Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I think you are overestimating the intelligence of "seemingly smart people". You also overestimate the relevance of facts and knowledge on people's decisions. People, including the seemingly smart ones, are much more emotional and much less rational than you think.

 

Rik

 

I think you are on to something; we are now engaged in a great civil war to test whether rationalism or anti-Enlightenment voodoo will prevail.

 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. - Abraham Lincoln

[Zelandakh]

The more you foreigners dislike Trump, the more Trump must be doing something right.

You really think that alienating people from the USA's closest ally (UK) is good for your country? You have a very strange view of the world when you describe this as "doing something right".

 

What exactly has Trump achieved on North Korea and Iran? China is paying lip service with respect to North Korea while the trade negotiations take place. If they can get a better deal by talking tough and doing nothing, they will laugh all the way to the bank. Trump's essentially meaningless rhetoric on Iran is meanwhile threatening to destroy the upcoming election for moderate groups, something the EU is desperately trying to avoid. I am sure it plays well to a US audience led by the nose from Breitbart but in the real world the end result is likely to be bad for the West rather than positive.

 

The only sources I could find when googling VA scandal were right wing ones so I am guessing this is another made-up issue that someone from Trump's team has created a report on. Sure, whatever. I am sure his cronies will report what a super, wonderful job he has done at some stage down the line.

 

The last line is a joke. Even Trump dropped that after the election. It was more "alternative facts" (ie outright lies) said in order to try and win the election. I am quite sure that the Clintons have done many things to raise money. I am equally sure that for every grey area they have used for that purpose, Donald Trump has done the same or worse 10 times over. The main difference is that Trump has actually had cases that reached court whereas the Clintons only have to deal with right wing propaganda on the subject. I am not what you could call a fan of Hillary but for a Trump supporter to describe her as a crook is irony at its finest.

[Winstonm]

Yes, the media has been bashing Trump ever since Trump announced his candidacy for president. Roast are normally reserved for friends. Obviously Trump and the media are not friends.

 

Describing an idiot as an idiot is fair and balanced reporting; to bash Trump, reporters do not have to make up stories but simply report what he says and what he does.

[Winstonm]

You really think that alienating people from the USA's closest ally (UK) is good for your country? You have a very strange view of the world when you describe this as "doing something right".

 

What exactly has Trump achieved on North Korea and Iran? China is paying lip service with respect to North Korea while the trade negotiations take place. If they can get a better deal by talking tough and doing nothing, they will laugh all the way to the bank. Trump's essentially meaningless rhetoric on Iran is meanwhile threatening to destroy the upcoming election for moderate groups, something the EU is desperately trying to avoid. I am sure it plays well to a US audience led by the nose from Breitbart but in the real world the end result is likely to be bad for the West rather than positive.

 

The only sources I could find when googling VA scandal were right wing ones so I am guessing this is another made-up issue that someone from Trump's team has created a report on. Sure, whatever. I am sure his cronies will report what a super, wonderful job he has done at some stage down the line.

 

The last line is a joke. Even Trump dropped that after the election. It was more "alternative facts" (ie outright lies) said in order to try and win the election. I am quite sure that the Clintons have done many things to raise money. I am equally sure that for every grey area they have used for that purpose, Donald Trump has done the same or worse 10 times over. The main difference is that Trump has actually had cases that reached court whereas the Clintons only have to deal with right wing propaganda on the subject. I am not what you could call a fan of Hillary but for a Trump supporter to describe her as a crook is irony at its finest.

 

I am sure there is a difference between the populist Trump supporter and the alt-right Trump supporter as the former will find disappointment on top of disappointment discovering that the populism Trump claimed was empty lies, and instead he is a nepotistic oligarch who craves totalitarian power. As this truth slowly comes to light to them, Trump's support will plummet and I wouldn't be surprised to see within 2 years his approval ratings in the teens or low twenties.

 

The benchmark for Trump will be the midterms, and that does bring up one positive concerning Trump: the Democratic base will stay so anti-Trump hyped that the turnout will be huge; if the Democratic party can somehow find it's footing by reclaiming its traditional populist role as guardians of the middle class and labor, the midterms could get really ugly for the Republicans.

 

At least we must hope so as the global nationalism movement is a retelling of a sad and sorry time in human history - it must be stopped quickly before people like Jogs agree to allow someone like Trump unlimited power in order to "stop the carnage of the elite left."

 

Turkey voted to increase Erdogan's power. To say it can't happen here in the U.S. is indeed elitist arrogance.

[barmar]

Almost every article in which the media do not use the terms "con" and "liar" are showing a deference to him that he does not deserve. Every article that put the honesty of Trump on an equal footing with that of Hilary or Obama was showing a deference that was beyond the realms of good journalism. The truth is that the press would have crucified any career politician that acted the way DT has. That they have not done so thus far is a deference that is, quite frankly, nauseating to people outside of the right wing bubble within the USA (plus one small part of Mexico I guess).

I think they simply realize that antagonizing him is not productive to trying to report the news. We're stuck with him as President, and while they might not respect the person, they have to respect the office. Calling him names will just play into his narrative of the "lying mainstream media". Taking the high road, and simply fact-checking him, is their best approach.

 

And they don't need to do it, we have Samantha, Trevor, John, and Stephen doing it for them.

[Winstonm]

I think they simply realize that antagonizing him is not productive to trying to report the news. We're stuck with him as President, and while they might not respect the person, they have to respect the office. Calling him names will just play into his narrative of the "lying mainstream media". Taking the high road, and simply fact-checking him, is their best approach.

 

And they don't need to do it, we have Samantha, Trevor, John, and Stephen doing it for them.

 

I disagree in this respect. There is nothing wrong - after, say, his repeated claims this past weekend about Obama's wiretaps - of using this kind of language: "the President repeated his lie that Obama wiretapped him". That is simply using plain language. It is does not show disrespect to the office or to Trump - it is just reporting facts. He lies.

[ldrews]

This, from Politico, shows deference for a Trump lie:

 

 

This is not a Trump "allegation" rather a Trump fantasy he continues to lie about. My statement lacks deference.

 

Excuse me, but that was just a straight factual reporting of what transpired. Are you telling me that telling the straight facts is deference? Then no deference must be not telling the straight facts, known as slanted reporting or "lying". Are you urging the media to lie? (show no deference)

[Winstonm]

Excuse me, but that was just a straight factual reporting of what transpired. Are you telling me that telling the straight facts is deference? Then no deference must be not telling the straight facts, known as slanted reporting or "lying". Are you urging the media to lie? (show no deference)

 

Making it sound as if Trump's nutcase lie could instead be a reasonable assertion shows deference by not pointing out the embarrassing truth.

[ldrews]

Making it sound as if Trump's nutcase lie could instead be a reasonable assertion shows deference by not pointing out the embarrassing truth.

 

I am not interested in a reporter trying to tell me what the "truth" is or isn't. I want the facts, not opinions. If the reporter has additional facts I would like him/her to present them and relate them to the topic under discussion. But it is sad when intelligent people like you do not demand rigor in factual reporting and begin to accept and promote opinion as "truth".

[Winstonm]

I am not interested in a reporter trying to tell me what the "truth" is or isn't. I want the facts, not opinions. If the reporter has additional facts I would like him/her to present them and relate them to the topic under discussion. But it is sad when intelligent people like you do not demand rigor in factual reporting and begin to accept and promote opinion as "truth".

 

It is fact that Trump lied about Obama ordering a wiretap of Trump tower. You don't seem to like that fact. Tough.

[kenberg]

It is fact that Trump lied about Obama ordering a wiretap of Trump tower. You don't seem to like that fact. Tough.

 

 

If President Trump. or anyone, said that I robbed bank and shot the teller I hope that a newspaper would either not report that statement, since there is no truth to it, or if it reported it I hope they would also say that there is no known evidence to support such a statement. In the case of the wiretap, it certainly is a serious allegation by the current president against a former president so it should be reported that Trump made the allegation. It then seems obvious that at the very least the paper needs to say that this allegation has been made several times, absolutely no evidence has been offered by Trump to support this allegation, various people of high standing, by no means all of them Democrats, have said that they know of no evidence to support the allegation, and so on.

 

Of course the problem is that this plays the DT game of hyping up something that has no basis in fact, getting everyone worked up, then pulling the rug with a big ha ha, effectively saying "Ha, got you going on that, ha ha ha". Tiresome is woefully inadequate to describe this.

 

Should the newspaper say he lied? This gets tricky. A person is an alleged bank robber until he is convicted, even if the is caught on camera. At the personal level I cannot recall the last time I called someone a liar. But from time to time I say "I don't believe that". The difference is clear. I am an authority on whether I do or do not believe something. Proving someone to be a liar, adequately so that it will withstand a lawsuit, might be harder. In the Watergate days someone asked Sam Ervin if the report of the Senate Watergate Committee would declare that Nixon was a crook. Nixon had famously declared that he was not a crook. Ervin's response was something like this: If a painter paints a picture of a horse, correct in every detail, he can then label the picture "horse" or he can leave it unlabeled and trust that anyone can recognizes a horse when he sees one.

 

The Trump style has been on display for a long time. His supporters say that what he says doesn't matter, only what he does matters. So pretty much everyone, supporters and opponents alike, agree that he just shoots off his mouth without regard for facts. Should we then call him a horse? Or just trust people to recognize a horse when they see one.

[y66]

From Alliances Are Hard, Part 378, South Korea Edition by Amanda Taub and Max Fisher:

 

President Trump’s seemingly accidental provocation of a low-level crisis with South Korea, which has politicians and citizens openly questioning American commitments, obscures a deeper truth.

 

The alliance between the United States and South Korea was already heading for turmoil before Mr. Trump’s comments. He has deepened existing problems, but they would exist without him.

 

It’s worth explaining those problems, to show both why Mr. Trump’s comments have proved so disruptive and why, whatever his actions, there’s real reason to worry about the long-term prospects of the American-South Korean alliance.

 

The fundamental problem is North Korea, whose missile and nuclear programs put growing pressure on the alliance.

 

With every year that passes, North Korea poses a more credible nuclear threat to South Korea, which forces it to choose between escalating its deterrence — and accepting a higher level of risk to maintain the status quo — or accommodating the North.

 

Either option strains the alliance. The former requires the Americans, too, to accept that heightened risk. The latter is a strain because, in the past, the surest way for South Korea to accommodate the North has been by distancing itself from the United States.

 

At the same time, the alliance is becoming costlier for the United States. North Korea is quite clear that it is pursuing the capability to, in case of a war, launch nuclear strikes first against the tens of thousands of American troops in South Korea and Guam, and then threaten mainland American cities with an intercontinental ballistic missile, forcing the United States to stand down.

 

American leaders, and voters, will one day face a simple choice. Do they accept the threat to thousands of American lives in order to guarantee South Korea’s protection? Is it worth it, in the parlance of the Cold War, to promise to give up Guam or even Seattle to the defense of Seoul and Busan?

 

North Korea is apparently hoping that, with enough pressure, the United States will eventually answer “no,” instead accepting a grand bargain in which North Korea freezes its weapons programs and the United States reduces its commitment to South Korea.

 

That is North Korea’s ultimate goal, a number of experts have told us they believe, and what Pyongyang most likely sees as its only option for long-term survival.

 

At first, that sounded crazy to us. Why would the United States ever abandon an ally like that? But then Joshua Pollack, the editor of The Nonproliferation Review, reminded us about Taiwan.

 

From 1955 to 1979, the United States and Taiwan had a mutual defense treaty, which means the United States pledged to defend Taiwan much as it does with South Korea. It was a strong alliance build on political ties, migration of Taiwanese to the United States and, most of all, opposition to Communist-led China, Taiwan’s only real threat.

 

But in 1972, President Richard Nixon went to China. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter annulled the treaty and even suspended American diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, all to cut a deal to establish formal diplomatic relations with China.

 

Mr. Pollack says he believes North Korea is designing its own ambitions around that episode, though with the more modest goal of partial American withdrawal from South Korea.

 

So when Mr. Trump says, for instance, that he might like to meet with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, or that South Korea might have to provide more for its own defense, he is exacerbating existing anxieties that the United States might one day cut a deal to withdraw. But he didn’t create those anxieties.

 

Again, we’re not saying that North Korea is necessarily going to get its wish here. This is a long-shot strategy. But the mere possibility creates fear of something called decoupling, in which two allies split. Ankit Panda, a senior editor for The Diplomat, wrote this week on Mr. Trump’s troubles with South Korea, “Never before has the atmosphere been so primed for a possibility of a major decoupling crisis.”

 

In his article, Mr. Panda goes into greater depth on this risk, including how it might also affect the American alliance with Japan. In the coming year or so, whatever happens, expect to hear this again.

[PassedOut]

The Trump style has been on display for a long time. His supporters say that what he says doesn't matter, only what he does matters. So pretty much everyone, supporters and opponents alike, agree that he just shoots off his mouth without regard for facts. Should we then call him a horse? Or just trust people to recognize a horse when they see one.

Either way, I find this situation most unsatisfactory. It's not just that Trump represents our country to the world, but that many people here actually support his way of doing so. I'm not angry about it -- just sad to see the devaluation of integrity.

[Al_U_Card]

If President Trump. or anyone, said that I robbed bank and shot the teller I hope that a newspaper would either not report that statement, since there is no truth to it, or if it reported it I hope they would also say that there is no known evidence to support such a statement. In the case of the wiretap, it certainly is a serious allegation by the current president against a former president so it should be reported that Trump made the allegation. It then seems obvious that at the very least the paper needs to say that this allegation has been made several times, absolutely no evidence has been offered by Trump to support this allegation, various people of high standing, by no means all of them Democrats, have said that they know of no evidence to support the allegation, and so on.

 

Of course the problem is that this plays the DT game of hyping up something that has no basis in fact, getting everyone worked up, then pulling the rug with a big ha ha, effectively saying "Ha, got you going on that, ha ha ha". Tiresome is woefully inadequate to describe this.

 

Should the newspaper say he lied? This gets tricky. A person is an alleged bank robber until he is convicted, even if the is caught on camera. At the personal level I cannot recall the last time I called someone a liar. But from time to time I say "I don't believe that". The difference is clear. I am an authority on whether I do or do not believe something. Proving someone to be a liar, adequately so that it will withstand a lawsuit, might be harder. In the Watergate days someone asked Sam Ervin if the report of the Senate Watergate Committee would declare that Nixon was a crook. Nixon had famously declared that he was not a crook. Ervin's response was something like this: If a painter paints a picture of a horse, correct in every detail, he can then label the picture "horse" or he can leave it unlabeled and trust that anyone can recognizes a horse when he sees one.

 

The Trump style has been on display for a long time. His supporters say that what he says doesn't matter, only what he does matters. So pretty much everyone, supporters and opponents alike, agree that he just shoots off his mouth without regard for facts. Should we then call him a horse? Or just trust people to recognize a horse when they see one.

IIRC all those FBI investigations into Russian mobsters "residing" in TT did involve surveillance of all kinds. Perhaps not how Trump's statement was intended (to deceive for effect) but still enough truth to qualify for a Colbertian sort of truthiness? ;)

[Al_U_Card]

Either way, I find this situation most unsatisfactory. It's not just that Trump represents our country to the world, but that many people here actually support his way of doing so. I'm not angry about it -- just sad to see the devaluation of integrity.

Buffonery is one thing but that PBS documentary last night about the drone war and its toll on operators as well as victims was dismaying if not a big surprise. The US will end up reaping what is is sowing and will not likely enjoy those fruits.

[Winstonm]

If President Trump. or anyone, said that I robbed bank and shot the teller I hope that a newspaper would either not report that statement, since there is no truth to it, or if it reported it I hope they would also say that there is no known evidence to support such a statement. In the case of the wiretap, it certainly is a serious allegation by the current president against a former president so it should be reported that Trump made the allegation. It then seems obvious that at the very least the paper needs to say that this allegation has been made several times, absolutely no evidence has been offered by Trump to support this allegation, various people of high standing, by no means all of them Democrats, have said that they know of no evidence to support the allegation, and so on.

 

Of course the problem is that this plays the DT game of hyping up something that has no basis in fact, getting everyone worked up, then pulling the rug with a big ha ha, effectively saying "Ha, got you going on that, ha ha ha". Tiresome is woefully inadequate to describe this.

 

Should the newspaper say he lied? This gets tricky. A person is an alleged bank robber until he is convicted, even if the is caught on camera. At the personal level I cannot recall the last time I called someone a liar. But from time to time I say "I don't believe that". The difference is clear. I am an authority on whether I do or do not believe something. Proving someone to be a liar, adequately so that it will withstand a lawsuit, might be harder. In the Watergate days someone asked Sam Ervin if the report of the Senate Watergate Committee would declare that Nixon was a crook. Nixon had famously declared that he was not a crook. Ervin's response was something like this: If a painter paints a picture of a horse, correct in every detail, he can then label the picture "horse" or he can leave it unlabeled and trust that anyone can recognizes a horse when he sees one.

 

The Trump style has been on display for a long time. His supporters say that what he says doesn't matter, only what he does matters. So pretty much everyone, supporters and opponents alike, agree that he just shoots off his mouth without regard for facts. Should we then call him a horse? Or just trust people to recognize a horse when they see one.

 

You certainly make a good point, Ken, and I am not entirely opposed to your views; however, I think in Trump's case the argument can be made that his lifetime achievement award of being a serial liar and his repeated use of the same fabrication tactics since taking over the WH has created an anti-deference league of his own making.

 

I really don't care how he is called a liar as long as it is explicitly shown that he is. In the case of the wiretap claim, it would be sufficient to say about DT that he is repeating a totally fabricated story he heard or read from on a fake news site.

 

The reason this is critical is that his hardcore supporters don't care that he is a serial liar, but civilization as a whole needs him labeled a liar, needs to cling to decorum and civility in order to prosper and thrive, as without the decorum and civility that gives the sense of oneness to a society we devolve into beastly circles of savage tribes howling at the moon.

[barmar]

Most news organizations have on many occasions referred to Trump's wiretapping allegations as being unfounded, and some have occasionally used their word "lie".

 

One problem with the word "lie" is that it refers to a deliberate and knowing telling of a falsehood. If someone is deluded and/or misinformed, and as a result has an incorrect belief, it's not really a lie. So calling Trump a liar is a much stronger statement than saying that there's no evidence for what he's saying. While we in the general public are certainly entitled to our opinion about his beliefs and motives, responsible news organizations can reasonably feel that they need more proof to use this word.

 

For instance, when Trump claimed that his Electoral College win was the biggest since Reagan, I suspect he actually believed it. Lots of superlatives were used when he won the election (mostly because everyone was surprised at the size of his win), he misunderstood, and never bothered to look it up.

 

Of course, when making allegations of serious, criminal misconduct, one should be more dilligent. If he's not deliberately lying, then he's being grossly irresponsible.

[Winstonm]

Most news organizations have on many occasions referred to Trump's wiretapping allegations as being unfounded, and some have occasionally used their word "lie".

 

One problem with the word "lie" is that it refers to a deliberate and knowing telling of a falsehood. If someone is deluded and/or misinformed, and as a result has an incorrect belief, it's not really a lie. So calling Trump a liar is a much stronger statement than saying that there's no evidence for what he's saying. While we in the general public are certainly entitled to our opinion about his beliefs and motives, responsible news organizations can reasonably feel that they need more proof to use this word.

 

For instance, when Trump claimed that his Electoral College win was the biggest since Reagan, I suspect he actually believed it. Lots of superlatives were used when he won the election (mostly because everyone was surprised at the size of his win), he misunderstood, and never bothered to look it up.

 

Of course, when making allegations of serious, criminal misconduct, one should be more dilligent. If he's not deliberately lying, then he's being grossly irresponsible.

 

Characterizing Trump's Obama wiretapping claim as an "allegation" lends an undeserved credence to the claim as an allegation may be true. It is not necessary to call someone a liar to show that they are indeed a liar.

 

The New Yorker shows how to do this:

 

Trump has never gone out of his way to conceal the essence of his relationship to the truth. In 1980, when he was about to announce plans to build Trump Tower, a 58-story edifice on Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, he coached his architect before meeting with a group of reporters. ‘Give them the old Trump bullshit. Tell them it’s going to be a million square feet, 68 stories.’ This is the brand Trump has created for himself – that of an unprincipled, cocky, value-free con who’ll insult, stiff, or betray anyone to achieve his purposes. But what was once a parochial amusement is now a national and global peril. Trump flouts truth and liberal values so brazenly that he undermines the country he’s been elected to serve and the stability he’s pledged to ensure. His bluster creates a generalized anxiety such that the president of the United States appears scarcely more reliable than any of the world’s autocrats. Trump thinks out loud, and is incapable of reflection. He’s unserious, unfocussed, and, at times, it seems, unhinged.

 

Or, as New Republic shows, Trump can be absolved of lying and still be shown as what he really is:

 

Yet the increasingly frequent tendency of Trump’s critics to label him a liar is wrongheaded. Trump is something worse than a liar. He is a bullshit artist. In his 2005 book On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, emeritus philosophy professor at Princeton University, makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting—one that is extremely useful for understanding the pernicious impact that Trump has on public life. Frankfurt’s key observation is that the liar, even as he or she might spread untruth, inhabits a universe where the distinction between truth and falsehood still matters. The bullshitter, by contrast, does not care what is true or not. By his or her bluffing, dissimulation, and general dishonesty, the bullshit artist works to erase the very possibility of knowing the truth. For this reason, bullshit is more dangerous than lies, since it erodes even the possibility of truth existing and being found.

[jogs]

You really think that alienating people from the USA's closest ally (UK) is good for your country? You have a very strange view of the world when you describe this as "doing something right".

 

You don't represent the views of the majority of the British people. The common people voted for Brexit.

[barmar]

Characterizing Trump's Obama wiretapping claim as an "allegation" lends an undeserved credence to the claim as an allegation may be true. It is not necessary to call someone a liar to show that they are indeed a liar.

allegation:

A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

That seems to be an accurate characterization of Trump's claims about the wiretapping.

[Winstonm]

allegation:

 

That seems to be an accurate characterization of Trump's claims about the wiretapping.

 

 

What is ALLEGATION?

The assertion, declaration, or statement of a party to an action, made in a pleading, setting out what he expects to prove.

(Black's Law Dictionary)

 

I think it is bending over backwards - or showing deference - when someone simply repeats some absurd nonsense he heard on The Alex Jones Show, and you legitimize his claim by calling it an allegation. Others may disagree with me, and that is fine.

[Winstonm]

You don't represent the views of the majority of the British people. The common people voted for Brexit.

 

I upvoted you for making two complete sentences that related to each other; however, it is an error to think the results of one election represents the will of all the people, or even a majority.

[Zelandakh]

You don't represent the views of the majority of the British people. The common people voted for Brexit.

What does a vote for (or against for that matter) Brexit have to do with the concepts that you answered - that describing the alienation of your cloest ally as "doing something right" is strange? As Winston wrote, it is nice that you have managed to write two sentences that are legible and fit together but perhaps we could also try to create sentences that refer to the subject at hand next time too?

[Trinidad]

You don't represent the views of the majority of the British people. The common people voted for Brexit.

You don't represent the views of the majority of any people. The common people don't jog.

 

I really don't know what the two have to do with each other. The fact that the majority of a people did one thing does not mean that Zel doesn't represent their opinion on an entirely different thing.

 

You are saying that since Zel (supposedly, I didn't check) was a Bremainer, he is not allowed to state anything anymore, e.g. that the British like fish and chips.

 

If you sincerely think that makes sense, I would suggest that you don't represent the views of the majority of the US people.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

The relative margin for Hillary over Trump (~51.1% from the people who voted for one of the two candidates) was similar to Leave over Remain (~51.9%). I would say neither difference is huge and saying that one or another outcome was "the views/will of the (common) people" or similar framings is naive.