Trump tweets mock video of himself tackling, punching CNN logo

[Rigby40]

8 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

No it does not, just because someone does not like Hillary, that does not make them sexist.

Just because someone does not like Obama, that does not make them raciest.

Just because someone doesn't like you, that dose not make them homophobic.

And just because you do not like a conservative white male, that does not make them a white supremacist.

Stop with all the unfounded allegations against people, with differing views to you.

It's all they have left.

Notice how, for the most part aside from a few more reasonable(less emotional) antiTrumpers here, they can't put forth a legitimate argument.

They remind me of videos of protesters screeching about how he's racist, sexist etc but completely shutdown or walk away when asked to back up their accusations. 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, ballpoint said:

I have an image of all the other leaders forming a wall in front of the camera and Trump trying to push his way to the front while being elbowed back again.  I wonder how the Secret Service would respond to their man being dumped on his backside by another world leader?

 

And I can imagine him saying 'but I own the camera'!

[scorecard]

4 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

It's all they have left.

Notice how, for the most part aside from a few more reasonable(less emotional) antiTrumpers here, they can't put forth a legitimate argument.

They remind me of videos of protesters screeching about how he's racist, sexist etc but completely shutdown or walk away when asked to back up their accusations. 

 

Your comment lacks balance - both sides do this

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If things are as you describe, then you do not offer much by way of a solution. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that most of Trump's supporters did vote for him for said vile motivations (or rather, the simplified labels used). If these are the motivations, then most of the things Trump is criticized for will be irrelevant with regard to their support. That would mean he (or another candidate of the same creed) will have a solid base for the next campaign. Granted, it's a minority - but not a tiny one, and US elections system being what it is, not something that can be ignored. The Democrats better believe the issues at hand are the economic in nature. Or better yet, try to make it about the economy.

You are right, and it's quite the conundrum for Democrats.

How do you address people's anxieties when those anxieties aren't something one can mention in polite conversation? You dress them up as economic anxiety. Which is not to say there is no economic component to their anxieties. What goes unmentioned are the people who they—often wrongly—blame for their woes, the "outsiders".

 

One can pretend that it's purely economic anxiety and present solutions, As HRC did in her proposals which included funding for education, retraining, entrepreneurship classes, etc. But that sounded like too much hard work, like eating veggies, and provided no punishment for the people they blamed. Candidate Trump promised them a vague magic donut and a reckoning with those outsiders. They went for the xenophobia glazed donut.

 

It doesn't matter that he hasn't delivered on the donut. At least he's stickin' it to the "outsiders" who are the cause of their racial anxiety (wrapped with an economic bow).

 

For now at least, they are happy campers and feel their decision has been validated.

 

The only way to win over such people WITHOUT buying  into and feeding their xenophobia is to disabuse them of their racial anxieties. Is that possible?

 

T

Edited July 4, 2017 by Thakkar

[petesc55]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

trump is most rotten president in U.S. history. Sure all politicians lie without exception but 45 is in a class of his own. He is trying and largely succeeding in attacking the objective value of truth and facts.
Dangerous!

I really doubt it.  He's the most transparently inept and annoying president, for sure, but I'll bet there were much more inept and corrupt presidents who were more skilled at hiding it, or keeping us guessing.

I am in no way defending the jerk.       At this point, I'd be more worried if he suddenly clammed up, and 'behaved'.

He would then probably be more dangerous.

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're coming from a place of rationality.

I'm skeptical now that the dark irrational force of trumpism can be realistically fought with old school gentlemanly politics.

The republicans play much much dirtier than democrats. Witness their long battle to suppress votes of the poor and minorities. 

Again, I don't have the answer, but I feel you're coming from a place that sees trump as president as some kind of normal that can be resolved with normal. I seriously doubt that. 

 

Ah, back to that.

Nothing "gentlemanly" suggested. If anything, I'm advocating dishonesty.

In politics, compromises (often temporary) are the norm. If the main goal is to dispose of Trump (or making sure he does not get re-elected), then this is best served not by widening the existing divides, but by forming alliances, even if ad hoc ones. Having whatever negative opinion of Trump's supporters is one thing, hammering it day in day out is not doing a whole lot for the "cause". IMO, shifting the focus from bashing Trump's base to common ground issues (which do include Trump's conduct) is more productive.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

You are right, and it's quite the conundrum for Democrats.

How do you address people's anxieties when those anxieties aren't something one can mention in polite conversation? You dress them up as economic anxiety. Which is not to say there is no economic component to their anxieties. What goes unmentioned are the people who they—often wrongly—blame for their woes, the "outsiders".

 

One can pretend that it's purely economic anxiety and present solutions, As HRC did in her proposals which included funding for education, retraining, entrepreneurship classes, etc. But that sounded like too much hard work and provided no punishment for the people they blamed. Candidate Trump promised them a vague magic donut and a reckoning with those outsiders. They went for the xenophobia glazed donut.

 

It doesn't matter that he hasn't delivered on the donut. At least he's stickin' it to the "outsiders" who are the cause of their racial anxiety (wrapped with an economic bow).

 

For now at least, they are happy campers and feel their decision has been validated.

 

The only way to win over such people WITHOUT buying  into and feeding their xenophobia is to disabuse them of their racial anxieties. Is that possible?

 

T

 

I'm not fully accepting the premise that racism etc is the main motivation. At least not to the degree that it trumps all other issues. Not denying it is a factor, and even a main one, just that I feel focusing on this angle is too easy.

 

As for addressing it, these things take time and changing of conditions. Bashing people on the head telling them not to be racists ain't going to do a whole lot of good. Some, maybe, in certain cases. But for the most part, I think it's more to do with long term processes, economical and social. How much these can be affected and controlled under democratic systems is a good question.

 

What can be done, though, is to address some of the conditions which are known to foster racism etc. Improved economy, education, social mobility can go quite a ways. If things aren't bad, there's less of a need for scapegoats and less use for bogymen.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not fully accepting the premise that racism etc is the main motivation. At least not to the degree that it trumps all other issues. Not denying it is a factor, and even a main one, just that I feel focusing on this angle is too easy.

 

As for addressing it, these things take time and changing of conditions. Bashing people on the head telling them not to be racists ain't going to do a whole lot of good. Some, maybe, in certain cases. But for the most part, I think it's more to do with long term processes, economical and social. How much these can be affected and controlled under democratic systems is a good question.

 

What can be done, though, is to address some of the conditions which are known to foster racism etc. Improved economy, education, social mobility can go quite a ways. If things aren't bad, there's less of a need for scapegoats and less use for bogymen.

Which may explain why the Trump administration's policies on the economy, education, and the consequent effects on social mobility, are designed to perpetuate the status quo.

Edited July 4, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Thakkar]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not fully accepting the premise that racism etc is the main motivation. At least not to the degree that it trumps all other issues. Not denying it is a factor, and even a main one, just that I feel focusing on this angle is too easy.

 

As for addressing it, these things take time and changing of conditions. Bashing people on the head telling them not to be racists ain't going to do a whole lot of good. Some, maybe, in certain cases. But for the most part, I think it's more to do with long term processes, economical and social. How much these can be affected and controlled under democratic systems is a good question.

 

What can be done, though, is to address some of the conditions which are known to foster racism etc. Improved economy, education, social mobility can go quite a ways. If things aren't bad, there's less of a need for scapegoats and less use for bogymen.

Agree that much can be done to address the conditions that allow nascent racism to flare up into outright hatred. These solutions take time, require active participation from those affected (retraining, maybe moving to a new town, even lowering some expectations). Even then, it's hard but possible to address the issues, but when a carpetbagger conman like Trump parachutes in with his easy answers and validates their hate, then what was hard becomes almost impossible.

 

Sorry to be so dispairing, but I'm reading those Economist articles (http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports ) Berkshire suggested and getting less optimistic.

 

T

Edited July 4, 2017 by Thakkar

[oldhippy]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, back to that.

Nothing "gentlemanly" suggested. If anything, I'm advocating dishonesty.

In politics, compromises (often temporary) are the norm. If the main goal is to dispose of Trump (or making sure he does not get re-elected), then this is best served not by widening the existing divides, but by forming alliances, even if ad hoc ones. Having whatever negative opinion of Trump's supporters is one thing, hammering it day in day out is not doing a whole lot for the "cause". IMO, shifting the focus from bashing Trump's base to common ground issues (which do include Trump's conduct) is more productive.

But everything will fail if the Democrats come up with another Hillary.

May Bernie live a long life.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Which may explain why Trump's policies on the economy, education, and the consequent effects on social mobility, are designed to perpetuate the status quo.

 

That would require believing that Trump got long term policies and that he acts upon them. I seriously doubt that's the case. Surely, there are people on his staff aware of such things. It is just that democratic systems are not best suited for implementation of such long term plans. The political horizon of most leaders in democratic systems is rather short. With Trump, I think it's less.

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Agree that much can be done to address the conditions that allow nascent racism to flare up into outright hatred. These solutions take time, require active participation from those affected (retraining, maybe moving to a new town, even lowering some expectations). Even then, it's hard but possible to address the issues, but when a carpetbagger conman like Trump parachutes in with his easy answers and validates their hate, then what was hard becomes almost impossible.

 

Sorry to be so dispairing, but I'm reading those Economist articles (http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports ) Berkshire suggested and getting less optimistic.

 

T

 

Trump is possible because current conditions (which took time to mature) made him possible. He wasn't possible when The Simpsons joked about it, and that wasn't really so long ago. Randall Flagg will always be around, perhaps. But there are situations and things which will make his ascent easier, and other that won't.

 

As said right above, addressing these sort of things is problematic under changing administrations, each with its own focus, agenda and present constraints. Usually takes a great president to put such things in motion, and it's been a while since there was one in the White House.

 

Guess how one feels about it got to do with personal first hand involvement and effect, but also with perspective. Are things on this front worse in the US compared to ___________ (enter time frame here)? I don't think they are. More a question of expectations and patience.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would require believing that Trump got long term policies and that he acts upon them. I seriously doubt that's the case. Surely, there are people on his staff aware of such things. It is just that democratic systems are not best suited for implementation of such long term plans. The political horizon of most leaders in democratic systems is rather short. With Trump, I think it's less.

Well, I was using Trump as shorthand for the Trump administration. In fact, I had edited my post to say that shortly after put up the original just because I thought it likely that a certain party would nitpick over this. Apparently not in time. Trump's people are pushing for programs that will most hurt the very voters who support him. And this is a long term project of the political right in the USA which has gone further and further right over the years.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, oldhippy said:

But everything will fail if the Democrats come up with another Hillary.

May Bernie live a long life.

HRC was a flawed candidate. Her main asset was not being Trump. Ultimately, it wasn't enough under the current system. Anyone's guess if Sanders would have fared better against Trump. Personally, I think he would have taken a worse beating.

 

Both parties do not have a whole lot to offer in terms of inspiring leadership.

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, I was using Trump as shorthand for the Trump administration. In fact, I had edited my post to say that shortly after put up the original just because I thought it likely that a certain party would nitpick over this. Apparently not in time. Trump's people are pushing for programs that will most hurt the very voters who support him. And this is a long term project of the political right in the USA which has gone further and further right over the years.

 

Whatever, not interested in your baiting.

On topic, Trump's administration is pushing forward policies, fine. Accepting these represent a "long term project of the political right in the US" will require more than you saying so. It would also require the assumption that Trump is actually holds concrete plans regarding a second term (not to mention anything further down the political road).

.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Whatever, not interested in your baiting.

On topic, Trump's administration is pushing forward policies, fine. Accepting these represent a "long term project of the political right in the US" will require more than you saying so. It would also require the assumption that Trump is actually holds concrete plans regarding a second term (not to mention anything further down the political road).

.

Trump's plans or understanding of the issue is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is the people he has chosen to pursue economic and judicial policy in the USA.  It's clear he doesn't understand and doesn't have the patience and attention span to master these issues. Which works to the advantage of the people he has chosen. Because they do command the patience and attention span to pursue their goals: Big tax cuts which will hugely benefit the rich. Suppressing the oppostion vote. Installing a Supreme Court that will favor corporations and voter suppression schemes. What doesn't work to their advantage is how Trump's personality subverts the attainment of some of these goals. But that's a different issue. If they manage to attain those goals, it becomes much easier to nominate a more conventional right wing figure should Trump flame out.

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Very true that one cannot judge an entire nation either just due to the mistakes of a big handfull...things will chill down with time hopefully...

On the other hand, politics and policians...the same awful lot, all around the globe, unfortunately, with a very rare few exceptions here and there...I aim to keep away from the circus and enjoy when and while you can!!!

Even that offending few.

People do strange things when stresses, and there are a lot of stressed people around the world .

Of course  that do not stop them from being dangerous.

I know a few people that are Trump supporters and many of them are very nice people.Though I have notices their enthusiasm waning  

Edited July 4, 2017 by sirineou

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Trump's plans or understanding of the issue is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is the people he has chosen to pursue economic and judicial policy in the USA.  It's clear he doesn't understand and doesn't have the patience and attention span to master these issues. Which works to the advantage of the people he has chosen. Because they do command the patience and attention span to pursue their goals: Big tax cuts which will hugely benefit the rich. Suppressing the oppostion vote. Installing a Supreme Court that will favor corporations and voter suppression schemes. What doesn't work to their advantage is how Trump's personality subverts the attainment of some of these goals. But that's a different issue. If they manage to attain those goals, it becomes much easier to nominate a more conventional right wing figure should Trump flame out.

Yeah well, that's you're view and you're welcome to it. Me, I think most of Trump's appointments and policies they push are more to do with financial gains and ideological/religious positions. Many of the key people around him are not even politicians. That some of them do incorporate considerations as discussed to policies could be true, just doubt it's a main "thing" with this administration. As said, to support the assertion much more will be needed than saying it's so. That policies pushed could encourage certain trends is not always indicative of forethought and planning. Considering the incompetence, disarray, and friction within the administration its easier to hold the latter view.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Yeah well, that's you're view and you're welcome to it. Me, I think most of Trump's appointments and policies they push are more to do with financial gains and ideological/religious positions. Many of the key people around him are not even politicians. That some of them do incorporate considerations as discussed to policies could be true, just doubt it's a main "thing" with this administration. As said, to support the assertion much more will be needed than saying it's so. That policies pushed could encourage certain trends is not always indicative of forethought and planning. Considering the incompetence, disarray, and friction within the administration its easier to hold the latter view.

Maybe it's just a massive coincidence that his legislative agenda aligns overwhelmingly with the hard right's.  Seems dubious, but anything is possible. As for the frictions within the administration, they are the result of Trump's toxic personality but have nothing to do with the policies his people are pushing.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe it's just a massive coincidence that his legislative agenda aligns overwhelmingly with the hard right's.  Seems dubious, but anything is possible. As for the frictions within the administration, they are the result of Trump's toxic personality but have nothing to do with the policies his people are pushing.

Trump's administration is made of various elements, with people representing right wing and business interests probably making two of the more obvious groups. You seem to hold that the administration's policies and legislation is dictated (or aimed to serve) the former. In my opinion, that's too narrow a view. I don't think all of the economy related issues pushed are necessarily ideologically motivated,  or that there, in fact such overwhelming convergence as claimed above.

 

And again, there is a difference between pushing forward and enacting a right wing agenda and claiming that this agenda revolves around shaping long term voting patterns and outcomes. That there are people within the administrations who quite possibly do apply such considerations is not disputed, just that it is a driving force or a major "thing". IMO, much of what's being done is more to do with tearing down things rather than reflect planning ahead.

 

I doubt that your view with regard to frictions within the administration and their relevance to the issue is well founded. If you imagine that everyone on Trump's administration is of the same mind with regard to all policies and issues, guess we'll have to disagree.

[Becker]

3 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Agree that much can be done to address the conditions that allow nascent racism to flare up into outright hatred. These solutions take time, require active participation from those affected (retraining, maybe moving to a new town, even lowering some expectations). Even then, it's hard but possible to address the issues, but when a carpetbagger conman like Trump parachutes in with his easy answers and validates their hate, then what was hard becomes almost impossible.

 

Sorry to be so dispairing, but I'm reading those Economist articles (http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports ) Berkshire suggested and getting less optimistic.

 

T

It's Becker to you, Sir!

[Thakkar]

8 hours ago, Becker said:

It's Becker to you, Sir!

Oops. My apologies. All you white posters' names are too exotic for the likes of me.

 

?

[thaihome]

Update on the actual OP subject.  The source Reddit user admits to being a troll and apologizes for his history  racist, antisemitic  posts on the forum. He did this when faced with being named after CNN tracked him down.

 

 

The Reddit user who initially claimed credit for President Donald Trump's tweet that showed Trump tackling CNN issued an apology Tuesday for the video and other offensive content he posted -- one day after CNN identified the man behind the account and attempted to make contact with him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.htindex.html

 

TH

[Jingthing]

Just now, thaihome said:

Update on the actual OP subject.  The source Reddit user admits to being a troll and apologizes for his history  racist, antisemitic  posts on the forum. He did this when faced with being named after CNN tracked him down.

 

 

 

 

TH

Yes, he's a self admitted troll. But as he was outed personally, it's foolish to believe his apologies. Self preservation tactic. 

[Skywalker69]

This "moron" holds the codes to the nuces, scary shit!

 

 

[CutiePi]

Had a hearty laugh when I saw this... the Pres. is so great at driving The Resistance up the wall.

[Skywalker69]

1 minute ago, CutiePi said:

Had a hearty laugh when I saw this... the Pres. is so great at driving The Resistance up the wall.

Wonder what stage his alzheimers is?

[CutiePi]

1 minute ago, Skywalker69 said:

Wonder what stage his alzheimers is?

As he pointed out, he's president and all the supposed geniuses in The Resistance aren't... says pretty much all that needs to be said.

[Skywalker69]

9 minutes ago, CutiePi said:

As he pointed out, he's president and all the supposed geniuses in The Resistance aren't... says pretty much all that needs to be said.

Not for long he isn´t!

[KenKadz]

On 7/3/2017 at 4:30 PM, Thaidream said:

What is interesting to me- is that if Trump spoke in a more Presidential manner- softly and making his demands of other countries private and generally ignoring the media rather than confront it- he just might get more support from the public and both parties. You would think a man in his position would do some self evaluation and realize these things on his own or his own family point them out. The fact that he refuses to modify his behavior is evidence to me that he has a personality defect.

I believe you are correct about more support, but then I have to wonder if President Trump is "playing" the media and his detractors. His Tweets by passing the media and going directly to the people is a thorn in the medias side. And his messages are getting free advertising that money can not buy.