Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

lol at the idea that both brief histories of WWI were equally coherent.

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

lol at the idea that both brief histories of WWI were equally coherent.

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

---

I think you're really trying too hard to find some kind of nefarious explanations for the times when Trump is vague or seemingly contradictory.

He can say things like "let's take the guns first, do due process later" and sound like a real populist guy with the best intentions of safety at heart. Meanwhile he KNOWS that a republican house and senate will never ever pass something like that into law. What would be interesting would be to see how Trump adjusts...or if he adjusts....in the event that the Democrats gain power in 2018.

It's a whole new ball game if he's spouting liberal gun control ideas and Pelosi is across the table going "yeah....yeah, let's make that happen"

Yeah, I like that counterfactual. Of course I want to see it play out for other reasons as well, but I hadn't really thought of this one, and it would be cool to be able to test some stuff like your claim above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, I like that counterfactual. Of course I want to see it play out for other reasons as well, but I hadn't really thought of this one, and it would be cool to be able to test some stuff like your claim above.

---

I think it's interesting because there are so many possibilities.

Trump could adjust and retreat right hoping to preserve his voting base.

Trump could not adjust and keep occasionally dropping non-conservative bombshells. From that point, there are even more branching outcomes. Any legislation that gets passed could get touted as a victory for bi-partisanship (think Gingrich-Clinton). Or there could be backlash from conservatives who feel betrayed. Or...it's possible that as Trump moves towards the middle, he wins liberal voters who feel the Dems are going too far left. Or...it's possible that Dems could keep doing what their doing and obstruct anything that comes out of Trumps mouth. Like, Trump could say "let's cure cancer" and dems would say "but doctors would lose jobs!!"

Half-asleep nonsense.

Deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

He can say things like "let's take the guns first, do due process later"

---

He also says a lot of things that are contradictory and hence his policy overall is incoherent. It's not just about sentence construction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

He also says a lot of things that are contradictory and hence his policy overall is incoherent. It's not just about sentence construction.

---

lol, you act like he's the only politician ever to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

lol, you act like he's the only politician ever to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

---

You clearly don't understand what cognitive dissonance is, so probably best not to reference it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You clearly don't understand what cognitive dissonance is, so probably best not to reference it.

---

oh please...enlighten me.

Explain to me how every other politician in the world is just hypocritical, but Trump's contradictions indicate a lack of coherent thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

oh please...enlighten me.

Explain to me how every other politician in the world is just hypocritical, but Trump's contradictions are evidence of incoherent stupidity.

---

Your continued demonstration of ignorance doesn't help your credibility.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort someone feels when their beliefs are contradicted by evidence. The classic response to this is to discount this conflicting evidence (this should be familiar to you in particular).

Trump is demonstrating nothing like this; what he's showing is in fact the opposite - a flaky willingness to change his stated opinion repeatedly, often depending on who is the last person he's spoken to.

I'm gonna go ahead and say I used 'cognitive dissonance' correctly.

Moving on....you seem to be saying that Trump doesn't have very deeply held convictions on a handful of policy issues. Fine. I'm not seeing how that makes him "incoherent"

Quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort someone feels when their beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

---

Not quite. It's the discomfort felt when one simultaneously holds contradictory views. If someone is dismissing evidence, then they are not showing cognitive dissonance, since they reject the view the evidence supports. On the other hand, if you accept the evidence, and still hold the original view that the evidence refutes, now you're showing cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Not quite. It's the discomfort felt when one simultaneously holds contradictory views. If someone is dismissing evidence, then they are not showing cognitive dissonance, since they reject the view the evidence supports. On the other hand, if you accept the evidence, and still hold the original view that the evidence refutes, now you're showing cognitive dissonance.

---

It doesn't really matter that you're wrong here, what matters is neither my definition or the wrong one you provide applies to Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Moving on....you seem to be saying that Trump doesn't have very deeply held convictions on a handful of policy issues. Fine. I'm not seeing how that makes him "incoherent"

---

You need coherence defined for you again? It's logical consistency. Now explain how stating conflicting opinions repeatedly, often within the same minute or two, is consistent.

Actually it's probably murkier than I make it seem.

If someone is dismissing evidence, it could be a defensive reflex. The dismissive attitude may be a result of congitive dissonance.

It depends really if the dismissal of evidence is sincere. If I refuse to believe hard proof of evolution because the Bible tells me otherwise, well so long as I truly believe the evidence is flawed, there's no cognitive dissonance. It's not a question of how compelling the evidence is, more a question of the psychology of the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It doesn't really matter that you're wrong here, what matters is neither my definition or the wrong one you provide applies to Trump.

---

We're all wrong.

No it's very simple. Cognitive dissonance refers to a feeling that arises when one's beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

Some of what you're describing are coping mechanisms for cognitive dissonance, which themselves are not cognitive dissonance.

What you're describing is like saying "Depression is a mental illness that results in low mood. Someone depressed might take prozac. Therefore depression is the act of taking prozac."

Quote:

---

No it's very simple. Cognitive dissonance refers to a feeling that arises when one's beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

---

No this is not accurate. The "mental discomfort" aspect is correct, but it has little to do with evidence, rather being presented with evidence might trigger cognitive dissoance. But not necessarily.

Quote:

---

google - the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

---

Quote:

---

wikipedia - In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values

---

Going back to my evolution analogy... if someone is presenting hard evidence, which I absolutely refute without any mental discomfort, where's the congitive dissoance? That "mental discomfort" is a consequence of an internal battle, knowing that one of the two beliefs held is wrong.

Merely being presented with evidence and being uncomfortable with it, that alone isn't cognitive dissoance. It could be social awkardness at having to debate opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Merely being presented with evidence and being uncomfortable with it, that alone isn't cognitive dissoance. It could be social awkardness at having to debate opinions.

---

Sorry but you're talking complete shit here. It doesn't help your case that you're providing google/wiki definitions. I am providing the one from cognitive psychology.

CD is nothing more or less than the uncomfortable feeling that arises when one's views are contradicted by evidence. It's an unpleasant feeling so people tend to try to reduce and/or eliminate it. Everything that happens after that is a coping mechanism, not the same as cognitive dissonance itself which is no more or less than the uncomfortable feeling.

To further illustrate...

cognition refers to the process of gaining knowledge through thought,
dissonance is a musical term meaning lack of harmony.

So it's a lack of harmony in one's mental learning process. One has to hold contradictory views, not merely feel mental discomfort. There's many reasons why someone might feel mental discomfort. Cognitive dissonance refers to mental discomfort caused by contradictory views, not simply by being presented evidence.

Ok so to poop the religious nut who doesn't want to debate creationism is showing congnitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ok so to poop the religious nut who doesn't want to debate creationism is showing congnitive dissonance.

---

They're demonstrating a coping response to cognitive dissonance. CD is the unpleasant feeling of logical inconsistency that they are trying to reduce/eliminate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

They're demonstrating a coping response to cognitive dissonance.

---

They might be.

Quote:

---

CD is the unpleasant feeling of logical inconsistency that they are trying to reduce/eliminate.

---

Here you make my point. "logical inconsistency"... ie... contradictory views.

If they (sincerely) dismiss the evidence, there's no "logical inconsistency". The religious nut is being consistent, unless deep down he's absorbing the evidence and it is somewhat compelling.

You know what? We're both right, we're just splitting hairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You know what? We're both right, we're just splitting hairs.

---

That's poop's favorite game!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They might be.



Here you make my point. "logical inconsistency"... ie... contradictory views.

If they (sincerely) dismiss the evidence, there's no "logical inconsistency". The religious nut is being consistent, unless deep down he's absorbing the evidence and it is somewhat compelling.

---

But a person cannot hold contradictory views at the same instant in time. They can switch back and forth between views that are logically inconsistent, but whatever their last experienced view is, that's the one they can be said to hold.

The person who holds an irrational view (e.g., flat earthers for the sake of argument), who is then presented with compelling evidence their view is wrong (the earth is round), will experience CD because the evidence conflicts with their view. They might try to reduce that feeling by discounting the evidence, and that would be an example of a coping mechanism used to combat the unpleasant feeling of CD.

In terms of being coherent or not, it's not that a person is somehow trying to believe logically inconsistent views at the same time. That's impossible. Their belief is one or the other at any given moment. The logical incoherence comes when they repeatedly switch back and forth between different beliefs in the absence of compelling evidence.

E.g., If A believes 'X is true', and B comes along and says 'X is false' without providing any evidence for why X is false, then A is being incoherent if they immediately change their tune to 'ok, now i think X is false'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

E.g., If A believes 'X is true', and B comes along and says 'X is false' without providing any evidence for why X is false, then A is being incoherent if they immediately change their tune to 'ok, now i think X is false'.

---

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

---

False. I'm actually stunned that you watched that clip and don't know what Trump's firm, non-contradictory, policy is on minimum wage.

I would say that your statement here is evidence of incompetence and poor comprehension on your part.

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

False. I'm actually stunned that you watched that clip and don't know what Trump's firm, non-contradictory, policy is on minimum wage.

I would say that your statement here is evidence of incompetence and poor comprehension on your part.

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

---

There's no CD here because as usual your argument is not compelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

---

You seem to be better placed to answer this question.

1. In the O'Reilly video, Trump is asked about MW. He waffles a bit about how we need a minimum wage.

2 O'Reilly keeps asking him questions like 'should it be this?' 'but shouldn't it do that?' and Trump basically just goes along with whatever BOR says.

3. Banana believes Trump is a stable genius who must therefore have coherent views on policy.

4. Poop provides evidence that is not the case (the BOR video).

5. Banana dismisses the video evidence with the usual reflexive banana counter-argument 'zomg i can't believe it!' without any justification or rationale whatsoever.

6. Banana's CD gets reduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

There's no CD here because as usual your argument is not compelling.

---

^ symptom of cognitive dissonance

DJT: Minimum wage should be controlled by the states

BOR: What about federal

(dumb question because if all 50 states have an overriding minimum wage, the federal MW doesn't mean shit)

DJT: Fine, I guess we'll have a federal one, even thought it's totally useless and irrelevant, which is why I don't really give a fuck about this question.

BOR: how about 10 bucks

DJT: Fine, whatever.


What's incoherent about that?

The video alleges that Trump has 5 different positions on minimum wage. The graphic at 1:58 of the video lists them

1) Let states decide [they pick whatever wage they want]

this is Trump's clearly articulated view on minimum wage. It's not one of five different positions, it's his only position

2. There does not have to be a federal minimum wage [at all]

This is totally consistent with the previous position. If states set MW, then the fed doesn't need to. I'm not sure why this counts as a separate position. But David Pakman needs his clicks, so here we are.

3. I would leave it, and raise it somewhat

Still totally consistent and coherent. States set the minimum wage, the fed mw is useless. Just because he doesn't say that he's going to go to all of the trouble of formally repealing the federal minimum wage, doesn't mean that he's taken a new position

4. I would set the minimum wage to $10/hour

As noted above, Trump's policy does not include formal repeal of the federal minimum wage. So the federal mw has to be *something*. BOR asked him what it should be, and Trump said it should be $10/hour. We have not strayed from any single policy. We're not filling in blanks. We're not guessing. We're not witnessing incoherent babbling

5. Let the states pick whatever minimum wage they want [makes a federal minimum wage pointless]

I'm wondering why Poop likes to shit on Trump supporters for having to "fill in the blanks" and "guess" what he really means. Meanwhile Mr. Pakman and all his bracketed additions to Trump's actual statements [filling in blanks with guesses] are perfectly fine!!?? El oh el my friend. Anyway....this is just a reiteration of #1, which to me, and every other intelligent person in the universe, demonstrates consistency and coherence.


Seems to me that Mr. Pakman is assuming that Trump's policy of states managing the minimum wage would also include a formal repeal of the federal minimum wage. That's the only way his subsequent statements of preserving the federal minimum would be contradictory. Yet nowhere, anywhere, did Trump articulate anything about repealing the federal minimum wage policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

---

I have a bone to pick with him, because he has a degree in economics, as do I, and he is bad at economics.

Even if Trump seems incoherent to one person, note that many millions of people (including at least 4 people on this forum) find him coherent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Even if Trump seems incoherent to one person, note that many millions of people (including at least 4 people on this forum) find him coherent.

---

Evidence?

Also, it seems like it's more than one person saying he's incoherent.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=w....0.YapBbzYX3nw

Is your perception that people who say (act) like they find him coherent actually don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Is your perception that people who say (act) like they find him coherent actually don't?

---

I don't have that kind of insight into other's thoughts.

But you didn't answer my question - what is the evidence that millions of people find him coherent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

But you didn't answer my question - what is the evidence that millions of people find him coherent?

---

You already have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You already have it.

---

Do you mean because they voted for him? Why does that prove they find him coherent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=w....0.YapBbzYX3nw

---

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you mean because they voted for him? Why does that prove they find him coherent?

---

Do you really think it's possible to be a "babbling idiot" unable to form coherent thought consistently and still be elected President? He gave speeches and rallies daily. A camera was up his ass 20 hours a day. He debated a dozen and a half supremely qualified people. And won.

If you're still gonna cling to this position of 'incoherence', then please explain how it's possible to be babbling idiot and still gain the support of 60 million voters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

---

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration...n-immigration/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...to-masses.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration...n-immigration/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...to-masses.html

---

The first link is 3 years old!! Scott Walker was still in the fucking race then. It's not surprising that the right-wing of the party and it's "never Trump" mantra bought into the anti-Trump rhetoric

The second link you posted....destroys your own argument!!!

Quote:

---

But there may be a good reason why this seeming incoherence hasn't hurt Trump in the Republican run for the presidential nomination: Trump's talk mirrors typical conversation, bolstering his status as an honest outsider.

---

Quote:

---

his conversational style may also help construct an identity for him as authentic, relatable and trustworthy, which are qualities that voters look for in a presidential candidate

---

Quote:

---

Trump's style is different from that of most modern public speakers. He has an especially repetitive style,......Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession:

---

Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp!
Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

How can communication be "incoherent" if it is understood, and resonates, with so many people??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you really think it's possible to be a "babbling idiot" unable to form coherent thought consistently and still be elected President?

---

Did you ever hear of a guy named George W Bush?

Not only is it possible, there's a clear precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

---

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely commenting on his incoherence and not the right.

Fucking genius analysis there bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely finding him incoherent and not the right.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

fyp

---

I'm fine with that too.

He could give a speech in Navajo and the RWM would go 'great speech by the president!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely commenting on his incoherence and not the right.

---

incorrect, your buddy Bill blew that up. Right-wingers jumped on the "incoherent" bandwagon too.

Isn't it funny how it's only the people politically served by incoherence claiming incoherence.

Isn't it funny how it's only people served by coherence claiming coherence, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

incorrect, your buddy Bill blew that up. Right-wingers jumped on the "incoherent" bandwagon too.

---

Funny you mention this, 'cause yesterday you wrote a long analysis of that interview claiming it was coherent (at least I assume you did, I didn't read it). But now when it suits your argument, Bill was showing Trump up as incoherent in that interview.

I'm beginning to suspect you may not be the best person to judge what counts as coherent. Kruger-Dunning effect in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

But now when it suits your argument, Bill was showing Trump up as incoherent in that interview.

---

Ahem........ARE YOU HIGH??

What Bill showed was that conservatives also had an opinion on Trump's coherence that suited their political ends. Nothing Bill posted demonstrates actual incoherence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Kruger-Dunning effect in action.

---

No shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What Bill showed was that conservatives also had an opinion on Trump's coherence that suited their political ends. Nothing Bill posted demonstrates actual incoherence.

---

Bill didn't make any arguments about coherence and I'm not sure where 'posting' comes into it. He simply asked Trump some questions and lead him around several different opinions like a parent leading a child to the bedroom for nap time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Bill didn't make any arguments about coherence and I'm not sure where 'posting' comes into it. He simply asked Trump some questions and lead him around several different opinions like a parent leading a child to the bedroom for nap time.

---

Are we talking about the same Bill?

When I said "your buddy Bill" I was referencing post #444

Who are you talking about? Bill O'Reilly?? See post #434. Actually read it. FYI - plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA can't hear you" is a real shitty debate strategy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Are we talking about the same Bill?

When I said "your buddy Bill" I was referencing post #444

Who are you talking about? Bill O'Reilly?? See post #434. Actually read it. FYI - plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA can't hear you" is a real shitty debate strategy

---

Perhaps be a bit more clear on which Bill you're referring to genius, and maybe you won't be misunderstood. Another small lesson in coherence for you.

Anyways, if your argument is that RWM attacked Trump for being incoherent too, that just goes to show that whoever wants to attack him has an easy way to do so by simply pointing out his incoherence.

As for your post 434 I don't need to read it to know from experience it has a high likelihood of being rubbish laced with ad hominen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

As for your post 434 I don't need to read it to know from experience it has a high likelihood of being rubbish laced with ad hominen.

---

Wow, that cognitive dissonance is really causing you pain. Sorry bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Wow, that cognitive dissonance is really causing you pain. Sorry bro.

---

That argument would have a lot more bite if you hadn't repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of what CD actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp!
Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

How can communication be "incoherent" if it is understood, and resonates, with so many people??

---

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

Build a Wall. What kind of wall for how much money on what time scale? I.e. what is the concrete policy?

Lock her up for what crimes, based on what evidence? Why is POTUS endorsing criminal punishment in advance of a jury trial?
(Calling for justice is fine; he likely knows more than we do about what evidence there is. I.e he may have excellent reasons, but we do not have the information we need to agree or disagree with his position unless we speculate reasons ourselves.)

In other words:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

---

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

---

All it suggests is there are people out there whose attention span won't allow them to digest a sentence longer than three words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

---

Even the FN resident mouth breather is having trouble defending that one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6bhbbwjzU&t=392s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

---

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, and I can't speak for them. But I have remained healthily agnostic about whether or not Trump is really playing 3D chess on this issue. It's totally plausible that he's smart enough to say something like that to be popular, while secretly relying on congress to never actually enact the policy. If you read any of my posts you know that I have reserved final judgement on this until I see how Trump acts in the event the Dems take congress.

On the other hand, it's also entirely possible that Trump doesn't have a highly evolved position on guns, and doesn't really give a fuck. When asked about it during the campaign, his responses on the issue centered around appointing conservative judges. Which is the kind of policy you would have if you really don't give a fuck about guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, and I can't speak for them. But I have remained healthily agnostic about whether or not Trump is really playing 3D chess on this issue. It's totally plausible that he's smart enough to say something like that to be popular, while secretly relying on congress to never actually enact the policy. If you read any of my posts you know that I have reserved final judgement on this until I see how Trump acts in the event the Dems take congress.

On the other hand, it's also entirely possible that Trump doesn't have a highly evolved position on guns, and doesn't really give a fuck. When asked about it during the campaign, his responses on the issue centered around appointing conservative judges. Which is the kind of policy you would have if you really don't give a fuck about guns.

---

I guess you've missed all the times Trump promised to uphold the 2nd amendment. Isn't taking away guns without due process shitting all over that? That's what Tucker whatshisname seems to be having issues with afaict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

---

860 Obama-era business regulations have been removed since Trump's inauguration.

It also means that his appointments are less likely to be career bureaucrats. Examples: Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly. Furthermore it means a commitment to appointing non-activist, conservative judges. And it involves an elimination of the convoluted doublespeak that politicians have been feeding to citizens for decades.

Quote:

---

Build a Wall. What kind of wall for how much money on what time scale? I.e. what is the concrete policy?

---

Estimates for the wall all hover around $25 Billion. Specs for the actual wall can be found online. They have to be a certain height. They have to prevent underground tunnelling. And they have to have anti-scaling measures at the top. I could go find the exact specs, but I think your question is really more about "do specs exist?". And the answer is, yes they do.

There are about a dozen prototypes currently on the border that have undergone rigorous testing by US military special forces. I assume this testing will help refine the specs further. However, the main conclusion from this testing is that the walls work.

Preliminary rumblings suggest that the 30ft height requirement may be unnecessary, which would likely reduce construction costs. Also, there seems to be a preference for walls with see-through measures at eye-level.

You could just google this shit you know.

Quote:

---

Lock her up for what crimes,

---

Purposeful mis-handling of classified information.

Quote:

---

based on what evidence?

---

The conclusions of the FBI

Quote:

---

Why is POTUS endorsing criminal punishment in advance of a jury trial? (Calling for justice is fine...)

---

Well there is enough definitive evidence of guilt that a jury's opinion is somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is calling for Hillary to be deprived of due process. But the evidence is so compelling, and to this date unrefuted, that the outcome of due process....locking her up....is inevitable. It's kinda hard to get a crowd of people to chant "Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, present his findings to congress, bring charges, litigate, convict, and ultimately pass a sentence commensurate with the volume and severity of her crimes". It's just a lot easier to say "lock her up"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Isn't taking away guns without due process shitting all over that?

---

Yup, and if you've read my comments in this thread, I've been shitting all over Trump for saying that.

However, I'm not shitting on him quite as hard as I would be if...

A) I hosted a prime-time political show on a conservative cable station
B) If I was truly sure that Trump was even serious
C) If I thought it was remotely possible that it could ever actually happen with a republican-controlled congress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I guess you've missed all the times Trump promised to uphold the 2nd amendment

---

He's also said he's pro-life. That doesn't mean he really believes it.

The only reason Trump is running as a republican is because the 'meat' of his policies are just republican policies on steroids. Historically, the republicans have been fucking awesome at economics and foreign policy. Those are Trump's strengths as well.

But when it comes to domestic social issues, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he's really a closeted New York liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, but here's some ways I'll try to defend his comment...

a. Just to be popular (but doesn't really mean it)

b. Doesn't care and so said it just because he doesn't care.

---

a) sounds a bit retarded. Who is he trying to gain popularity with? All the people who hate his guts - like they're going to take that seriously as his position, forget everything he's said before (like a week ago about arming teachers) and think 'oh wow I had this Trump guy figured all wrong, he's actually anti-gun?'

b) notwithstanding the fact that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you think a president should care about gun violence in America? Seems like just a wee bit of a contentious issue for the public there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

a) sounds a bit retarded. Who is he trying to gain popularity with?

---

Probably the most intellectually lazy demographic there is.....undecided voters.

Quote:

---

b) notwithstanding the fact that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you think a president should care about gun violence in America? Seems like just a wee bit of a contentious issue for the public there.

---

because NO ONE cares about gun violence in America. It only becomes a contentious issue when CNN can put crying white mothers on television.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

because NO ONE cares about gun violence in America.

---

Right, it's fake news that anyone cares. Because it doesn't affect you therefore it doesn't affect anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Right, it's fake news that anyone cares. Because it doesn't affect you therefore it doesn't affect anyone.

---

I will concede that people care about it exponentially more than they care about Russian collusion. But that's really not saying much.

There are over 600 murders a year, and thousands of shootings, just in the city of Chicago. Did CNN have a televised town hall meeting to publicly humiliate the NRA on behalf of any of those victims??

They ceased "stop and frisk" in NYC, and crime went up. Yet you won't find anyone on the left who thinks that 'stop and frisk' is anything but a policy to allow racist cops to harass black people.

The democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency shortly after the assault weapons ban expired and they didn't do shit.


Other than angry tearful reactions to mass-shootings.....what makes you think that anyone in America is particularly concerned with gun-violence? How many presidential votes do you think were cast in....oh, let's say... the last 10 elections...that hinged on firearm policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The first link is 3 years old!!

---

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The second link you posted....destroys your own argument!!!

---

LOL and what argument is that? You do realize that I posted 2 links, without a single additional word. Maybe step 1 in your recovery from a paranoid shit-slinging trollbot would be to realize that not every comment on the internet is an argument you need to attack. I just found it amusing how even your highly respected 1st grade news sites seem to talk a lot about his incoherence.

But, let's play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The first link is 3 years old!!

---

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

Quote:

---

this seeming incoherence

---

Yes, it does seem incoherent, it seems.

Quote:

---

his conversational style may also help construct an identity for him as authentic, relatable and trustworthy, which are qualities that voters look for in a presidential candidate

---

Yes, his seemingly incoherent conversational style may help in those things, that seems to be their point.

Quote:

---

Trump's style is different from that of most modern public speakers. He has an especially repetitive style,......Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession:

---

Bing bing bong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

860 Obama-era business regulations have been removed since Trump's inauguration.

---

Gotta say this is one of my favorites. You really think the unemployed coal miners were hooraying Trump allowing offshore-drilling, and not ridding the government of cronyism, corporate special interests etc? Drain the swamp is quite a genious phrase in that everyone can freely decide what it means, no wonder Trump was initially so against using that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Gotta say this is one of my favorites. You really think the unemployed coal miners were hooraying Trump allowing offshore-drilling, and not ridding the government of cronyism, corporate special interests etc? Drain the swamp is quite a genious phrase in that everyone can freely decide what it means, no wonder Trump was initially so against using that.

---

Are you suggesting that Trump is not committed to improving the coal industry in America?? If so, you're delusional

You didn't understand a word I said did you?

Edit: But you're kind of making my point. Whatever he actually says, you have conviction that it means what you think it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

---

It means that he's had an unorthodox speaking style for his entire life. It only becomes a problem when it's politically convenient for the observer.

Quote:

---

Yes, it does seem incoherent, it seems.

---

By using the word "seem", it seems that you're agreeing that the perceived "incoherence" is not an objective determination.

Quote:

---

Yes, his seemingly incoherent conversational style may help in those things, that seems to be their point.

---

This sounds like Trump support. If he is speaking in a way that allows him to connect with voters....what's wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Bing bing bong.

---

You really don't think that repetition helps to more firmly communicate a message? You think advertising jingles are catchy by accident??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You didn't understand a word I said did you?

---

That's what happens when you're incoherent. People don't understand you.

Trump doesn't seem to have this problem. People seem to have a fairly solid understanding of most his positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It means that he's had an unorthodox speaking style for his entire life. It only becomes a problem when it's politically convenient for the observer.

---

So you agree he's had a speaking style that to many seems incoherent for a long time now. I guess this is closest to a concession from you I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

By using the word "seem", it seems that you're agreeing that the perceived "incoherence" is not an objective determination.

---

Absolutely. I'd say incoherence is indeed a very subjective experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This sounds like Trump support. If he is speaking in a way that allows him to connect with voters....what's wrong with that?

---

It's an observation into what of his qualities are gaining him popularity. He's certainly a charismatic speaker like I've said many times. Kind of like Hitler. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You really don't think that repetition helps to more firmly communicate a message? You think advertising jingles are catchy by accident??

---

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in different words. That can certainly be intentional and for sure a powerful way to leave a stronger memory imprint, but I can also see why someone can perceive it as rambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

That's what happens when you're incoherent. People don't understand you.

---

If more than one people start feeling that way I'll certainly try to address it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Trump doesn't seem to have this problem. People seem to have a fairly solid understanding of most his positions.

---

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e54P6ul1hdo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Link?

---

https://amp.businessinsider.com/imag...d9-750-375.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

So you agree he's had a speaking style that to many seems incoherent for a long time now. I guess this is closest to a concession from you I've seen.

---

I said unorthodox. Not even close to a concession.

Quote:

---

Absolutely. I'd say incoherence is indeed a very subjective experience.

---

And what does it say if a subjective interpretation is only espoused by your political enemies?

Quote:

---

It's an observation into what of his qualities are gaining him popularity. He's certainly a charismatic speaker like I've said many times. Kind of like Hitler. :D

---

Obama is a charismatic speaker. I guess he's nazi too. Can you please make a "grown-up" argument??

Quote:

---

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in different words. That can certainly be intentional and for sure a powerful way to leave a stronger memory imprint, but I can also see why someone can perceive it as rambling.

---

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in the same words.

In regards to the bolded....that sounds like a concession. Glad I was able to enlighten you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

https://amp.businessinsider.com/imag...d9-750-375.png

---

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

---

Do you really not know what those 538 votes represent?

Or are you just being stubborn for fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And what does it say if a subjective interpretation is only espoused by your political enemies?

---

It says you should be wary about people who sees everyone with differing opinions as enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Obama is a charismatic speaker. I guess he's nazi too. Can you please make a "grown-up" argument??

---

He might be, no way of knowing. You go first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in the same words.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession

---

Mm-hm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

In regards to the bolded....that sounds like a concession. Glad I was able to enlighten you.

---

You mean I didn't already know that repetition can be used to memorize things? I do concede I didn't expect you to claim something that silly. Besides, it would be completely moot to the point of him sounding incoherent to many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you really not know what those 538 votes represent?

Or are you just being stubborn for fun?

---

Sort of, since I don't expect you to change your mind one iota no matter what information tries to enter your brain. Voting for someone implies assumed coherence of the electee's positions, not an actual understanding of them, and the electoral college has an even looser relation to any of that. You'd have a great career in law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

---

rofl helicopters

bananalogic - Trump won the election, therefore he must be coherent. Never mind that he isn't, he must be because he won.

Hey banana, when you voted, do you remember what it said on the election ballot? 'Cause I'm kinda guessing it didn't say "For president, please cast your vote for the candidate you find more coherent."

Coherence really is subjective, isn't it? Perhaps those who find other people incoherent are the ones at fault.

I think banana is making the point that the American voters had a fairly clear idea what Trump's policies were because he got elected.

I don't know what his policies are, not in detail. I would if I spent an hour or two using search engines and taking links.

Quote:

---

bananalogic - Trump won the election, therefore he must be coherent. Never mind that he isn't, he must be because he won.

---

It's fairly sound logic. Would you vote for someone you thought was incoherent? Me neither. So... half the voting public didn't find him incoherent. Either that or they don't give a fuck about coherence. Either way, fit for office etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Coherence really is subjective, isn't it? Perhaps those who find other people incoherent are the ones at fault.

---

Looool.

"Mewanao wermer bluboe."

If you don't understand that, it's your fault not mine. Coccobill understands it, don't you CB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think banana is making the point that the American voters had a fairly clear idea what Trump's policies were because he got elected.

---

I think you're giving the average voter too much credit here for being informed. A fair number of Trump supporters likely were just caught up in a wave of anti-establishment feeling and rabble rousing imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't know what his policies are, not in detail.

---

Me neither. I mean I could tell you what he said recently about such and such. But I doubt it's the same thing he said six months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I would if I spent an hour or two using search engines and taking links.

---

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Quote:

---

Me neither. I mean I could tell you what he said recently about such and such. But I doubt it's the same thing he said six months ago.

---

"doubt"

You don't even know, do you?

Trump's policy is incoherent.

Of course I don't actually know what his policy is. I just know it's incoherent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's fairly sound logic. Would you vote for someone you thought was incoherent? Me neither.

---

You as much as admitted you would since you don't seem to know Trump's policies but still support him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So... half the voting public didn't find him incoherent. Either that or they don't give a fuck about coherence.

---

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Either way, fit for office etc.

---

If by 'fit' you mean 'won' then I agree. By any other definition I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

"doubt"

You don't even know, do you?

---

I know six months ago he was ranting about protecting the 2nd amendment. Then just the other day he said 'take their guns first and due process later'. It's things like that that lead me to doubt his consistency.

Quote:

---

You as much as admitted you would since you don't seem to know Trump's policies but still support him.

---

I only support him in the sense I think he's preferable to the alternative. Would I vote for him? I'm not American. If I were American, I would be able to tell you his policies, and only then would I be able to tell you for certain if I'd vote for him.

I simply don't detest him like you do, and I still think the world dodged a bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I only support him in the sense I think he's preferable to the alternative. Would I vote for him? I'm not American. If I were American, I would be able to tell you his policies, and only then would I be able to tell you for certain if I'd vote for him.

I simply don't detest him like you do, and I still think the world dodged a bullet.

---

Although I doubt they shared your level of paranoia, I suspect a lot of people who voted for him had much the same attitude - not good, but not as bad as the alternative. But that's not the same as saying they appreciated his coherent stance on the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Hey banana, when you voted, do you remember what it said on the election ballot? 'Cause I'm kinda guessing it didn't say "For president, please cast your vote for the candidate you find more coherent."

---

You vote for the candidate that best represents your values and beliefs. how would you know who that is unless the candidate has expressed his values and beliefs coherently enough for you to know whether or not they represent your own

Quote:

---

But that's not the same as saying they appreciated his coherent stance on the issues.

---

Ok but coherence seems to be really important to you, even though we've established it's subjective. What do you expect him to do about your lack of ability to grasp what he's trying to say? Use different words? Then someone else will find him incoherent.

Try harder to find him coherent. Or... stop giving a fuck about how coherent foreign leaders are to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You vote for the candidate that best represents your values and beliefs. how would you know who that is unless the candidate has expressed his values and beliefs coherently enough for you to know whether or not they represent your own

---

Who is 'you'? in this analysis? Do you purport to speak for all voters?