America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it a red herring. It's overblown a bit, but it is interesting how blatantly hypocritical he has been. I mean to attack Obama for not paying enough taxes when he pays less? These are deep character flaws.

But also, and I'm not one to subscribe to class warfare, this is exactly the thing that so many people have been complaining about. To reveal that Trump has been hiding that he hasn't paid taxes while living a life of luxury is just exactly what folks on the left have been yelling about for year and years. And it turns out he was covering up that he was doing exactly what they were accusing him (and others like him) of doing. It's not the "look" you wanted if you were the GOP. You'd much rather that it turned out he was paying way more than his share (which was what we were all led to believe).

It's just a complete lack of transparency and moral fiber, and plays directly into the narrative of his opponents.

I think it's a red herring in the sense that the only people it matters to are people who were already vigorously opposed to Trump. It changes nothing from the status quo. His supporters are fine with his hypocrisy, as long as they're on the winning side. They're fine with the story that him dodging taxes is just smart business.

It absolutely plays into the narrative of his opponents, and it's a narrative that has repeatedly been shown to be unconvincing to his supporters. They do not see these things as issues; they see them as either trivial nonsense or as positive traits. A little tax avoidance doesn't even make the top twenty of dodgy stuff he's been involved in as President. Ultimately, it just doesn't really matter.

And I think this is the mistake that people opposed to Trump are making. They see more things that they think are outrageous character flaws, thinking that surely this will be the thing to convince Trump supporters that he's no good. That bridge was crossed a long time ago. Arguably before the election in 2016, definitely by the time we reached impeachment. Trump's character flaws were well known, and while they've become perhaps more obvious they haven't really changed.

What is required to change the mind of a Trump supporter is evidence of him doing something truly against their deeply held beliefs. For example, I think a lot of Trump supporters are truly patriotic, in that they believe sincerely that what he does is the best for the country. If he were to be shown to be doing something that was unequivocally treasonous, I'd like to hope that they would be on the front lines in turning on him.

Until that day, I think we have to accept that we now live in a world where something like Watergate would not be anywhere near enough to take down a President. Trump could admit to having people break into the DNC tomorrow and it would do absolutely nothing to him.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's a red herring in the sense that the only people it matters to are people who were already vigorously opposed to Trump. It changes nothing from the status quo. His supporters are fine with his hypocrisy, as long as they're on the winning side. They're fine with the story that him dodging taxes is just smart business.

It absolutely plays into the narrative of his opponents, and it's a narrative that has repeatedly been shown to be unconvincing to his supporters. They do not see these things as issues; they see them as either trivial nonsense or as positive traits. A little tax avoidance doesn't even make the top twenty of dodgy stuff he's been involved in as President. Ultimately, it just doesn't really matter.

And I think this is the mistake that people opposed to Trump are making. They see more things that they think are outrageous character flaws, thinking that surely this will be the thing to convince Trump supporters that he's no good. That bridge was crossed a long time ago. Arguably before the election in 2016, definitely by the time we reached impeachment. Trump's character flaws were well known, and while they've become perhaps more obvious they haven't really changed.

What is required to change the mind of a Trump supporter is evidence of him doing something truly against their deeply held beliefs. For example, I think a lot of Trump supporters are truly patriotic, in that they believe sincerely that what he does is the best for the country. If he were to be shown to be doing something that was unequivocally treasonous, I'd like to hope that they would be on the front lines in turning on him.

Until that day, I think we have to accept that we now live in a world where something like Watergate would not be anywhere near enough to take down a President. Trump could admit to having people break into the DNC tomorrow and it would do absolutely nothing to him.

I wasn't really thinking of it from the perspective of politics. More as just additional information about Trump. But from the perspective of politics and the upcoming election, I guess you're assuming there are no swing voters. If it turns out that he owes 400 million or whatever to Russia personally, I still think people who want to will explain that away. So "news" is a red herring then. Because everyone who was swayable has already decided Trump is bad. And everyone who is not will simply not be swayed regardless of what he does.

If that's true, he's lost the election already. Because I do not believe there are enough Americans that are true devoted faithful followers to elect him to a second term. He needs people who are on the fence.

 

[Blitz24]

Anyone ever heard of a CPA?

Yes I have. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[andrea]

 

[Liquid]

I see some snarky comments like "but he was unemployed lololol".

That's not the point. The point is, whether employed or unemployed, whether you earn a trillion dollars or tree fiddy, the return is there to be seen.

He released his tax returns in the interest of transparency. What a loser. Sad!

 

[ryzno]

tree fiddy

The hood in me approves this message.

 

[Brett]

I see some snarky comments like "but he was unemployed lololol".

That's not the point. The point is, whether employed or unemployed, whether you earn a trillion dollars or tree fiddy, the return is there to be seen.

He released his tax returns in the interest of transparency. What a loser. Sad!

What does a giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era have to do with tax returns?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Can you show me when the story was first shown 3 years ago?, and Cambridge Analytica is a data company hardly Lib?

I mean it's easy to just push it into the "lib" catagory without actually addressing it.

The story is the poo.
There is a whole wikipage about the thing.
Dems got nothing, so they throw this recycled nothing story, like red meat to feed the crazy base, and gullible people who repost it thinking it is important.

Yes I have. What does that have to do with anything?

Trump wasn't up late one night in the middle of April, sitting in his underwear with his maga hat on, punching numbers into TurboTax, and trying to figure out how not to pay taxes.

CPAs handle his taxes. They are licensed professionals.

 

[Sander 001]

These are the ramblings of a failed state autocrat.

 

[andrea]

Holy hell



Samuel L. Jackson needs to moderate the next debate.

There is no way some meek, mild-mannered moderator can keep Trump quiet when it's the other side's turn to talk.

 

[Lain]

Proud Boys are fangirling over the fact that their senpai noticed them.

Spoiler: Language Warning

 

[Sander 001]

White supremacy groups are standing by.

 

[McLaren]

Proud Boys are fangirling over the fact that their senpai noticed them.

Spoiler: Language Warning

This should be one of many nails in the coffin (bc it won’t) to sink his re-election. These are the same guys in another post saying they haven’t committed any violence bc they don’t have authorization and don’t want to go jail.

 

[TenEightyOne]

These are the same guys in another post saying they haven’t committed any violence bc they don’t have authorization and don’t want to go jail.

Is there any precedent for a national leader deliberately exciting far-right groups of citizens in support of a manipulated election and partitionist agenda?

Asking for ein freund.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Asking for ein freund.

 

[Scaff]

Trump wasn't up late one night in the middle of April, sitting in his underwear with his maga hat on,

Citation required.....

 

[Moglet]

Holy hell

There is no way some meek, mild-mannered moderator can keep Trump quiet when it's the other side's turn to talk.

He was behaving like such a child it felt like they needed a nanny rather than a moderator. The way he was interrupting and talking over Biden reminded me of a child in the school playground, not a president at a live debate. They seriously need to start muting his mic or something.

 

[Scaff]

He was behaving like such a child it felt like they needed a nanny rather than a moderator. The way he was interrupting and talking over Biden reminded me of a child in the school playground, not a president at a live debate. They seriously need to start muting his mic or something.

Oh, that would be great, the tantrum that would follow would be immense.

 

[Moglet]

Oh, that would be great, the tantrum that would follow would be immense.

I imagine he'd either refuse to take part or, if he only found out about it just before it was due to start, leave and say they were censoring him because they're scared of how strong he is. The strongest.

 

[Famine]

He was behaving like such a child it felt like they needed a nanny rather than a moderator. The way he was interrupting and talking over Biden reminded me of a child in the school playground, not a president at a live debate. They seriously need to start muting his mic or something.

Which Trump (and his supporters) will take as the establishment/swamp trying to silence him, because they don't like what he says and don't want his message getting out.

They simply need to mute the mic of the person who isn't supposed to be speaking at that time - whether Biden or Trump (or an invited third party; that'd be awesome). There should be time to discuss and respond, but the person allocated speaking time must be allowed to speak in their time.


The coverage of this is nuts. Oh, Biden was a bit shaky, Biden said Trump was a clown, Trump caught Biden with a zinger about how he did "nothing" as senator or VP and now reckons he can fix stuff that's gone wrong in the last four years (a period also known as the Trump Presidency)...

Trump literally gave a shout out to a white supremacist group he was straight up asked to condemn, and told them to "stand by". And what we want to take from this is Biden not really making any positive, concrete statements of intent? Really?

Also, the BBC reckons "shut up, man" is an insult.

 

[Scaff]

Trump literally gave a shout out to a white supremacist group he was straight up asked to condemn, and told them to "stand by". And what we want to take from this is Biden not really making any positive, concrete statements of intent? Really?

That the Proud Boys and other similar groups are seeing it as overt support for them really does say all that needs to be said about Trump.

Anyone who supports him and attempts to claim that he isn't clearly supporting white supremacists and nationalists is either in utter and complete denial or dense!

 

[Liquid]

Muting the mics is one solution but I do kind of agree that it nullifies the aspect of seeing the candidates' behaviour, patience and character. They should be able to conduct themselves with decorum and if they don't or can't, their repulsion is for everone to see.

And I know that that "unfiltered" approach suits Trump "telling it as it is" and galvanises his supporters either way.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Muting the mics is one solution but I do kind of agree that it nullifies the aspect of seeing the candidates' behaviour, patience and character. They should be able to conduct themselves with decorum and if they don't or can't, their repulsion is for everone to see.

And I know that that "unfiltered" approach suits Trump "telling it as it is" and galvanises his supporters either way.

Trump's base will never be convinced that he should not be president. They'll entrench themselves deeper and deeper with every piece of evidence that their guy (the New York City socialite liberal who plays an enraged conservative on TV) isn't fit for office. The massive swing in sentiment of white women towards Trump is a pretty big liability for him, and it doesn't seem like his debate performance is very well tailored to claw that back. The rush to confirm a supreme court justice seems pretty misguided too. If they do manage to confirm ACB before the election, it seems reasonable that it would dampen conservative enthusiasm to vote. Yes they'll be happy, but they won't be nearly as motivated as the left.

 

[polysmut]

Muting the mics is one solution but I do kind of agree that it nullifies the aspect of seeing the candidates' behaviour, patience and character. They should be able to conduct themselves with decorum and if they don't or can't, their repulsion is for everone to see.

The BBC seemed to do that on Politics Live a couple of times today to Sarah Elliott, the chair of Republicans Overseas UK. She was given time to respond to the other guests but not by talking over them. She could be seen speaking animatedly in the studio during her silenced moments and it worked better than allowing disorganised noise.

 

[Dotini]

IMHO, censorship sometimes is a good thing. Sometimes lies are a good thing. Sometimes the ends justify the means.

 

[Danoff]

Censorship sometimes is a good thing. Sometimes lies are a good thing. Sometimes the ends justify the means.

Citation needed.

 

[andrea]

Trump is a lonely boy.

 

[McLaren]

It's missing the weirdest part; the hand tugging at the end.

 

[Sander 001]

A double tug indicates Putin is pleased.

 

[PeterJB]

I don't think it's much of a revelation that it's clearly something other than love that brings those two together.