General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 46

It's articles like that which reaffirm to me that Donald Trump is not just putting on a show for the public. I don't know why people keep suggesting he's simply putting on a facade and is probably different behind closed doors when there is more than enough evidence out there to prove otherwise. What you see is what you get.

 

I'm sure the majority of people who say that are just closet racists/sexists so I wouldn't listen to them. He isn't and was never really an "actor", he played himself.

 

Agreed, though there were a few comments in the "All Things Trump" thread made by commenters here that had me tugging at my collar, and these are people who admit openly that the guy says racist and sexist things. I just don't know why people still insist he must be putting on a show.

 

They might be people who put on their own "show" in terms of what their beliefs are, in other words there's a good chance they're one in the same. You think you know somebody...

 

and even if he was playing a character who would want their persona to be someone who makes sexual comments about their daughter

 

Glad I live in the USA, we would never even think of electing someone into office just for being a rich celebrity!

 

I know 'news' and articles like this are angering to you and your circle of friends, but there's nothing in that article that would make a trump supporter reconsider. It's just bringing him more publicity but not hurting his chances at all.

 

Hottest take ever?

 

Ur telling me a new york times article isn't going to change the election


holy shit...

 

Yep that's exactly what I was saying. You nailed it.

 

I wonder what the crossover is between people who sincerely get really into stuff like this, and people who split hairs criticising the protests against him.

 

I feel like stuff like that are less about making Trump supporters reconsider, and more about making people planning on not voting/voting third party reconsider. And a bit about people using their freedom of speech to complain about a creepy politician even if it all falls on deft ears.

 

Reince Priebus' response to that NYT article...





lololol

 

I can't keep up with this thread so forgive me if this was already posted.

Donald Trump warned of another 9/11 attack by refugees with ISIS-funded phones
Fearmongering at its finest. It's like a bad infomercial creating a problem that doesn't exist so you'll buy into it.

 

Precisely.

 

I think you're overestimating the general public's reaction to things like this. As I said, whatever your personal circle believes, or the outrage such behavior draws on the sites you frequent, I feel the vast majority of people would roll their eyes and say 'who the fuck cares' when they read things like this. Everyday we're exposed to these "bombshell" reports from all directions. They dug hard into his past dealings. They found a girl at a pool party 25 years ago that he suggested putting on a swimsuit to. He said "wow" to her.
Most people will laugh at that as a complete non-issue. And frankly, I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion around here, but I'd have to agree.

 

Bill Clinton admitted to committing infidelity inside the Oval Office with years of constant media scrutiny and still left his second term with 60% approval rating.

 

Whether they care or are swayed isn't necessarily the point. You don't stop talking about sexism or racism simply because the people do not care. One points it out precisely to elaborate on the ways in which cultural norms can be repressive.

 

Here are my feelings: Nothing - including cultural norms - change unless we change the conversation.

But change DOES happen. The last 100 years have taught us nothing if not that. It's a slow, laborious process and if your privilege protects you from caring about participating, fine. With all due respect, you don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. No individual does.

This is about creating a bigger, societal conversation and if you can't see how much that matters or that it DOES eventually create tangible change, that's okay. But instead of feeling the need to play devil's advocate or harp on about how nobody cares every time someone brings it up, your time might be better served merely choosing not the engage with the conversation at all. It makes no sense to choose to perpetuate the problem (which is what devil's advocates do). Even if you believe we're screaming into the void, let us. It's a survival tool and is hurting no one.

 

You want me to leave the conversation, I absolutely will. I mean no disrespect or hard feelings, but when you say it's hurting no one, I disagree. I feel it weakens your position. You don't like Donald trump. That's understandable. But these click bait articles about 'disturbing revelations' lessen the impact of deeper, more meaningful discussion. 'After months of exhaustive investigation, it's been discovered that Donald trump hit on women in his younger days.' Whether you personally feel that's problematic or not, it gives publicity to the man and those on the fence about him will see nothing wrong with his actions. Do you honestly think Barack Obama never hit on women as a young man? Bernie Sanders? Of course they did. Nobody cares though. And the majority of the thinking public will see that and at best see it as a non-issue. At worst they'll think "if that's the worst they can dig up on trump, then he's really not that bad". Save the outrage for more deserving issues, or you risk your outrage being ignored.

 

If somebody created a PAC dedicated to ensuring Marco Rubio fails everything he attempts in life I'd donate 100$ to it. i really hate that man

 

Hillary Clinton said that Bill is going to be in charge of "revitalizing the economy...because he knows how to do it". Oh good, more bad trade agreements and deregulation of wall street. After talking about how great Obama has done with the economy over the last 7 years I am suprised she would use the term revitalize.

 

damn, i'm the same age as Old Fuck

 

texas, where even the people in wheelchairs are assholes

 

Ya I saw that too. I think the "revitalizing" term was meant more to capture middle of the road, right leaning voters who are convinced Obama destroyed the economy because Obamacare or something. However, I wouldn't necessarily mind Bill having some input:

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

Clinton brought unemployment to it's lowest mark since 1970. It's pretty clear that his decisions and those of GWB contributed heavily to the crash in 2008 so it's definitely fair to have doubts.