Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump Official Shitpost Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
    <br>
    Some people have argued that Confucianism was co-opted by various authoritarian leaders in Asia to promote totalitarianism, and that's an argument that can be made; although of course this would be a perversion of Confucianism rather than what was advocated for by the original texts. But Mao, with his anti-intellectualism, seems like a particularly odd pick to call a Confucian. Indeed, anti-intellectualism and cynical lionization of proletarians seems like a trait that Mao could be said to share with Donald Trump.
    Add me to the list.

    Confucius from a western POV is the quintessential right wing philosopher. The law, order, ranking, hierarchy is all very conservative in nature and therefore promotes a level of control in society, rather than freedom. So of course it was easily co-opted (like Nietzsche and other philosophers) by regimes like autocracies and fascism and communism could be promoted by the idea that everyone fit into a slot somewhere society.

    Confucius, though, has to be considered in the context of many other contemporaries, predecessors, and acolytes. He had a great sense of humor and humility, something that later Taoist comedian philosophers would capitalize on when busting the balls of Confucian scholars.

    One of my favorites is Zhaung Zhou, a Taoist satirist who lived in the 4th century BC. He had many Confucian scholar friends and he busted their asses all the time with great wit, and it all was recorded.
    I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.
    And of course my favorite.

    “The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 10/27/2019 5:55pm, .
    '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

    My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

    Comment


      Originally posted by It is Fake View Post

      This weird myopic view of "this is new because Trump did it" is ridiculous.

      Comment


        Originally posted by submessenger View Post
        You know, for that first few seconds of the Baghdadi announcement, I was sure Trump was going to resign, as he was looking back and forth and back and forth, and not saying a fucking thing. I was like "holy shit, here it comes."

        Comment


          Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
          I feel like your trying to conflate Confucianism and Mao suggests you haven't really studied Mao. One of the things Mao was famous for was the destruction and marginalization of traditional Chinese culture.



          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Ze...ral_Revolution

          Some people have argued that Confucianism was co-opted by various authoritarian leaders in Asia to promote totalitarianism, and that's an argument that can be made; although of course this would be a perversion of Confucianism rather than what was advocated for by the original texts. But Mao, with his anti-intellectualism, seems like a particularly odd pick to call a Confucian. Indeed, anti-intellectualism and cynical lionization of proletarians seems like a trait that Mao could be said to share with Donald Trump.


          To address your other point, ritual and etiquette (or norms) are there to temper self-interest and at least have the nominal appearance of concern for the greater good or the nation as a whole. If you trash norms and baldfacedly try to consolidate political power, pretty much you set the stage for obvious open zero sum competition within the nation. At least pretend like you care about your fellow citizen living in the next state over. If you don't even pretend, why shouldn't he just do whatever he can to hurt you and benefit himself?

          Have you considered that outlandish and extreme promises made to the base perhaps shouldn't be kept? If someone promises "medicare for all" by 2021, and then really tries to ram it through regardless of the consequences, did they really do a good thing by trying to keep that promise?
          I'm not conflating the two and am well aware of Mao's history. The "Cultural Revolution" killed anyone who didn't toe the line as well as writers, artists, doctors, lawyers, ect. People would turn in their neighbors for just about anything or out of old grudges. The young were the worst.

          and

          You seem to think I'm a Trump apologist. You're wrong.
          Carter Hargrave's Jeet Can't Do

          http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31636

          Comment


            Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
            And apparently he doesn't approve of Donald Trump. Why do you keep saying in various ways that Trump isn't as bad as everyone thinks?
            Everyone is a rather large group.

            Again. I'm no Trump apologist. I do like some of what he's doing. Some others, not.
            Carter Hargrave's Jeet Can't Do

            http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31636

            Comment


              Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
              But unlike me, you haven't read his book.

              You need to. I used his own words there, Joe.
              I'll read it when I can buy it. Used. The only book I've bought new in a long time was Scrapper's first. Also the last fiction I read. Good read.

              Your problem with me was adding yourself to the equation. Bad Wrabbit.
              Carter Hargrave's Jeet Can't Do

              http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31636

              Comment


                Originally posted by hungryjoe View Post
                I'll read it when I can buy it. Used. The only book I've bought new in a long time was Scrapper's first. Also the last fiction I read. Good read.

                Your problem with me was adding yourself to the equation. Bad Wrabbit.
                Well somebody had to read his book first.

                It spoke to me and it'll speak to you.
                '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

                My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
                  It's like you can only think of negative and positive numbers, and not in decimals.

                  If you strip away the pretense, there is only direct and adversarial competition. There isn't the mental posture to try and make a better future. Instead you get into the mental posture of the zero sum game.

                  I believe that most people would agree that Donald Trump has created more direct sense of conflict between US citizens on the basis of political party affiliation than any president in memory (so let's say within the last 20 years).

                  If you disagree, then tell me which president has created more direct conflict between US citizens than Donald Trump has.
                  Trump is the first president to not even pretend that he cares to follow norms, rule of law, or be a leader for all US citizens.
                  and this is you adding limits.
                  I believe that most people would agree that Donald Trump has created more direct sense of conflict between US citizens on the basis of political party affiliation than any president in memory (so let's say within the last 20 years).

                  If you disagree, then tell me which president has created more direct conflict between US citizens than Donald Trump has.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Keslet View Post
                    Why so focused on whether someone believes some bullshit behavior is unique to Trumps presidency or not? Shouldn’t we have a problem with bad behavior regardless?
                    I was focused on red state vs blue state, quit tilting at windmills. Keep your shitty red herrings to yourself. I ignored everything else in his post.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
                      If you disagree, then tell me which president has created more direct conflict between US citizens than Donald Trump has.
                      Obama and Bush Jr. are both strong contenders.

                      According to Gallup:

                      Originally posted by Gallup
                      there have been 15 presidential years in which the party gap in approval ratings exceeded 60 points.
                      That includes each of the last 13 presidential years — George W. Bush’s last five and all eight of Obama’s years in office.
                      Bill Clinton was Impeached for committing perjury while President, he also was caught sticking cigars up young White House intern's vaginas, was a serial sexual harasser and sexual assault aggressor, and was under investigation for White Water.

                      Reagan's fourth year was just as polarized and polarizing as Obama and Bush Jr.
                      Iran Contra scandal.
                      The 'War on Drugs'.
                      Institutionally positioning HIV as 'the gay man's leukemia' and attempting to avoid touching the issue with a ten foot pole, slowing research progress thereby.
                      Reaganomics.

                      Prior to Reagan no President had more than a 40 point differential along Party lines in their approval rating.
                      Since then, every President has.
                      Possibly because the Democratic Party and Republican Party are both taking increasingly extreme positions of "we are the force of good, and the other major Party is the source of evil" and "you either agree with us or you are the problem" positions.

                      Carter was frequently described as a divisive President by the Press, and was frequently described as an ineffectual President by both Democrats and Republicans, but for different reasons.

                      Ford became President by accident, in a time when America was reeling from a distrust of their leaders, a perceived shame around the Presidency, a deeply troubled and deeply opposed military conflict in Vietnam.

                      President Richard "it's not a crime when the President does it" Nixon, was so divisive that he stepped down from the Presidency at the urging of both Party leadership to preserve the dignity of the Office of the President from being forever tarnished by a President being dragged into a potential criminal conviction following Impeachment....

                      Despite wide approval support directly following Kennedy's assassination, President Johnson was dealing with a deeply racially divided America, and the Vietnam conflict, and ended his Presidency on widely divided lines.

                      Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan after Japan had sent communications stating it was willing to surrender if the dignity of the Emperor was preserved, and his life was spared.
                      Truman was often at odds with Congress.

                      Franklin Roosevelt put 120,000 Japanese Americans into internment camps.
                      Roosevelt snubbed the African American Olympic Athletes.
                      Roosevelt was called a Fascist for many of his New Deal policies by both the left and the right, including the Communist Party and conservatives alike.
                      Roosevelt opposed the Republican initiative to make lynching a Federal crime, even though his own wife privately and publicly argued for it, and with him about it.
                      Roosevelt directed the IRS and Treasury to investigate and audit the members of the press, and the owners of the press who were critical of him and his policies.
                      Roosevelt was so adversarial to the press that he often refused to hold press conferences or meet with the press and instead spoke to Americans directly without press questions via direct radio address.

                      I could go on, but why...

                      Every generation tends to think "this time it's different".

                      Quite often, it's not the first time for anything, when it comes to politics, or scams, or, any social dynamic.
                      Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 10/28/2019 7:25am, .

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                        Obama and Bush Jr. are both strong contenders.

                        According to Gallup:



                        Bill Clinton was Impeached for committing perjury while President, he also was caught sticking cigars up young White House intern's vaginas, was a serial sexual harasser and sexual assault aggressor, and was under investigation for White Water.

                        Reagan's fourth year was just as polarized and polarizing as Obama and Bush Jr.
                        Iran Contra scandal.
                        The 'War on Drugs'.
                        Institutionally positioning HIV as 'the gay man's leukemia' and attempting to avoid touching the issue with a ten foot pole, slowing research progress thereby.
                        Reaganomics.

                        Prior to Reagan no President had more than a 40 point differential along Party lines in their approval rating.
                        Since then, every President has.
                        Possibly because the Democratic Party and Republican Party are both taking increasingly extreme positions of "we are the force of good, and the other major Party is the source of evil" and "you either agree with us or you are the problem" positions.

                        Carter was frequently described as a divisive President by the Press, and was frequently described as an ineffectual President by both Democrats and Republicans, but for different reasons.

                        Ford became President by accident, in a time when America was reeling from a distrust of their leaders, a perceived shame around the Presidency, a deeply troubled and deeply opposed military conflict in Vietnam.

                        President Richard "it's not a crime when the President does it" Nixon, was so divisive that he stepped down from the Presidency at the urging of both Party leadership to preserve the dignity of the Office of the President from being forever tarnished by a President being dragged into a potential criminal conviction following Impeachment....

                        Despite wide approval support directly following Kennedy's assassination, President Johnson was dealing with a deeply racially divided America, and the Vietnam conflict, and ended his Presidency on widely divided lines.

                        Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan after Japan had sent communications stating it was willing to surrender if the dignity of the Emperor was preserved, and his life was spared.
                        Truman was often at odds with Congress.

                        Franklin Roosevelt put 120,000 Japanese Americans into internment camps.
                        Roosevelt snubbed the African American Olympic Athletes.
                        Roosevelt was called a Fascist for many of his New Deal policies by both the left and the right, including the Communist Party and conservatives alike.
                        Roosevelt opposed the Republican initiative to make lynching a Federal crime, even though his own wife privately and publicly argued for it, and with him about it.
                        Roosevelt directed the IRS and Treasury to investigate and audit the members of the press, and the owners of the press who were critical of him and his policies.
                        Roosevelt was so adversarial to the press that he often refused to hold press conferences or meet with the press and instead spoke to Americans directly without press questions via direct radio address.

                        I could go on, but why...

                        Every generation tends to think "this time it's different".

                        Quite often, it's not the first time for anything, when it comes to politics, or scams, or, any social dynamic.
                        Trump is very uncouth but he is not whipped his dick out like Lyndon Johnson used to do......

                        I think the major difference now compared to all the administration's that have run things since I've been alive are all the lies Trump tells. I believe he's the most prolific liar to ever hold the presidential office. I I can't really think of a single subject Trump hasn't lied profusely about.
                        Also the hypocrisy of his policies and behavior is absolutely astounding. ...

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Raycetpfl View Post
                          Trump is very uncouth but he is not whipped his dick out like Lyndon Johnson used to do......

                          I think the major difference now compared to all the administration's that have run things since I've been alive are all the lies Trump tells. I believe he's the most prolific liar to ever hold the presidential office. I I can't really think of a single subject Trump hasn't lied profusely about.
                          Also the hypocrisy of his policies and behavior is absolutely astounding. ...
                          Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, and Reagan have all been prolific liars.

                          Starting with Obama’s Presidency and increasing in Trump’s,

                          Social media and wide, fast Internet, facilitates dialogue and the lying, and counter lying.

                          The fact that Trump himself casually tweets regularly is also a factor.

                          Social media and fast Internet seem to be a window into humanity’s true nature, and perhaps disappointingly but unsurprisingly, it is often ugly, vulgar, petty, and prone to gossip, accusing others, including the denial of one’s own side’s flaws, false accusations, and being divisive.

                          Comment


                            Obamas Politofact score:
                            The PolitiFact scorecard
                            True:123 (20%)

                            Mostly True:165 (27%)

                            Half True:161 (26%)

                            Mostly False:71 (12%)

                            False: (12%)(71)

                            Pants on Fire:9 (1%)


                            Trump

                            The PolitiFact scorecard
                            True:34 (5%)

                            Mostly True:76 (10%)

                            Half True:102 (14%)

                            Mostly False:154 (21%)

                            False:254 (35%)

                            Pants on Fire:107 (15%)


                            Its a pretty astounding difference between the two.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Raycetpfl View Post
                              Obamas Politofact score:
                              The PolitiFact scorecard
                              True:123 (20%)

                              Mostly True:165 (27%)

                              Half True:161 (26%)

                              Mostly False:71 (12%)

                              False: (12%)(71)

                              Pants on Fire:9 (1%)


                              Trump

                              The PolitiFact scorecard
                              True:34 (5%)

                              Mostly True:76 (10%)

                              Half True:102 (14%)

                              Mostly False:154 (21%)

                              False:254 (35%)

                              Pants on Fire:107 (15%)


                              Its a pretty astounding difference between the two.
                              Frequency is only one measure.

                              When we look at severity, I see little difference between Presidents Bush Jr, Obama, and Trump.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Raycetpfl View Post
                                Obamas Politofact score:
                                The PolitiFact scorecard
                                True:123 (20%)

                                Mostly True:165 (27%)

                                Half True:161 (26%)

                                Mostly False:71 (12%)

                                False: (12%)(71)

                                Pants on Fire:9 (1%)


                                Trump

                                The PolitiFact scorecard
                                True:34 (5%)

                                Mostly True:76 (10%)

                                Half True:102 (14%)

                                Mostly False:154 (21%)

                                False:254 (35%)

                                Pants on Fire:107 (15%)


                                Its a pretty astounding difference between the two.
                                I would say one of the largest reasons Trump lies so much and get so many things wrong is he quotes Fox News and right-wing media. Its almost like a reverse State News. Instead of the president picking the narrative whatever Fox and Rush Limbaugh pick as their narrative Trump will support so he essentially has a free propaganda wing. I doubt he actually believes most of the things he says but policy and public words are more important then his personal beliefs.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X