Author Topic: whats up with all the rallies  (Read 6551 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
whats up with all the rallies
« on: July 06, 2018, 04:39:56 PM »
Every week it seams Trump holds a rally
Is it normal for a President to hold rallies such as these?
Are only Trump supporters aloud to attend the rallies?
I never see any protesters. You would think someone would have got in, maybe hold up a shame sign or heckle him.
I'd like to see how he responds to that, or is it to dangerous?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2018, 04:43:12 PM »
Nothing about Trump is normal. Trump requires regular doses of adulation that he simply can't get at the White House, or even Mar-a-lago.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2018, 04:55:17 PM »
I attended a Trump rally in San Diego before the election.  The one where he accused the judge in the Trump University lawsuit of being biased because he was of Mexican heritage.

You had to sign up beforehand on a website to get "tickets" (printout) to enter.  Which also means you get Trump e-mails for the rest of your natural days...  :'(

There were a few protesters inside the rally, about 20 minutes into Trump's speech.  They were being "escorted" out by the Secret Service.  Didn't hear what they said to garner such attention, although I recall them making remarks on the way out.

So, yes, Trump detractors are allowed to attend (if the rules haven't changed since the election) if they don't advertise it, but they don't get any voice or chance to disrupt, heckle or disagree with him.  And I do recall from the election that some of his supporters would also take action to heckling.  So I wouldn't consider it risk-free and not recommend doing so.

The real protest occurred outside the convention center.  San Diego even made national news at the time when the Trump-supporter jerks confronted the Trump-detractor jerks after the rally and caused a bit of a ruckus.  But when we left (about half-way through Trump's speech or so), the protesters were pretty peaceful, if a bit loud.

And, no, it is not normal for a sitting President to hold rallies like these.  But there ain't nothing normal about Trump, is there?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2018, 08:09:28 PM »
Obama did so at "an abnormal level" as well during his time in office. Certainly so in his second term.

Wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump is taking it "to another level" all the same, but I doubt it as much of a leap from where Obama was at vs any other president prior to Obama.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2018, 04:24:57 PM »
Obama had events and speeches, but I don't recall rallies nor at the same frequency or with the same tone. He went on the road quite a bit to sell healthcare, for sure, but it was more Q&A and such.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2018, 05:56:38 PM »
Quote
Obama did so at "an abnormal level" as well during his time in office. Certainly so in his second term.

Please identify the measurements that support your claim of abnormality.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2018, 12:41:31 PM »
"It's not totally unusual for a sitting president to hold campaign rallies, but Trump has already held 24 rallies since the 2016 election. President Obama had his first post-inaugural rally nearly six months into his presidency"

"Since taking office, he has headlined five campaign style rallies."

So, in the first six months Obama had one campaign style rally, Trump had 5. I don't have a source for the full 18 months, but this gives some concrete perspective.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2018, 04:45:35 PM »
Campaign Rallies as Campaign Rallies, right out of the starting gate in new and unique to Trump.

Keeping the political campaign active in general, was new with Obama. In fact, his 2008 Presidential Campaign organization still exists, just under a different name.

Prior to Obama normal practice was to dissolve the organization and stand a new one up shortly before the next Campaign season started.

It seems trying to find aggregate numbers for Obama is next to impossible as my search results keep getting crowded out with questions or accusations about Trump.

But "Obama's First Year: By the Numbers" on CBS News reported:

411 Speeches, comments and remarks. With the following breakdown:
52 addresses or statements on health care proposals.
178 uses of the teleprompter. Or 177.5 depending on how you count the teleprompter incident.


Obama gave 158 press interviews, "far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year" so I assume that includes at least Clinton and Bush 43, don't know about Bush 41 or Reagon.

23 Town Hall meetings.

28 Political Fundraisers

7 Campaign Rallies(for other candidates, all of whom lost)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 04:47:37 PM by TheDeamon »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2018, 09:41:02 AM »
That dons't strike me as the same thing as what I see Trump engaged in.
Oh well, maybe its the new normal.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2018, 05:03:54 PM »
For fairness, at least as of this posting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-election_Donald_Trump_rallies

Shows Trump participated in a sum total of 10 Campaign Rallies in his first year as President.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2018, 08:05:28 AM »
Every week it seams Trump holds a rally

There’s a very good reason for this.

During Obama’s term, Obama was essentially given a tongue bath by the media. It was all fluff, covering up bad news or things they didn’t think you would like and only reporting good news. For example, the separation of kids from illegal aliens- that was Obama’s policy too but it was largely ignored (among many, many, other things). That’s why Obama gace so many press interviews, he knew they'd cover for him and help.

Trump gets 95% negative cverage and it’s non-stop, much of it absurdly spun or even outright fabricated to make him look bad. The press is his sworn enemy, doing everything they can to destroy him. Consequently, Trump has to speak directly to Americans via twitter and rallies. For example, If he didn’t, many would never know we’re currently seeing the bedt economy in American history. Many still don’t. They only know that Trump continued Obama’s immigration policy and that makes Trump a monster (don’t try to follow the logic of that, there ain’t any).

If the media wasn’t so anti-Trump and stopped engaging in fake news, I doubt we’d see so many rallies.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2018, 08:20:31 AM »
If the media wasn’t so anti-Trump and stopped engaging in fake news, I doubt we’d see so many rallies.

Interesting take. So you're suggesting that the people who attend the rallies need to be reassured so they don't believe the fake news and start disliking Trump?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2018, 10:45:09 AM »
If the media wasn’t so anti-Trump and stopped engaging in fake news, I doubt we’d see so many rallies.

Interesting take. So you're suggesting that the people who attend the rallies need to be reassured so they don't believe the fake news and start disliking Trump?

He didn't suggest that, and that's a very dismissive response to a legitimate problem.  How does one trust a media that is so warped?  I was looking at a Pew report that found the media was 20% negative on Obama and over 60% on Trump.  42% positive on Obama and just 5% on Trump.  That analysis was based on just the first 60 days of coverage for each, where you'd expect little significant differences.  The numbers seem to get worse after.

We know for a fact propaganda works.  It even works on smart people and people who think they are immune.  That kind of press coverage means that the populace will have a a far more negative view of Trump than is warranted (and a far rosier one of Obama than was warranted).  It's why I flipped on Trump's use of twitter.  It creates unnecessary foot faults, but also allows him to speak directly to people with out the filter of hate.

Can you imagine if you were responsible for telling employees about changes to your company, but the only way you were allowed to do it, is to ask the CEO's brother in law - who wants you fired - to "pass on your message"?  How would that work out for you?

You tell him, found a great new contractor that's going to save us 20% on our costs.  He goes and tells the employees that you fired Ralph the contractor that's worked with the company for dozens of years over a "few bucks," now Ralph's kids are going to go hungry.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2018, 11:57:23 AM »
All of those are legitimate criticisms worth talking about. Explain how rallies mitigate any such effects? Trumps followers have already decided that the mainstream media is failing, biased, and an enemy of the people, so what are the rallies for?

Quote
I was looking at a Pew report that found the media was 20% negative on Obama and over 60% on Trump.

For it to be a problem, that presupposes that they are equally bad. Sometimes, somebody deserves lots and lots of negative coverage. Shkreli has nearly 100% bad press, is that because of a biased media, or because he's a really bad person?

Twitter and other direct communication make sense, but unless you physically at the rally, you are getting all of that filtered through the media as well.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2018, 12:22:35 PM »
All of those are legitimate criticisms worth talking about. Explain how rallies mitigate any such effects? Trumps followers have already decided that the mainstream media is failing, biased, and an enemy of the people, so what are the rallies for?

The goal of the media is to suppress the Republican vote, and keep the Democratic voters energized.  By doing so they hope to change the control of Congress and end Trump's ability to act.  The rallies are specifically designed to counter act that, to bring a message of success and excitement to the Republicans that feel hopeless when they read the constant negativity of the media.
 

Quote
Quote
I was looking at a Pew report that found the media was 20% negative on Obama and over 60% on Trump.

For it to be a problem, that presupposes that they are equally bad. Sometimes, somebody deserves lots and lots of negative coverage. Shkreli has nearly 100% bad press, is that because of a biased media, or because he's a really bad person?

Well, they covered Clinton and Bush on the same metric as well.  Here's an indirect link to a version of it https://www.recode.net/2017/10/2/16401216/president-donald-trump-news-negative-pew-research-obama-bush-clinton.  Honestly, it could be that Trump is "special bad" but I don't think that's what you're seeing.  Particularly not since the deviation starts with Obama from the Bush/Clinton baseline. 

I do agree that the media has reacted as if Trump  was special bad.  They were absolutely dismayed by Clinton's loss that they never saw coming and seem to have decided that they didn't do enough to get her elected (nevermind that is absolutely not their job).

Quote
Twitter and other direct communication make sense, but unless you physically at the rally, you are getting all of that filtered through the media as well.

Well sort of.  But actually you're likely getting it mostly through local media rather than the national media.  Which generally means a broad base of coverage that is not completely hostile, meanwhile the national media does it's best to ignore it, because they don't want to have to transmit it (which is the only rational way to cover it).  In a country where the national talking heads are completely hostile but the local ones are not, it makes sense.

Not to mention, the buzz, word of mouth and impact on your local ground game.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2018, 12:30:59 PM »
There are, of course, established ways to get your message out undiluted. It used to be possible to watch a press conference in its entirety from whitehouse.gov. That doesn't exist any more, the last briefing posted was 23 April, almost three months ago.

FDR created the concept of a radio address, Obama recorded addresses on a weekly basis. Trump has weekly addresses also, you can find them on YouTube.

There are any number of vehicles -speeches, press conferences, calling in to fox news (check, done)

The unique part of a campaign style rally is a crowd of enthusiastic supporters. That could be useful for optics (look how big the crowd is, everyone loves me, there's not even enough room for all my fans), or for ego. I don't see any other upside.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2018, 12:34:32 PM »
I think people who attend Trump rallies are probably already as fired up as they are going to get. We know they were going to vote anyway. They might volunteer more or try to convince others to join in the vote. They might bring a friend to the rally. It just doesn't seem worth the time and expense far away from an election cycle (like the post inaugural victory laps). Now, that doesn't mean it can't be effective. Clearly Trump's a different kind of guy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2018, 01:03:53 PM »
There are, of course, established ways to get your message out undiluted. It used to be possible to watch a press conference in its entirety from whitehouse.gov.

Having your message interrupted and sidelined multiple times by someone like Acosta is not "undiluted."  Again, the media's hostility poisoned what used to be a way to get your message out.

Quote
FDR created the concept of a radio address, Obama recorded addresses on a weekly basis. Trump has weekly addresses also, you can find them on YouTube.

Agreed, but each did what worked for them, and both FDR and Obama enjoyed massive support from the colluding media that ensured that the message they wanted to send was normally the one that got sent.  The media goes out of its way to ensure that Trump's message is not the one that gets out.

Quote
The unique part of a campaign style rally is a crowd of enthusiastic supporters. That could be useful for optics (look how big the crowd is, everyone loves me, there's not even enough room for all my fans), or for ego. I don't see any other upside.

The "upside" was literally the point of my last post.  You seem to think we are "far" from an election cycle, notwithstanding that there is an election in 4 months.  Trump's ability to achieve his agenda is on the line.  Not to mention, that a hostile house will impeach him - without any regard to whether there are actually grounds to do so, and the media will proclaim their actions just.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2018, 01:07:54 PM »
No, we WERE far from an election cycle in the first six months, though. It makes more sense now than then, like the rally in ND to promote the candidacy of Cramer.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2018, 01:38:57 PM »
Of all the things Trump has done that isn't normal. Having regular political rallies to stroke his ego and fire up his base doesn't really matter to me. I'm much more concerned with him alienating our allies and routinely praising dictators/autocrats.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2018, 03:02:48 PM »
I wonder if its all related. At the rallies Trump gets to see what his followers react to and what "lifts him"


“This is a very winning, strong issue for me,”  “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2018, 03:43:30 PM »
TheDrake, you're correct, I wasn't thinking about how long its been going on.  However, I think you're overly discounting the influence of "special election" mandate thinking.   As in, how the media turned every single special election into a "referendum on Trump" to try and get an anti-endorsement on the record.  I think that kept the spirit of the election season going way longer than it otherwise would have.  Effectively, Trump has been campaigning ever since the election because the media wants any failure of any election to be considered as de-legitimizing Trump.

Here's an interesting read, utterly non-scientific, but so in line with how it's hard to trust the media when they have an interest to promote.  http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/29/politifact-slants-truth-ratings-republicans/

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2018, 04:05:22 PM »
I've never been that impressed with Politifact. At best it is a source of raw material to be mined, and a lot of criticism in the article is well deserved.

That said, a lot of the programming mix on CNN could easily face similar criticism (one of the worst outliers in my opinion). It's not like breitbart or thefederalist are going to do much better in the opposite direction. As we've talked about before, it depends on how people consume their news. If they watch one television channel non-stop (Trump & Fox?) then its going to be pretty biased. If they sort through articles (which I do on Breitbart and CNN), then you can find useful wheat in the chaff.

I know I run the risk of being called out for claiming false immunity, but I tend to think a well-balanced diet is the best defense against becoming myopic. That's why I force feed myself Breitbart articles, to keep from getting too shifted into one point of view. The grammar alone is atrocious, although no worse than CNN.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2018, 06:15:18 PM »
That's the triangulation theory of propaganda.  I agree, you can glean some truth from reading multiple sources, what you can't avoid though is the redirection of your focus.  What the media chooses to cover becomes part of your actual focus and what they choose not to cover drops away.

One of the most famous examples is the proverbial "white van" gen x kids were raised to fear.  There wasn't a real bump in stranger kidnappings, just a bump in coverage.  That lead to a long term change in the psychological profile of a generation of kids and has had a knock on effect in the realm of perception of personal safety with an impact that's impossible to measure.  All by media choice of what to cover and how.

Another one that had a personal relevance to me, was the post 9/11 coverage of the "threat of terrorism" with the 24 hour cable news constantly reporting on the current threat, leading with stories of what you had to know to stay safe and protect your family, long after the immediate threat was gone.  Couldn't convince several people in my family that the media was choosing to scare them without a basis.  Then the DC sniper came along and got wall to wall coverage.  They were again in a total panic, when I turned to them two weeks in, and asked them how come there isn't any terrorist threat any more?  They were stunned when they realized that the media had dropped its wall to wall terrorism is going to get you  coverage and they hadn't even noticed.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2018, 08:26:38 AM »
That's the triangulation theory of propaganda.  I agree, you can glean some truth from reading multiple sources, what you can't avoid though is the redirection of your focus.  What the media chooses to cover becomes part of your actual focus and what they choose not to cover drops away.

This is a good point. Here’s an example of the propaganda that’s being pushed.  NBC News and MSNBC pushed a story that Trump engaged in secret negotiations with Kennedy to get Kennedy to retire so a replacement could be appointed. It was highly inflammatory. This report was tweeted and retweeted 10’s of 1000’s of times. It became “truth”. But it was totally made up, it quickly unraveled and was exposed as a fabrication. A tweet went out from the reporter that created the piece retracting her claims, it was retweeted a few dozen times. As far as I could tell, NBC and MSNBC never responded.

So now there’s at least a few hundred thousand (and growing) that believe this lie. How should this be combated by Trump? How does he cut through the media propaganda machine to expose the truth? He can’t passively rely on everyone to triangulate, he hto address the lies and expose them.  He can only do that by going around the media that creates the lies and reach out directly to Americans. That means rallies and twitter.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2018, 09:16:34 AM »
Crunch, that's an example where you could get to the truth by being exposed to multiple sources.  While the retraction wasn't heavily retweeted, the articles about the gaffe by Fox say, were also heavily distributed.  You'd find the "whole" story if you looked.  Meanwhile, though, what you'll also find is hundreds of scary articles about the new nominee, many written before there even was a nominee.  You'll find many on every legal topic that could scare you, as those pushing the "scare" don't want you to miss anything that could potentially trigger you and serve their plan. 

What are you going to find that "offsets" this?  Fair descriptions of his views?  Those will just be confirmation of your justifiable scaredness.  Most won't read any of the actually meaningful things - the analysis of judicial philosophy for example, even fewer will understand how a decision point on an a "hot button" issue may be linked to a philosophy that they actually want a judge to follow.  I don't think there are many people, for instance, that self identify with a desire that judges not follow the law, not sure many claim what they want are judges that ignore the law.  But when you get to the specifics you can find endless criticisms because judges didn't do whatever it takes to get the result they preferred.

So, we've spent over a week now, being told that the nomination of this Justice is the most significant event in the history of the country.   It's not.  There is nothing the Justices can do that the people can not undo if they have the political will.

Raise your hand if you were immune to the media propaganda convincing you that this is the most important thing in the history of the country.  Even if you did see around some trees, virtually everyone is still lost in the forest.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2018, 11:06:22 AM »
So, we've spent over a week now, being told that the nomination of this Justice is the most significant event in the history of the country.   It's not.  There is nothing the Justices can do that the people can not undo if they have the political will.

I don't know if I'd characterize it as "the most important" either in the coverage or by my own assessment, but it is hard to understate. The importance of the Supreme Court makeup is evident in its pervasive influence on political fundraising, historical decisions like Brown v Board of Education. Or its role in curbing the most radical of

Let's review, in 53 Brown desegregated schools. It would take another eleven years for the Civil Rights act to pass. Now, in conservative circles, some might say Brown was an overreach, that it should be up to the states and local government if they want to sequester all their black people in separate facilities, and things will change eventually. In practice, that would mean how many Americans receiving a lesser education, being taught that they were different? What about that 2nd grader who would be all the way through school before Congress got around to it?

You can call that "activist judges" if you like, but I would call it the Supreme court ensuring the freedom of all Americans, and enacting the spirit of the Declaration. Fast forward to same sex marriage - how long would those Americans have had to wait if the court had not acted? Political change was underway, with 37 states already recognizing gay unions at the time the court accelerated the 13 stragglers who refused to acknowledge freedom and equality.

So, yeah, changes in the makeup of the court are longer lasting than any other official, the longest term belonging to a US Senator. Meanwhile the votes are among a 9 person body, as opposed to 100.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2018, 12:54:25 PM »
So to be clear, you do want a Supreme Court where the opinions of Nine people can overrule the opinions of the majority of the 350 million people that live in this country, and you want them to base that not on law but on their moral conclusions?

We have Congress to make laws and an Executive to enforce them, all of whom are politically answerable to the people.  We do not need a 9 judge group to act as a super and un-reviewable legislature on an arbitrary basis.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2018, 02:36:06 PM »
In Brown, the court was absolutely defending the people from a government that failed to treat citizens equally and with fairness. In other words, curbing government oppression. Likewise with gay marriage. And yes, I want the court to defend liberty, the most fundamental of which concern the 14th amendment (Brown).

I'd probably be uncomfortable if not upset, if the court had ordered private businesses to integrate - but that case was about how the government treats people.

I also appreciate Citizen's United as a defense of liberty.

Using a metric of "let the legislature and executive do what they want" we could look at FDR with overwhelming support from voters. The nine people overruled the opinions of the majority at that time. It struck down the agricultural adjustment act. Some people said that was based on law, others didn't. Somebody gets to decide, and that's them.

Going back to the original point, that's why the choice of a justice is a very important thing worth talking about, as it can shift the landscape dramatically from one type of court to another. One dedicated to judicial restraint (Dred Scott?) or judicial intervention (Roe). It's worth talking about - a lot.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2018, 02:58:59 PM »
I also appreciate Citizen's United as a defense of liberty.

Oh boy. Nothing like the "liberty" of legal corruption.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2018, 03:22:24 PM »
Why shouldn't anybody be able to spend any amount as an individual or a group to have their voice or voices heard? I have serious problems with most of the FEC on a constitutional basis. It faced constitutional challenges, and was stopped for a while. (5-4 decision)

"Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".[1]"

Is that a basis in law? Or just something that would be nice to have?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2018, 03:25:00 PM »
Why shouldn't anybody be able to spend any amount as an individual or a group to have their voice or voices heard?

Indeed. Maybe politicians should be allowed to take direct contributions from anyone at any time in order to grant them the "liberty" of their voices being heard.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2018, 04:12:15 PM »
Actually, they can take direct contributions from anyone at any time. It would be better than the current PAC approach, because it is more transparent (I still believe in reporting, just not contribution limits). I agree with existing and long standing rules that require reporting.

Assuming candidates can only spend such donations on re-election (and not true bribery), then I have no problem with that. Money influence on politics is better solved by fixing a lazy and stupid electorate that votes based on sixty second ads, yard signs, push polling, and bulk mailing.

If Harley Davidson wants to air an ad for Trump's opponent pointing out how crappy his tariffs have been for them, shouldn't they be able to?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2018, 04:16:33 PM »
Assuming candidates can only spend such donations on re-election (and not true bribery), then I have no problem with that.

And how could you ever prove that the candidate, once in office, did his actual job rather than merely catering to those who gave "donations"?

But I'll cut to the chase: "liberty" often merely means, as we've often heard, allowing the wolves and sheep the "liberty" to discuss amongst themselves what's for dinner. I think this isn't exactly the intention of many who speak about liberty in this way, but there is usually a failure to recognize that people who believe in exactly that (i.e. being wolves amongst sheep) want the same end-goal with exactly opposite principles in play. So you have some people who believe in liberty thinking it will end corruption, and others who want it because it is precisely the best environment for corruption. In the end the wolves will have their way unless directly and specifically prevented from doing so. 'Hoping' things will work out will fail 100% of the time, unless specific and unbreakable measures are in place to back up this hope.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 04:20:31 PM by Fenring »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2018, 06:25:58 PM »
Quote
And how could you ever prove that the candidate, once in office, did his actual job rather than merely catering to those who gave "donations"?

Do you think that's the case now? We don't have questions about donations to politician's charities, or hiring them as lobbyists, or giving them excessive speaking fees?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2018, 07:03:38 PM »
Quote
And how could you ever prove that the candidate, once in office, did his actual job rather than merely catering to those who gave "donations"?

Do you think that's the case now? We don't have questions about donations to politician's charities, or hiring them as lobbyists, or giving them excessive speaking fees?

I think it's the case now that they do whatever they want for whomever they want. I would assess the current level of effective oversight at nearly 0%. As long as official forms are maintained there's currently no stopgap against corruption other than the next election. So long as the various candidates form a de facto cartel (meaning will do more or less the same when in office) then the system is a farce.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2018, 09:54:54 AM »
I woke up this morning and what was on tv?  An unscheduled international presser by President Trump.  I watched him do an excellent job answering questions for 15 minutes, with clear answers and great transparency.  And at the end of it, I was so furious with the US media that I couldn't see straight.

The international media asked questions that were relevant and that had substantive answers that had impact on their lives and they got answers.  I'm struck by how our US media uses the pressers as an opportunity to grandstand and uses questions to make political points rather than to get substantive answers.  If you've ever seen the media ask 15 versions of the same question you should know what I'm talking about, they have an agenda to get a specific soundbite, not an actual answer.  If you really want to know why we don't have informative press conferences this one showed exactly why, our "journalists" are political activists first.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2018, 10:30:31 AM »
How could you tell which were the American Media?  Their accents?  He hardly let any of them get out their names or brushed them off with an "I know who you area." 

Like they were daring to hog his spotlight instead of, you know, stating their name / publication for their listeners/viewers... because... it's the news? 

I know it's just Trump's "style" but god he infuriates me every public address.  And not just based on his politics.  The whole persona is just nails on a blackboard for me.

That said, I can't argue with your point.  Fishing for a sound bite when it's OBVIOUS to all he (or his press sec) is not going to answer the question, gets so old so fast.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2018, 10:32:17 AM »
You could tell from the questions they were asking.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2018, 12:03:55 PM »
Can't find a transcript. I can't watch that man for 30 minutes, everything about his body language and facial expressions rub me the wrong way. But I'd be curious to read it.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2018, 01:17:33 PM »
LOL I also find it better for me to read a transcript of Trumps speeches and stuff then watch him deliver it.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2018, 01:39:57 PM »
I WOULD go with the transcript option, but then I have to do the added work to research if it's a legit transcript or "satire".  Because I can never tell the difference anymore.    :'(

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2018, 07:45:46 PM »
I woke up this morning and what was on tv?  An unscheduled international presser by President Trump.  I watched him do an excellent job answering questions for 15 minutes, with clear answers and great transparency.  And at the end of it, I was so furious with the US media that I couldn't see straight.

The international media asked questions that were relevant and that had substantive answers that had impact on their lives and they got answers.  I'm struck by how our US media uses the pressers as an opportunity to grandstand and uses questions to make political points rather than to get substantive answers.  If you've ever seen the media ask 15 versions of the same question you should know what I'm talking about, they have an agenda to get a specific soundbite, not an actual answer.  If you really want to know why we don't have informative press conferences this one showed exactly why, our "journalists" are political activists first.

Had you had your coffee yet?  I'm partway through the transcript, and I'm seeing repetitive, critical questions.  And the answers are word salad. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448369-1/president-trump-calls-nato-alliance-very-unified-strong&start=2

What part of this impressed you?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2018, 09:35:06 AM »
Apologies for a longer than average post. I wanted to make sure I didn't cherry pick just one example, to be fair to the concept of clarity and transparency.

I want to acknowledge that the transcript removes the intonation, body language, and facial expressions that accompany questions. So questions that look relatively benign in print could be highly aggressive in reality. This is why actors learn to say a netural word and convey emotion and meaning behind it.

Quote
Q    Mr. President, I’m Tara McKelvey with the BBC.  Can you tell us whether or not you warned people that the U.S. would pull out of NATO if they weren’t meeting their spending goals?

THE PRESIDENT:  I told people that I’d be very unhappy if they didn’t up their commitments very substantially, because the United States has been paying a tremendous amount, probably 90 percent of the cost of NATO.  And now, people are going to start and countries are going to start upping their commitments.  So I let them know yesterday, actually.  I was surprised that you didn’t pick it up; it took until today.  But yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially upped their commitment, yeah.  And now we’re very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO, much stronger than it was two days ago.

So first, he never answers the question. He didn't say "Yes, I did warn them the US would pull out NATO." nor does he say "No, I did not warn them that the US would pull out of NATO."

The PBS reporter immediately tries to ask the same question, with a similar lack of transparency.

As for clarity, the 90% figure is pretty unclear. Could he mean the portion of the actual NATO budget? That number is more like 25%. But this probably isn't what he meant. He might have meant the portion of all military spending that supports permanent bases in Europe.

I can take numbers from well prior to Trump, eliminating any anti-Trump press bias neatly.

2011 breakdown

Gates at the time was much more clear than Trump, while also not providing specifics.

Quote
"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," he said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO — individually and collectively — have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a very different future."

As opposed to "I was very unhappy, but now I'm happy because they are changing their tune."

With respect to US media, I didn't see anything unpleasant about the PBS questions. They didn't seem designed to box Trump into a corner and make him look bad.

Quote
Q    President Trump, Ryan Chilcote, PBS NewsHour.  Did you win concessions in your meetings and discussions with the German Chancellor when it comes to German defense spending and also with this issue of purchasing energy from Russia?  And secondly, what would you say to your critics that say by creating this scene here at NATO you’re only enabling President Putin and Russia to further disturb things in Ukraine and Georgia?

As for clarity on relationships:

Quote
We discussed it at length today.  Germany has agreed to do a lot better than they were doing, and we’re very happy with that.  We had a very good relationship with Angela Merkel.

Trump has spent the majority of his time being highly critical of Merkel. Describing it as a "good relationship" is not at all transparent.

Pop in on CNN, the most egregious anti-Trump media storm:

Quote
Quick question with regards to Germany and the comments that you made yesterday.  Do you feel like given the threats that you made about potentially leaving NATO, about insulting Germany’s sovereignty, it appears, by suggesting that they’re totally controlled by Russia — do you feel like that’s an effective way to conduct diplomacy?  And secondly, would you be able to be a little bit more specific about the commitments that you secured today with regards to increasing the financial commitment?  Is there an updated timeline?  Are there specific countries you could cite?  Because a majority of them were already planning to meet that 2 percent threshold by 2024.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Its practically a speech, not a question. There are four separate items crammed in there. And at the end, answering his own question. Ick.

Quote
THE PRESIDENT:  No, many of them — in fact, Germany was going to be in the year 2028 or ’30.  Yeah, I think it’s a very effective way to deal, but I didn’t deal exactly the way you said.  I have great respect for Germany.  My father is from Germany.  Both of my parents are from the EU, despite the fact they don’t treat us well on trade.

Erm, what? Trump's father was born in New York City. His grandfather immigrated from Germany in 1885. At least he got the bit about his mother right.

Meanwhile, I don't know how to parse the rest of the start of his answer. I think its an effective way to deal, but that's not how I did it? I can imagine that he just got knocked off balance by the CNN question. Other Presidents would handle this with aplomb, with some humor and then just pick the one question they felt like answering instead of trying to tie it all together.

Quote
But I think that will change also, and I think we’ll see that — because on the 25th of July, they’re coming in to start negotiations with me.  We’ll see.  And if they don’t negotiate in good faith, we’ll do something having to do with all of the millions of cars that are coming into our country and being taxed at a virtually zero level, at a very low level.

So he's happy that everyone upped their commitments, but then they are actually going to start negotiations soon? And then he makes a random trade threat in order to put pressure on Germany's actions with respect to NATO? This, actually, is transparent. Trump will do anything he feels like to force a person, company, or nation to do what he wants.

Quote
Q    Mr. President, Robert Wall with the Wall Street Journal.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Hi, Robert.

Q    If the Germans and the Canadians and others don’t come up to 2 percent, what is your fallback position?  How will you up the pressure to make them actually?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, they will.  They will.  I have no doubt about it.  They all made commitments.  And they will be up to 2 percent.  It will be over a period — a relatively short period of years.  Okay?

US press, once again, a pretty neutral fact finding question. Not answered. Q. "What will you do if they don't meet their commitments?" A. "Don't worry, they will."

Clear as day.

Quote
Q    (Inaudible) from Finland.  What would be the best deal with Putin when you come to Helsinki?  And don’t you think that your hard diplomacy — that you are playing to the same goal that Putin, with your hard diplomacy towards EU and NATO?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I can’t tell you what would be the ultimate.  What would be the ultimate?  Well, let’s see: No more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world would be the ultimate, okay?  No more wars, no more problems, no more conflict.  Let’s find a cure to every disease known to mankind, or womankind.  That would be my ultimate, okay?  And we’ll start from there.

Holy rhetorical gyrations, batman! What was that?

Hats off to Trump though for catching himself saying mankind, fixing it on the fly, and avoiding a CNN headline on his misogyny.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2018, 02:00:36 PM »
Watched  a rerun of the Twilight Zone “He’s Alive” and couldn’t help but be reminded of Trumps rallies

Googled it and sure enough I'm not the only one that saw the similarities.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2018, 10:08:11 PM »
CNN has a story about what's up with all the rallies

Quote
People inside the White House said the burst of tweets reflected the anger Trump has aired privately for months, including about Sessions. Trump has been more frustrated since headlines about his former attorney Michael Cohen emerged last week. Aides say they're working to schedule more political rallies, partly to boost Trump's mood and distract him from the headlines about Russia.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2018, 11:38:06 AM »
Got around to watching one of the latest Rallies, and I just don’t understand how anyone could not come away without wondering if the President is not headed for a mental breakdown.
I can understand why conservatives support his policies I just don’t understand why they like or trust the man and give him such unwavering loyalty and audulation. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2018, 12:05:33 PM »
Got around to watching one of the latest Rallies, and I just don’t understand how anyone could not come away without wondering if the President is not headed for a mental breakdown.
I can understand why conservatives support his policies I just don’t understand why they like or trust the man and give him such unwavering loyalty and audulation.

You don't understand it?  Or you don't agree with it?

Which conservative policy goals do you think he's failing on, that should cause conservatives not to support him?

The only one that really jumps to mind is his policy on tariffs, and I think the explanation on that actually appeals more to the common man than the elites realize.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2018, 01:04:37 PM »
I can understand the support of the policy's just not the man. Can't get my head around it. Are they the same thing?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2018, 01:21:01 PM »
It's a binary world.  If you decide not to support your policy goals, you get Doug Jones who may vote against a Supreme Court Justice the voters in his state overwhelmingly support.

If your confused about Trump's moral character, don't be.  We live in a world where almost no one believes that any politician is a moral person.  Conservative's don't see Trump's flaws as much greater than those other politicians, many of them believe he's trying to do the right thing, they haven't seen proof of illegality and they have seen a media that absolute refuses to even pretend to cover him fairly. 

If you have a policy dispute about him that you don't think fits with the conservatives, let's talk.  If your argument is pure hypocrisy, I could ask why you supported Obama when he trammelled over your civil rights and grossly expanded executive authority (which we know troubles you when Trump exercises less than Obama routinely did).