Author Topic: whats up with all the rallies  (Read 6549 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2018, 03:11:38 PM »
With regards to policy I don't disagree with everything Trump, Just I as didn't Agree with everything Obama. I don't see it as binary.
I guess with Trump, everything about his character, mannerisms, and choice of communication rhetoric pushes me the wrong way.   I think its dangerous.
For example he may be justified in calling out  media coverage (wish he has the language skill to explain it better) but not justified in generalizing media as enemy of the people.   

In the other tread you tagged a reporters idea of Trumps Truthiness. Perhaps you were correct in pointing it out however I can't get by this aspect of trumps character myself - Its just to hard to parse through his retoric. Which granted is very effective as the means of pushing his policies. I think its effective... defiantly effective with his holding his base.   

In the rally I saw the following claims suggest Truthiness however I'm not bothering to dig deeper.

■ He falsely claimed the United States Steel Corporation “is opening up seven plants.” (It has not announced a single new plant.)
■ He falsely claimed “Russia is very unhappy that Trump won.” (Intelligence agencies have said — and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has confirmed — that he preferred Mr. Trump to Hillary Clinton.)
■ He mischaracterized NATO members as “delinquent” on payments to the alliance. (He is referring to a pledge each member set for spending on its own military.)
■ He falsely claimed “NATO funding was going down” before he raised the issue. (Military spending from members has been increasing since 2015.)
■ He claimed, with no evidence, that the man charged in the Manhattan truck attack in October brought in “22 relatives.” (This is not possible.)
■ He hyperbolically said immigrants arrested on suspicion of crossing the border illegally “never come back” for court dates. (Most do.)
■ He exaggerated the number of jobs the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would bring, estimating 48,000 jobs. (A vast majority are temporary.)
■ He misleadingly claimed that “nobody would have believed” how many jobs have been added since his election. (The number added in a comparable period before his election was larger.)
■ He falsely claimed to have signed the “biggest tax cuts in the history of our country.” (Several were larger,)
■ He misleadingly claimed to have “saved our family farms from the estate tax.” (About 80 family farms and small businesses were affected.)
■ He took credit for passing the Veterans Choice Act, which he said other presidents had been trying to pass for 40 years. (It passed in 2014, though he did sign new overhauls,)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 03:21:22 PM by rightleft22 »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2018, 06:05:54 PM »
I’m gonna just taje the first one:
Quote
He falsely claimed the United States Steel Corporation “is opening up seven plants.” (It has not announced a single new plant.)

The truth is that US Steel is reopening some facilities and rehiring hundredsof workers. So no, not opening up new plants, just reopened. Mot people can understand this and figure out what was meant. The purveyors of fake news intentionally promote a meme to make it seem false.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2018, 10:02:08 PM »
I’m gonna just taje the first one:
Quote
He falsely claimed the United States Steel Corporation “is opening up seven plants.” (It has not announced a single new plant.)

The truth is that US Steel is reopening some facilities and rehiring hundredsof workers. So no, not opening up new plants, just reopened. Mot people can understand this and figure out what was meant. The purveyors of fake news intentionally promote a meme to make it seem false.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/us-steel-planning-to-add-more-than-800-jobs-this-year.html

One site - two furnaces - up to 800 jobs. Its the seven plants that is the lie, not that US steel isn't doing any expansion in the US.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2018, 10:37:27 AM »
With regards to policy I don't disagree with everything Trump, Just I as didn't Agree with everything Obama. I don't see it as binary.

You don't see a choice between two politicians as binary?  Interesting world.  I don't think anyone supports everything a politician does, if you get 75% that's way above average.

Quote
I guess with Trump, everything about his character, mannerisms, and choice of communication rhetoric pushes me the wrong way.   I think its dangerous.

I remember saying the same thing watching Obama rallies, where he had no policy ideas, and had huge crowds with people literally swooning in the aisles.  It reminded me of a televangilist.  I literally, could anything be more dangerous than electing a sweet talking demagogue? 
 
Quote
For example he may be justified in calling out  media coverage (wish he has the language skill to explain it better) but not justified in generalizing media as enemy of the people.

Are propagandists "friends of the people"?  Seriously, do you think, say an Alt Right news site that spewing made up news is a friend of the people?  What about Project Veritas?  How about Fox News?  CNN?  MSNBC?  Mother Jones?  Was there a line somewhere in there?

Professional liars are not friends of the people.  Claiming a title of "journalist" or "fact checker" but really being a propagandist is not good for the country.  Spinning every message to confuse rather than educate is directly contrary to the reason we have a free press in the first place. 

How are they not enemies of the people, when they would rather lie in pursuit of the "right" result than tell the truth?   

Quote
In the rally I saw the following claims suggest Truthiness however I'm not bothering to dig deeper.

Since the question is whether these appeal to his base, or betray it, I'm responding in that vein.

Quote
■ He falsely claimed the United States Steel Corporation “is opening up seven plants.” (It has not announced a single new plant.)

Obviously this is what his base elected him to do.  Did he lie?  I can see why you'd think so, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that he spoke with someone involved and was told that - isn't it?  Do you think he fact checks everyone he talks to?  You saw the follow up below - is it possible someone told him they were relighting 7 furnaces (which could exist at one or two locations).

Quote
■ He falsely claimed “Russia is very unhappy that Trump won.” (Intelligence agencies have said — and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has confirmed — that he preferred Mr. Trump to Hillary Clinton.)

That's not a false claim.  That's literally just an opinion.  Objectively, he's been harsher on Russian interests than Obama was, and with Clinton's history, probably harsher than she would have been.  Certainly she wouldn't have been pressured with war level rhetoric by the Democrats.

In any event, the entire "falsity" is premised on the Russian's trying to harm Clinton in the election, which the was primarily because they thought she would be President and they were trying to compromise it. 

The entirity of your argument ignores that they could be unhappy no matter who won.

Quote
■ He mischaracterized NATO members as “delinquent” on payments to the alliance. (He is referring to a pledge each member set for spending on its own military.)

They are all delinquent.  They have missed their agreed funding goals - it's an alliance - not a US protects everyone else society.  They were so delinquent that we have entered into supplemental agreements whereby they have agreed - again - to get back on target.

Again though, not a policy issue.

Quote
■ He falsely claimed “NATO funding was going down” before he raised the issue. (Military spending from members has been increasing since 2015.)

Is that a direct quote?  Can you provide the context?

In any event that's a simple factual matter to check.  Not seeing the conservative angle.

Quote
■ He claimed, with no evidence, that the man charged in the Manhattan truck attack in October brought in “22 relatives.” (This is not possible.)

Not sure where he got the "information" but it's certainly possible with chain immigration to bring in two relatives, who each bring in two, who each bring in two and so on isn't it?

I mean honestly, is that based on your own research, or are you just restating a claim someone else made?

Quote
■ He hyperbolically said immigrants arrested on suspicion of crossing the border illegally “never come back” for court dates. (Most do.)

Figures on that are really questionable.  I think you're looking at the ones that calculate based on removal orders from where someone didn't show from total removal orders), but correct me if I'm wrong.  That actually doesn't measure the same thing (and it grossly ignores proceedings that because of backlog and deferral never move forward).

Quote
■ He exaggerated the number of jobs the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would bring, estimating 48,000 jobs. (A vast majority are temporary.)

Misestimating is a lie?  I note your paren is a bizarre inclusion.  Again this appeals to his base - and it's not like didn't get to hear about jobs "created or saved" (a made up measure) in the last admin.  Playing with jobs numbers is more the rule than the exception.

In any event, the jobs numbers are doing really well, and I don't think anyone really cares whether they are Keystone jobs or from somewhere else.  Looked at a help wanted board lately?  It's insane.

Quote
■ He misleadingly claimed that “nobody would have believed” how many jobs have been added since his election. (The number added in a comparable period before his election was larger.)

Lol.  That's not even an untruth.  What exactly are you objecting to?

Quote
■ He falsely claimed to have signed the “biggest tax cuts in the history of our country.” (Several were larger,)

Hyperbole, and honestly, kind of a petty swipe.  Totally supported by his base.

Quote
■ He misleadingly claimed to have “saved our family farms from the estate tax.” (About 80 family farms and small businesses were affected.)

Can you walk through what you mean here.

Quote
■ He took credit for passing the Veterans Choice Act, which he said other presidents had been trying to pass for 40 years. (It passed in 2014, though he did sign new overhauls,)

Is that a direct quote?  Was it fully implemented?

I note, nothing you said above really provides any basis for his base to be unhappy.  Your entire claim seems to be that you think he exaggerates or even lies about the specifics when the general direction is still true.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 10:39:44 AM by Seriati »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2018, 01:00:17 PM »
Seriati come on, you're reaching with some of those answers. I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that people are out to get Trump and will make up things about him to do so, while also not needing to pretend that everything Trump says is in completely good faith. I would have a hard time believing that of any but perhaps the most upstanding political characters. I would give a Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt pretty much every time, but not most others, and Trump is hardly high up in the moral fibre department.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2018, 02:14:12 PM »
Fen, I didn't say it was in good faith or even true.  I pointed out that much of it is disputable, and NONE of it is something that wouldn't appeal to his base.

Which of those statements should cause his base to not support him?


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #56 on: August 06, 2018, 02:22:16 PM »
Fen, I didn't say it was in good faith or even true.  I pointed out that much of it is disputable, and NONE of it is something that wouldn't appeal to his base.

Which of those statements should cause his base to not support him?

The OP claim is that certain comments made by Trump support a reporter's claim of 'truthiness' in their veracity. OP wasn't about whether his base would be pleased or not, so that's perhaps why I read you as taking that position. However if your actual position is that these truthy comments won't discourage his base, it would seem that you're taking a position that there's something wrong with the base, seeing as how you're saying they won't be swayed by false or bad faith claims. Or isn't that what you're suggesting?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2018, 02:58:03 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.

This was the sub-conversation root for the back and forth with rightleft.  I was trying to explain why things that seem to cause some extreme distress are not leading to loss of base support.  Answer is he's actually producing well for the base.

I also note, don't we have a quote from Obama about visiting the 57 states?  It was amusing it was funny to point out as evidence of a brain slip, but I don't recall anyone treating it as a fact check moment they way they do with every word out of Trump's mouth.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2018, 06:48:18 PM »
Quote
I also note, don't we have a quote from Obama about visiting the 57 states?  It was amusing it was funny to point out as evidence of a brain slip, but I don't recall anyone treating it as a fact check moment they way they do with every word out of Trump's mouth.

That's because (if you haven't noticed) that every word out of Trump's mouth needs a fact check. :)

Obama didn't have over 3000 reported lies at this point.  Some of them, like whether he met Putin before he was elected, are indisputable lies.  But because Obama may have lied and misspoke a few times, it now seems quite acceptable for Trump to lie several times a day.  He's just another lying politician, right?

Except that he does it many, many times more often than any other politician I've ever seen.  And he doesn't care.  He doesn't give a rat's ass if he lies to you.

Because you apparently don't give a rat's ass about it, either.  :P

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2018, 09:57:21 PM »
Ha, they aren't lies. They are, at various times either mistakes or exaggerations, or repetition of something he heard.

BTW, Obama corrected himself, he didn't double down on it. And he corrected it the same day, unprompted, because his people probably cringed when he said it and made sure to have him get in front of what might have become a fact-check or a Howard Dean/Rick Perry moment.

57 states

I never even heard of this, I think it is a sign of the times. When Trump blows numbers up, it is an order of magnitude off and it happens over and over again. Though mostly his numbers problem tends to be more qualitative than quantitative. Biggest ever, largest ever, smallest ever.

Quote
At a later stop that day, according to a Los Angeles Times blog post, Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he'd also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. Obama said he hoped he’d said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. "I understand I said there were 57 states today," Obama said. "It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, the Times blog said, an aide cut Obama off and ushered journalists out.

Another sign of astute political operatives, getting him out of the way. Otherwise, it might have been more likely that his "numeracy" problem could have run away as a meme.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2018, 12:18:14 PM »
I think I see what your getting at with regards to why the base is sticking with Trump. It appears to me that it involves a lot of mental gymnastics (and shadow projection) but what ever works I guess


Quote
For example he may be justified in calling out  media coverage (wish he has the language skill to explain it better) but not justified in generalizing media as enemy of the people.

Are propagandists "friends of the people"?  Seriously, do you think, say an Alt Right news site that spewing made up news is a friend of the people?  What about Project Veritas?  How about Fox News?  CNN?  MSNBC?  Mother Jones?  Was there a line somewhere in there?

Are you saying 'All Media' are propagandists and therefore enemies of the state? I might agree with you with regards Fox and CNN (I don't know anything about the other organisations you mention) but does that mean All?

Without a valid firth estate can there be a democracy?
If democracy is no longer the best system of government, what should take its place?
 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2018, 12:38:52 PM »
Without a valid firth estate can there be a democracy?
If democracy is no longer the best system of government, what should take its place?

There can be democracy, but it will be dumb. If media agencies have as their primary motive to make money, and have better success doing that in a way that harms the country rather than helps it, they will do so all things being equal. Things would not be equal if people were to reject biased reports, but it turns out Socrates was right that the people would prefer candy to medicine. Therefore they are not realistically going to be the force to keep media agencies in line. In fact, I don't think their primary goal is only to make money - they are other unfortunate motivations as well in play, not all of which are their fault exactly.

So assuming for the moment that the media is going to be a mix of good and bad but where overall you can't take anything at face value, how can democracy function? I think a large part of what needs to happen is to give the reigns back to the representatives of the people, and the proper forum in which to work. It's almost assumed that the people are incapable of self-governing and knowing what needs to be know, so in a sort of way the media issue doesn't stand in the way of representative democracy working, so long as the representatives have accurate intelligence at their disposal and the will and means to act on it. Right now they have neither the will nor the means, because there are too many conflicts of interest and various people who have no business being in power. I think it would be wiser to focus on how to clean up the Congress rather than how to clean up the media.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2018, 12:52:41 PM »
I think a large part of what needs to happen is to give the reigns back to the representatives of the people, and the proper forum in which to work. It's almost assumed that the people are incapable of self-governing and knowing what needs to be know, so in a sort of way the media issue doesn't stand in the way of representative democracy working, so long as the representatives have accurate intelligence at their disposal and the will and means to act on it. Right now they have neither the will nor the means, because there are too many conflicts of interest and various people who have no business being in power. I think it would be wiser to focus on how to clean up the Congress rather than how to clean up the media.

I would like to see the number of representatives increase by a factor of 10 or even 50. You would get some more extreme reps from some regions but I feel like there would be a much larger room for moderate reps who have the respect of their community to be elected. I could be wrong on this though - there may not be enough local media coverage left to reasonably inform people of what their local rep is up to. Also having a 4000-20,000 member house of reps may be unwieldy. 435 for the nation plus 2 senators per state doesn't seem like enough to capture the breadth of the nations views.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2018, 01:44:32 PM »
I would like to see the number of representatives increase by a factor of 10 or even 50. You would get some more extreme reps from some regions but I feel like there would be a much larger room for moderate reps who have the respect of their community to be elected. I could be wrong on this though - there may not be enough local media coverage left to reasonably inform people of what their local rep is up to. Also having a 4000-20,000 member house of reps may be unwieldy. 435 for the nation plus 2 senators per state doesn't seem like enough to capture the breadth of the nations views.

It won't matter how many of them there are if they have objectives other than representing the good of the people.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2018, 01:45:35 PM »
I would like to see the number of representatives increase by a factor of 10 or even 50. You would get some more extreme reps from some regions but I feel like there would be a much larger room for moderate reps who have the respect of their community to be elected. I could be wrong on this though - there may not be enough local media coverage left to reasonably inform people of what their local rep is up to. Also having a 4000-20,000 member house of reps may be unwieldy. 435 for the nation plus 2 senators per state doesn't seem like enough to capture the breadth of the nations views.

This might be why the anti-federalists wanted the bulk of decisions made at the state level. There are about 7400 of them (wiki). And why US senators were supposed to get picked by those people.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #65 on: August 07, 2018, 01:47:59 PM »
Larger numbers and smaller constituencies remove the fundraising barrier to election - and reduce the incentive for superpac and other donors.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #66 on: August 07, 2018, 01:58:03 PM »
Larger numbers and smaller constituencies remove the fundraising barrier to election - and reduce the incentive for superpac and other donors.

As a matter of fact I do believe in having a very large ration of representatives to population, so I'm not opposed. But I still think that this alone won't remove the issue of corruption but would rather change the mechanics of how it's implemented. Somehow being in any position of power must never become an exercise in acquiring more power. And one footnote about having more representatives - the more people involved in the system the more the system has to be cooperative as it risks becoming a series of small fiefdoms and cliques where the tyranny of bureaucracy takes over. I wouldn't want to institute this type of system without some safeguards in place first.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #67 on: August 07, 2018, 02:11:41 PM »
Larger numbers and smaller constituencies remove the fundraising barrier to election - and reduce the incentive for superpac and other donors.

As a matter of fact I do believe in having a very large ration of representatives to population, so I'm not opposed. But I still think that this alone won't remove the issue of corruption but would rather change the mechanics of how it's implemented. Somehow being in any position of power must never become an exercise in acquiring more power. And one footnote about having more representatives - the more people involved in the system the more the system has to be cooperative as it risks becoming a series of small fiefdoms and cliques where the tyranny of bureaucracy takes over. I wouldn't want to institute this type of system without some safeguards in place first.

I agree. We've been stuck at 435 for too long, readjusting for a better ratio of constituents to representatives needs to happen gradually. The problem is that all of the 435 know that any increase dilutes their own power so there is no political will to begin the process.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: whats up with all the rallies
« Reply #68 on: August 11, 2018, 12:18:20 PM »
There are other potential root causes that should be investigated. Right now, our current system has Members of Congress spending about half of all their working hours fundraising for their next election - double the number of representatives but don't change the financial dynamics and you may get the same outcome.