45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
True.
So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
I doubt that it's that simple. You'll have people who'll never vote Dem, no matter what (this time around decision was much easier than usual), then you'll have deep south rednecks, who'll be so desperate for change that they'll believe anything (the trailer trash contingent), and you'll have people who are desperate for lower taxes believing that Trump is not part of the 'establishment' and that he'll achieve that in the 'most beautiful, biggest' way. So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
Roman Rhodes said:
...So that's 7 of us crippling their economy!....
....not going to the US not because of Trump. Undermining your posit I originally quoted...that the EO may well harm tourism in Hawaii. Glad we got that sorted 
That judge was unwise to add that to his rationale. The few elements that made some sense were undermined by something...petty and unprovable?...thus making the action seem more likely to be politically/personally motivated than based on proper logic (or even "the law").
ATG said:
RobDickinson said:
Thres something broken about the current age.
An age where we have almost unlimited access to knowledge and learning. Where we are teasing the secrets of the universe out with thinks like LHC and Kepler.
Yet the majority seem to absolutely reject science. Trust more in a clueless celebrity on facebook than decades of painstaking research.
Where being a 'know it all' having an understanding, provable knowledge is seen as either bad or wrong.
I bet those f
kers want their doctor to be a know it all! I bet they are happy to be using GPS and internet even though science is all a lie...
morons.
This reminds me of something I read many moons ago and has stuck in my mind ever since because it was so profoundly idiotic; the opening paragraphs of "Understanding the Present" by Brian Appleyard. He writes about a seminal moment in his life when he started to understand what engineers and scientists knew and could do; and he said his reaction was ... fear. Nevermind that humans' lives have been transformed beyond recognition by the knowledge we've accumulated over the last few centuries, nevermind that society actively tries to educate all of us in this stuff ... no, this fool's response was fear. Not gratitude, not excitement at the opportunity to share in this knowledge ... no, fear. It smacks of intellectual laziness, paranoia, cynicism, an almost complete failure of the imagination and, ironically given the title of his book, a total misunderstanding of the present.An age where we have almost unlimited access to knowledge and learning. Where we are teasing the secrets of the universe out with thinks like LHC and Kepler.
Yet the majority seem to absolutely reject science. Trust more in a clueless celebrity on facebook than decades of painstaking research.
Where being a 'know it all' having an understanding, provable knowledge is seen as either bad or wrong.
I bet those f
kers want their doctor to be a know it all! I bet they are happy to be using GPS and internet even though science is all a lie... morons.
I'm from a scientific/engineering background. My naturally tendency is towards those things and I love what these disciplines have been able to do for the world. But....
They have also been used for bad purposes quite extensively. And to have some fear of what man is capable of is not a bad thing.
As part of my studies (AI etc) a lot of time was given over to the notion of "just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should" and also "what has been seen cannot be unseen/opening Pandora's box". I'd suggest it's massively, massively important for any true engineer/scientist to put plenty of thought into these things. It's quite the opposite of "intellectual laziness" etc. (IMO)
I haven't read the book in question (I'll look it up), but perhaps it was giving weight to those sorts of arguments and not focussing on the positives simply because the weight of materials already covers those angles? I'm never really convinced by that approach - as "evolved" beings we seem to love swinging to extremes - and think it's wise to be as balanced as possible at all times. But the author may have different views.
Eric Mc said:
True.
So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
THEY don't think he's deluded. That's the point. They think Mexicans are going to the US and taking all their jerbs, they think muslims are terrorists, they don't think guns are "that bad"... they don't mind spending $25bn on a wall (even though most illegal immigration is by air). They don't care that he's giving tax breaks to the rich.So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
Eric Mc said:
What DO they care about?
The things countdown took time to type out Eric.Hard as it may be for you and I to understand, people there evidently care enough about those things to vote in someone you despise. Go figure, as the Americans say
It's just like here. It's no good telling people they're stupid because they're concerned about immigration. Their perception is their reality. And dealing in averages and moral high grounds isn't the way to tackle that.
Countdown said:
Eric Mc said:
True.
So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
THEY don't think he's deluded. That's the point. They think Mexicans are going to the US and taking all their jerbs, they think muslims are terrorists, they don't think guns are "that bad"... they don't mind spending $25bn on a wall (even though most illegal immigration is by air). They don't care that he's giving tax breaks to the rich.So the Americans who voted for him really DID know they were voting for someone who was deluded?
unrepentant said:
A lot of them voted for him because he was the republican candidate and that's who they vote for. Others voted for him because he was the anti politician candidate, others because they genuinely felt that they had been forgotten (people in the Appalachians etc..) Others because they disliked his opponent and some, I believe a minority, because they shared his racism and bigotry. You can't bundle them all together.
And have any of those changed their minds in the last two months? I doubt it. In fact, given that the media has been 95% against him, I'd bet that his core support has hardened.That's why I think any talk of him stepping down or being impeached are ridiculous. And also why I think he'll probably get re-elected.
Impeachment won't come from "the people" though.
If he engages in anything potentially criminal, then the law says he must be impeached, whatever his supporters think.
So far, in less than 60 days he has already sailed close to the wind - and may even have crossed the line in regards to some of his assertions or the behaviour of some of his team.
I have never seen a President launch off the pad in such an erratic and wild manner. It's as if he has started a job without knowing the first thing about the basic requirements of the position.
If he engages in anything potentially criminal, then the law says he must be impeached, whatever his supporters think.
So far, in less than 60 days he has already sailed close to the wind - and may even have crossed the line in regards to some of his assertions or the behaviour of some of his team.
I have never seen a President launch off the pad in such an erratic and wild manner. It's as if he has started a job without knowing the first thing about the basic requirements of the position.
Countdown said:
unrepentant said:
A lot of them voted for him because he was the republican candidate and that's who they vote for. Others voted for him because he was the anti politician candidate, others because they genuinely felt that they had been forgotten (people in the Appalachians etc..) Others because they disliked his opponent and some, I believe a minority, because they shared his racism and bigotry. You can't bundle them all together.
And have any of those changed their minds in the last two months? I doubt it. In fact, given that the media has been 95% against him, I'd bet that his core support has hardened.That's why I think any talk of him stepping down or being impeached are ridiculous. And also why I think he'll probably get re-elected.
He's unlikely to step down willingly but a triggering of the 25th amendment at some point may not be as fanciful an idea as some might think.
On the Spicer/GCHQ debacle, it's now being said that
- Spicer spoke unintentionally (How does one even do that? "The words, they come out of my mouth, you see, but I don't intend them to. I intend other words to come out. Or not words. I need to work on control of my mouth I suppose"
- Spicer was simply pointing to what the press reports were, not endorsing them. Really? That's the job of the WH Press Sec now? To read out bits of the internet?
Spicer seems to be a *major* problem, on account of being a bit thick, having a big mouth, and talking without thinking a lot. What really puzzles me is why he hasn't been fired. He is consistently more harmful than beneficial for the administration so why is he still around?
I realise it is fictional, but there is an excellent West Wing episode in which CJ, the consummate professional and master of the press sec role has to hand over to Josh because she's had dental work and can't speak. The problems that flow from Josh being cocky and loose with language and played out very well. A bit later the problems of Toby taking on the role and being an ass to the press corps are similarly well observed. Spicer needs to watch these. On a perpetual loop.
- Spicer spoke unintentionally (How does one even do that? "The words, they come out of my mouth, you see, but I don't intend them to. I intend other words to come out. Or not words. I need to work on control of my mouth I suppose"
- Spicer was simply pointing to what the press reports were, not endorsing them. Really? That's the job of the WH Press Sec now? To read out bits of the internet?
Spicer seems to be a *major* problem, on account of being a bit thick, having a big mouth, and talking without thinking a lot. What really puzzles me is why he hasn't been fired. He is consistently more harmful than beneficial for the administration so why is he still around?
I realise it is fictional, but there is an excellent West Wing episode in which CJ, the consummate professional and master of the press sec role has to hand over to Josh because she's had dental work and can't speak. The problems that flow from Josh being cocky and loose with language and played out very well. A bit later the problems of Toby taking on the role and being an ass to the press corps are similarly well observed. Spicer needs to watch these. On a perpetual loop.
Countdown said:
unrepentant said:
A lot of them voted for him because he was the republican candidate and that's who they vote for. Others voted for him because he was the anti politician candidate, others because they genuinely felt that they had been forgotten (people in the Appalachians etc..) Others because they disliked his opponent and some, I believe a minority, because they shared his racism and bigotry. You can't bundle them all together.
And have any of those changed their minds in the last two months? I doubt it. In fact, given that the media has been 95% against him, I'd bet that his core support has hardened.That's why I think any talk of him stepping down or being impeached are ridiculous. And also why I think he'll probably get re-elected.
Eric Mc said:
Impeachment won't come from "the people" though.
If he engages in anything potentially criminal, then the law says he must be impeached, whatever his supporters think.
So far, in less than 60 days he has already sailed close to the wind - and may even have crossed the line in regards to some of his assertions or the behaviour of some of his team.
I have never seen a President launch off the pad in such an erratic and wild manner. It's as if he has started a job without knowing the first thing about the basic requirements of the position.
Judging by the behaviour of past presidents who didn't get impeached, I suspect he has some way to go yet. But that can, of course, change in an instant.If he engages in anything potentially criminal, then the law says he must be impeached, whatever his supporters think.
So far, in less than 60 days he has already sailed close to the wind - and may even have crossed the line in regards to some of his assertions or the behaviour of some of his team.
I have never seen a President launch off the pad in such an erratic and wild manner. It's as if he has started a job without knowing the first thing about the basic requirements of the position.
The latest Rasmussen Reports 'Daily Presidential Tracking Poll' for today shows 48% of "likely U.S. voters" approve of President Trump’s job performance while 52% disapprove, clearly he's got less than majority approval based on those numbers. Compared to 2 days ago he's +3 points, and there are still 34% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing (more than that Strongly Disapprove). Also, voters are more confident that the President has a plan for the nation than they are in either of the major political parties per se.
Most of the Britain based PHers will have limited exposure to his administrations policies, actions and performance but even so those figures surprise me TB.
Edited to replace "limited" for "united". No idea why the iPad changed it originally. Probably a CIA thing. Or GCHQ.
Edited to replace "limited" for "united". No idea why the iPad changed it originally. Probably a CIA thing. Or GCHQ.
Edited by scenario8 on Friday 17th March 16:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff