Criticism only makes trump more powerful

srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
It's just a good example of how voter suppression works. It even gets smart people who do all the right things.

As it turned out my vote Sanders wouldn't have mattered.
Click to expand...
You could of wrote in Bernie. What voter suppression? If you're a democrat you could of voted Bernie in the primaries. But you're right, he got wrecked in a landslide. Would of been a waste of a vote
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
HAF2 said:
I have a hard time agreeing with this article because I feel the criticism of trump is necessary. But it's an interesting opinion. A possible explaination to why his base continues to support this enept blow-hard.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/commentary/2017/04/30/criticism-only-makes-trump-more-powerful-watt.html

Yesterday marked one of the first key milestones of the Donald Trump presidency: his first 100 days. It has been a turbulent introduction that has seen the new president break political orthodoxy and upend conventional wisdom.

And yet, 101 days in, the media and political establishment are no closer to understanding that they are witnessing a fundamental shift in the ground underneath them.

After spending a full year gloating about Trump’s impending humiliation at the election polls, the media and Washington elite were stunned to discover that Americans had shunned their wisdom and opted for Trump.

Their initial shock has now given way to a new resistance, which has seen Congress, the judiciary and the media each attempt, in their own ways, to foil the often ham-fisted and haphazard policy advances of the Trump White House.

Members of the establishment believe their resistance is grounded in a rousing defence of democracy, and that they are fighting out of patriotic duty. They have identified Trump’s moves as borderline authoritarian and say that because he won a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton, his mandate should be viewed as specious.

It isn’t quite as noble a fight in the eyes of the millions of Americans who voted to install Trump as president. To them it comes across as churlish, reinforcing their belief that elitist America is willing to go to any lengths to maintain a status quo that simply isn’t working for them.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, and in the shadow of Brexit, I wrote that, with the media and political establishment desperately out of touch with voters, a reckoning was needed.

Six months later, it appears that the resistance to such a reckoning has only hardened.

Every political setback Donald Trump has faced has been trumpeted as yet more evidence that he is unfit to govern. Each one has convinced the establishment that, this time, the American people have finally recognized their foolish mistake in electing him president.

His immigration directives have been blocked by the judiciary. His ramshackle, poorly thought out health-care proposals failed to pass Congress. His administration is mocked for its incessant errors and outright lies in the media.

There have been widespread protests, social media storms and wall-to-wall coverage of Trump’s mistakes and failures.

But just what is it that this reaction demonstrates?

It demonstrates the disconnect between the reality for middle Americans and the reality for the American establishment. After all, despite the gnashing of the establishment’s teeth, those Americans who voted for Trump overwhelmingly think he’s doing a good job.

A recent poll found that, were the election held today, Trump would actually have defeated Clinton in the popular vote. The same poll found that of the voters who had voted Trump, only 2 per cent said they regretted voting for him, with 96 per cent saying that their vote for him had been “the right thing to do.”

Those are hardly numbers reflective of an electorate consumed with buyers’ remorse.

And yet, the tone and tenor of the coverage of President Trump has not shifted in any meaningful way. The media continues to loudly question the legitimacy of his presidency, the reasonableness of his policies and the integrity of his character.

It’s a full-on war against the president.

The problem for many of the president’s critics is that many Americans feel this is actually a war on them. Each attack on Trump is taken as an attack on their own values and beliefs.

At their core, these attacks only serve to further drive Trump supporters into his sphere of influence.

By continuing to engage in this activist, anti-Trump narrative, the establishment is only empowering a president it openly despises.

Let there be no mistake: this is a president who is deeply flawed. He is inconsistent, mendacious, self-aggrandizing and flippant. He does not appear to care about policy so much as he cares about the advancement of his own legacy.

This is a president who should be shedding support minute by minute.

But the establishment stance toward him only serves to solidify his standing among his supporters. We knew this six months ago and yet nothing has changed.

Forget Ivanka; the establishment’s daily criticisms of the president may indeed be his best asset.
Click to expand...
To try get the topic back on track for you.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of what the author says ("Don't criticise Trump") but I can accept that it probably is true that the steadfast opposition to him does seem to have an equal but opposite effect in his supporters.

My opinion based on consideration would be we need the media to keep pointing out his flaws but they need to do it in a little more refined way.

The chicken little effect seems to play into it too, the sky won't fall, at worst Trump will probably just set us back 10 or 15 years...

But when it keeps not falling it seems to vindicate Trump in a bizarre way.

Media should start sticking to objective fact anyway, we don't pay for their opinion or slant, that's a different time slot or at least should be.

Opinion is good and healthy (especially an informed opinion, even one that you don't necessarily agree with) but not as news.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
This is a really good point. All the Bernie supporters are running off of would of, should of could of's.. noone knows what would of happened. Universal health, school and what not.. basically Bernie's whole platform. All Trump would have to do would be run an ad about taxes. Rednecks would be as or more pissed off than they were with Clinton.
Also I doubt he will run in 2020. Whoever makes it into office is going to have to really dedicate some time to cleaning up the mess caused by trump. Basically the same as Obama after Bush.
Click to expand...
So if you have information that came true..what do you call that?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
To try get the topic back on track for you.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of what the author says ("Don't criticise Trump") but I can accept that it probably is true that the steadfast opposition to him does seem to have an equal but opposite effect in his supporters.

My opinion based on consideration would be we need the media to keep pointing out his flaws but they need to do it in a little more refined way.

The chicken little effect seems to play into it too, the sky won't fall, at worst Trump will probably just set us back 10 or 15 years...

But when it keeps not falling it seems to vindicate Trump in a bizarre way.

Media should start sticking to objective fact anyway, we don't pay for their opinion or slant, that's a different time slot or at least should be.

Opinion is good and healthy (especially an informed opinion, even one that you don't necessarily agree with) but not as news.
Click to expand...
:wall::o
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
So if you have information that came true..what do you call that?
Click to expand...
Huh?. Kind of like me saying Bernie wouldn't win the primaries back when because his core supporters were millennials who were still in college and never actually lived in reality. My guess came true! What do you call that?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
Huh?. Kind of like me saying Bernie wouldn't win the primaries back when because his core supporters were millennials who were still in college and never actually lived in reality. My guess came true! What do you call that?
Click to expand...
What do you call true information..what's the word?
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Two elements with an implicitly assumed equal likelihood of selection, selected at random with no repetition or required order have a "2 select 1" chance of selection.

This gives a 50/50 or 2 in 1 chance of selection.
Click to expand...
Greater number of times the coin is flipped, the closer the number is to 50/50.

http://www.basic-mathematics.com/coin-toss-probability.html

If you look at physics and the minute details that differ the heads side from the tales side of the coin, it's closer to 49/51.

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~doug/240a/Coin Flip.htm
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
To try get the topic back on track for you.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of what the author says ("Don't criticise Trump") but I can accept that it probably is true that the steadfast opposition to him does seem to have an equal but opposite effect in his supporters.

My opinion based on consideration would be we need the media to keep pointing out his flaws but they need to do it in a little more refined way.

The chicken little effect seems to play into it too, the sky won't fall, at worst Trump will probably just set us back 10 or 15 years...

But when it keeps not falling it seems to vindicate Trump in a bizarre way.

Media should start sticking to objective fact anyway, we don't pay for their opinion or slant, that's a different time slot or at least should be.

Opinion is good and healthy (especially an informed opinion, even one that you don't necessarily agree with) but not as news.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree whole-heartedly with the criticism of trump. It's a news agency's responsibility to point out his lies, in my opinion.

But it would seem, as this article points out, that the unwavering support of his base only solidifies with people's criticisms of trump.

Do they even watch news that is critical of trump? How do they get their information?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top