Leo

Well-known member
Is it really such a paradigm shift though? It's not like we really believe that every other politician tells the truth? It's his disdain for keeping up the pretence that's the problem right?

Echoing vimothy's recent thoughts, isn't he just disrespecting institutions that aren't really considered worthy of respect by many liberals anyway?

trump said that line in "the art of the deal", published in 1987, so i guess that makes him a long-time con man.

i get what you're saying (and know how the real world works) but also refuse to give in and say "ah, fuck it, everyone else is lying, i give up, truth no longer matters." call me naive but morals are morals, people either have them or they don't. if people don't, then they can try to justify why they don't need them anymore but those people are still amoral, and that still matters. is knowingly lying now simply viewed as "just disrespecting institutions"? and who's to judge which ones "aren't really worthy of respect" anymore?
 

comelately

Wild Horses
trump said that line in "the art of the deal", published in 1987, so i guess that makes him a long-time con man.

i get what you're saying (and know how the real world works) but also refuse to give in and say "ah, fuck it, everyone else is lying, i give up, truth no longer matters." call me naive but morals are morals, people either have them or they don't. if people don't, then they can try to justify why they don't need them anymore but those people are still amoral, and that still matters. is knowingly lying now simply viewed as "just disrespecting institutions"? and who's to judge which ones "aren't really worthy of respect" anymore?

Well the line was ghostwritten, but yeah.

My point is that you are doing the 'moralised account of public life' thing - people have been disrespecting the truth for ages, Trump just does it more openly. Is that really such a big difference?

Fair enough if you refuse to give in, but you're the Last Man basically.

The Thick of It began in 2005, and Stephen Byers (for example) happened even earlier than that. This stuff is not new, and is practised by plenty on the more academic left too for that matter.
 

Leo

Well-known member
no worries, i was brought up watching watergate unfold on the nightly news, i have no illusions about politicians in particular or mankind in general. ;)
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member

Very good. Hopefully it's bit of a morale boost to those trying to keep Trump and the GOP in check; if you make enough of a fuss you can effect positive change.

My one gripe is people saying Trump criticised the decision. Here are his tweets:

"With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!"

It seems to me that he's criticising the inopportune timing rather than the substance of the decision.
 

vimothy

yurp
But it would be strange if they used an economically populist, self-interested isolationist agenda to further a conservatism that is largely antithetical to it. They didn't, however; they're just trying to make the best of it -- some more successfully than others -- after their base disregarded them and nominated Trump and (even more unbelievably) he went on to win the presidency. What other choice do they have?
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
But it would be strange if they used an economically populist, self-interested isolationist agenda to further a conservatism that is largely antithetical to it. They didn't, however; they're just trying to make the best of it -- some more successfully than others -- after their base disregarded them and nominated Trump and (even more unbelievably) he went on to win the presidency. What other choice do they have?

Even with the protectionism I wouldn’t classify Trump as an economic populist. Huge tax cuts for the rich (especially the top 1% and 0.1%) with much smaller tax cuts for lower and middle income earners and even tax increases for a large portion of the middle class and single parents. Deregulating banks. Public spending cuts, funding caps on medicaid. Some of the popular components of Obamacare may be repealed.

His trade pick "is considered to have deep roots with the Republican establishment":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38499281
 

comelately

Wild Horses
Of course I acknowledge that this isn't optimal methodology, but nonetheless I do think this suggests that the idea that "they're all liars" and "they're all as bad as each other" just isn't accurate.

http://m.motherjones.com/files/blog_who_lies_more.jpg


Well there's a big difference between those two statements; the data you present does indeed demonstrate that 'they're all liars' is indeed true. Sanders seems not 'guilty' of 'pants on fire' but about 30% of his statements are pretty much false with another 20% being only half true. That's pretty bad. From what I can tell 'The Pants On Fire' level does not actually in practice indicate what you might infer from that (from what I can tell, the difference between 'false' and 'pants on fire' is the blatantness of the falseness, not a prediction of intention/knowledge per se - there's a certain irony there if you're looking carefully).

Sure, it also shows that they're not all as bad as eachother when it comes to lying. But if you think it's 'ok' to lie 2% of the time, then why is it bad to lie a bigger % of the time? Is there a qualitative difference there? I'm not saying there's not, but I am suggesting there is a paucity of thinking regarding exactly what that difference might be, as your conflation of two very different claims demonstrates in my view.
 
Last edited:

firefinga

Well-known member
Even with the protectionism I wouldn’t classify Trump as an economic populist. Huge tax cuts for the rich (especially the top 1% and 0.1%) with much smaller tax cuts for lower and middle income earners and even tax increases for a large portion of the middle class and single parents. Deregulating banks. Public spending cuts, funding caps on medicaid. Some of the popular components of Obamacare may be repealed.

His trade pick "is considered to have deep roots with the Republican establishment":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38499281

Trump said what was needed to get elected (meaning bring in the majorities in the states where it counted) - that was mostly "economic populist" rhetorics. He now is erecting a kleptocracy and the Republicans are fine with all of this. That's domestic/economic "Realpolitik". Is anybody who has some understanding of politics really surprised?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Huge tax cuts for the rich (especially the top 1% and 0.1%) with much smaller tax cuts for lower and middle income earners and even tax increases for a large portion of the middle class and single parents. Deregulating banks. Public spending cuts, funding caps on medicaid.

I think things could get really ugly (well, uglier) in a year or two, when it becomes clear that the majority of the overwhelmingly white working/middle-class Americans who voted for Trump are materially worse off than they were under Obama, meaning that all Trump will still have 'going for him' (so to speak) is his racism/xenophobia.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
I think things could get really ugly (well, uglier) in a year or two, when it becomes clear that the majority of the overwhelmingly white working/middle-class Americans who voted for Trump are materially worse off than they were under Obama, meaning that all Trump will still have 'going for him' (so to speak) is his racism/xenophobia.

Very likely, but well executed already during the George W. Bush years. Trump will likely intensify scapegoating, blaming whoever is the easiest target. My bet is on = "the liberal elite"
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
No doubt, but at some point even the densest person is going to twig that rising taxes and eviscerated public services can't be blamed on Mexicans and Muslims.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
No doubt, but at some point even the densest person is going to twig that rising taxes and eviscerated public services can't be blamed on Mexicans and Muslims.

Nothing easier than that: illegal Mexicans means more police to keep them in check - more police requires more taxes. Muslims are a constant terrorist threat, more law enforcement needed, only doable with higher taxes.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Hmm, perhaps I'm underestimating how easily dupeable people are. I suppose we've already seen that to some extent in the UK. But I'd like to think there is some limit, even if it's one imposed by Trump's own policies - e.g., if his famous wall ever does get built, continuing to blame economic problems on illegal immigrants will amount to an admission either that the wall was a complete waste of time and money because undocumented people are still somehow getting in, or that illegal immigration was never the main problem in the first place.

In a sense, I hope something like that happens in the UK when we eventually leave the EU, because then our government will no longer be able to blame Brussels and Strasbourg for all our socioeconomic woes.
 
Last edited:

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
I think things could get really ugly (well, uglier) in a year or two, when it becomes clear that the majority of the overwhelmingly white working/middle-class Americans who voted for Trump are materially worse off than they were under Obama, meaning that all Trump will still have 'going for him' (so to speak) is his racism/xenophobia.

It wouldn't surprise me some of his policies prove to be a short term boon for the economy, with the negative impacts only manifesting later after the midterms. Also look at how the media has reacted to Carrier and Ford, that will presumably affect public opinion.
 
Last edited:
Top