solved.
EDIT: I'll say one last thing, if you really think I wouldn't have honestly listened to your response and seriously considered a valid point had you made it, you don't know me. But you didn't. But yeah, unless it was that you misspoke and meant something else or that there's actually piles of countries or something, I'm not seeing many other ways I might have come to think I was wrong in what I said.
But, had you just said you misspoke, I would have left it right there with my respect. But again, that didn't happen.
Last edited:
how do people feel about trump's tweetstorm encouraging nfl teams to suspend or fire players who protest the anthem by quietly kneeling?
alasdair
alasdair
cj
Bluelight Crew
It's meant as a distraction from the upcoming Obama care repeal vote. Same as his dog waging over NK.
Scrofula
Bluelight Crew
Actually it's Spacejunk who's wrong--gerrymandering put the Republican majority in Congress. The Electoral College put Trump in office. Of course, he's only still in office because of the gerrymandered district Republican-led Congress, so maybe he's right after all.
ETA: it made more sense to be a pedant before y'all snuck in and changed the subject while I typed.
ETA: it made more sense to be a pedant before y'all snuck in and changed the subject while I typed.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Trump is angry because he didn't buy the Dallas Cowboys, didn't win gadzillions of dollars in a lawsuit against the NFL, and isn't sports commissioner.
Oh and he's a racist.
Trump is comfortable saying that some white supremacists are good people and defending their right to free speech, but not the same right for nonviolent black people. Sounds familiar.
- Status