Why Does Trump Embarrass Himself Embracing QANON Madness?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   Ok, conservatives don't try to tell me this is just another story concocted by the "liberal press" or the "Deep State". The story is everywhere with the exception of the bonafide rightwing rags.
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/trump-openly-emb … 12440.html
   
   Going into the mind of Donald Trump, he looked favorably upon the cult early on because as he says "they like me".
   
   Why would you allow yourself to even remotely be associated with a crazy cult like that and claim to be a leader on a global scale?
   
   Donald Trump really does not believe in anything short of a delusion of grandeur for himself, and a latent threat to the establishment to cease investigation into his lawlessness or else members of his Qanon cult supporters may threaten to retaliate? Is it just another veiled threat?
   
   Perhaps Republicans may need to think again about the star that they are hitching their hopes upon. Is the man mad?
   
   As a Democrat, any chance to dilute the general Republican brine is welcome news. You all may have to reconsider what an endorsement by Donald Trump actually means.
   The helter skelter that results will have Republicans looking at other candidates as alternatives.
   
   I forget who specifically said this about Trump as an excerpt from a "tell all" sort of memoir.
   
   "It's not that Donald Trump does not know the difference between Right and wrong, it is just that he always does the wrong thing."

   replyreport
   1. 99

      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yet another case of TDS. Is this more to your taste?
      
      https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Beast-Don … amp;sr=8-6

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         So, Doc, does the man have to literally have horns and a pitchfork before you can actually discredit him? That is what conservatives are like with Trump, loyalty, no, more like fealty, before acknowledging the truth.
         
         How do you spin Trump and Qanon with TDS?
         
         As long as he is conservative, it ok to be a virtual pig otherwise? This is what many Righties sound like these days.
         
         I have told you several times and in countless ways that Trump is a creep, this is just another example. Surely you have more than just "sour grapes" which with to challenge my comment?

         replyreport
         1. 99

            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, I am not defending the stupid things Trump has done, any more than you can defend the stupid thing Biden and Obama have done. What I am saying is that Trump did more things to get the US on track, like being firm with China, and those policies outweigh his social life.
            
            You can disagree, of course, and I am sure you do. From my viewpoint it just looks like you are whining about someone who has already left office.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Doc, we all do stupid things. Our finest examples of the Presidency have made mistakes. But like every thing else it comes down to frequency and magnitude.
               
               I thought that it was dumb for Trump to unilaterally abrogate a treaty with Iran that was consummated by Obama back in 2015. He did it without informing allies and other signatories to the agreement. But, again, that is my opinion.
               
               I am not in agreement that Trump did anything but add to the divisive state of this nation and its politics, but again, that is my opinion as well.
               
               Doc, Trump has never "left" office as he incessantly whines about his being cheated in 2020. He had virtually every prospective Republican candidate kissing his arse, agreeing to accept the lie in return for his support. And knowing that it is a lie, sign up for it anyway. They will do anything to get elected, so integrity means nothing. Other former presidents got out of the way and moved to background after their term has ended, why can't Trump just do the same?
               
               Magnitude and frequency: this man, Trump is worse than Nixon in the magnitude and frequency of his issues with law enforcement. He is in trouble with DOJ, the State of Georgia and the State of New York. He is not and has not been like any of his predecessors. And how people can deny the obvious that is right before them is beyond my understanding.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Trump is a victim of a corrupt system.
                  
                  All he tried to do was make America great again for Americans and the evil elites couldn't stand it.  They wanted to destroy him for it.
                  
                  It is why they make up crimes to charge him with, so they can jail him and all those that support him.
                  
                  It is a terrible tragedy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Ken, is it possible that Trump warrants all the charges made against him rather than your implication that he, just in your opinion, is being framed over "everything"?
                     
                     Your perspective here is completely irrational.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Is it possible that both perspectives are largely true?

                        replyreport
         2. 99

            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think the thing that bothers me about TDS is that it causes people to stop thinking rationally.
            
            For instance, from reading one of your posts on another thread I saw that you know that a government that goes out and nationalizes its industries is wrong. Democrats in the US support capitalism, but I think you said "with a tight leash". But what if a socialist candidate who planned on nationalizing the economy was nominated by the Democrats, and his opponent was Trump or a Trump-like figure? Would you hold your nose and vote for what is best for your country or would you support the socialist because he was nominated by the democrats?
            
            I hope it never happens. I remember when a socialist was almost nominated a few years ago but cooler heads prevailed at your convention.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I don't like Trump either as a politician or as a man and I never have. I don't mince words over that.
               
               Yes, I am American and subscribe to a capitalist based economy. When I mean tight leash, it means that the capitalist/corporate class can not simply do what they want in regards to abuse of labor or environmental pollution to reduce their costs, for example. We all play by rules and there has to be balance. I support capitalism as the powerful incentive given to people to achieve and accomplish. But sweatshops and slum tenament houses, childlabor were byproducts as capitalism is, by nature, predatory and if the beast is not leashed it would be free to ravage a civilized general society.
               
               Your hypothetical is difficult to answer, but I choose Socialism over a Capitalism without restraint  a la 19th century. There are other factors, I would not tolerate bigotry and authoritarianism replacing democracy. I would prefer Scandinavia or over any fascist state. But with the proper checks and balances, I can live with capitalism.
               
               I like Bernie Sanders and I never feared America becoming Socialist, to meet the true definition of Socialism, the magnitude of such a change is beyond comprehension.
               
               There are already elements of Socialism that are part of the American economy, the conservatives are more concerned  that the collectivism is applied to their affluent constituency, i.e (corporate bailouts) On the left, I am concerned that if there is any largesse to be shared all citizens should benefit.
               
               So, it is not so important about giving your word, it's who you give your word to.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "Your hypothetical is difficult to answer, but I choose Socialism over a Capitalism without restraint  a la 19th century."
                  
                  Are you sure?  That unrestrained capitalism has given rise to the standard of living we have today while socialism has given rise, every time it has been tried, to abject poverty and a truly miserable standard of living.  At least for anyone not at the top.
                  
                  Are you sure you would choose a future of poverty for all over one of luxury for the large majority of people?
                  
                  "On the left, I am concerned that if there is any largesse to be shared all citizens should benefit."
                  
                  Again, are you sure?  Would you give medicaid to everyone?  Subsidized housing for everyone?  Should ALL citizens get food stamps?  Should we ALL get reduced price tickets instead of just the elderly?  Should we ALL get free lunch 5 days a week?
                  
                  Or should the largesse be shared only among a few?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness:  Unfettered capitalism can cause financial meltdowns and inequality.
                     
                     https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/77/e … apitalism/

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        It is the survival of the fittest which is the way it should be.

                        replyreport
                  2. 84

                     gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, totally agree.   There is such a thing as meritocracy.  Able-bodied, intelligent adults should be able to fend for themselves without government aid.  What is wrong w/some people?   If an able-bodied, intelligent adult refuse to fend for himself/herself-let him/her do without.  We aren't our brother's keepers-each tub sits on its own bottom.   People have to learn to plan & strategize for the type of life they desire.   More input leads to more outcome.   For example if I want a comfortable life, I will have to major in something that is lucrative.   
                     
                     What is wrong w/people who expect the government to institute programs for people to lead a comfortable life-that is ridiculous.  Work & earn your way if you want comfort.  There are too many entitled people in America.  Reduce welfare by 80%.    Make all able-bodied people on welfare work or starve them to death.  There are too many slackers in America- this has got to stop & stop now.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Starve people to death? Great strategy. We could use this for literally everything. I don't know though, a simple plan of torture may work better.  How about purges?

                        replyreport
                  3. 79

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Socialism is the rule to a greater extent in Europe than what it is here in America and yet I don't see their walls crumbling down.
                     
                     Yes, the downsides of a late 19th century laissez faire capitalism out weigh any benefits, so I am sure.
                     
                     Wilderness, I am speaking about "balance" not wholesale giveaways.
                     
                     The luxury is not for the "large majority", what majority? I don't share your definition of socialism and its imagined evils.
                     
                     As for "everyone", how did those corporations merit a bailout, when I do not receive such relief as an individual? So, let's reverse the question, in your world is not anyone entitled to the things you say that I would give everybody? That would be you laissez faire Capitalism in action, right?

                     replyreport
               2. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not suggesting a return to 19th century capitalisim with all its terrible abuses. I am suggesting that anyone who has benefited from capitalism in this world not choose socialism.
                  
                  There is no reason the US could not decline into the current horror that is Venezuela if a socialist takes power there and destroys the opposing political party. (Part of the reason that the US is so strong is because no one gets to shove their agenda down the other sides throat, and when a president makes a decree instead of going through congress that is totally wrong.)
                  
                  Yes, those big business bailouts are wrong. Did the congress vote for those bailouts or was it a presidential decree?

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Doc, i am simply saying that there are going to be some elements of socialism in a country as complex and as large as the United States. I want to preserve capitalism without reverting to its more callous and savage antecedent.
                     
                     The problem with Socialism in Venezuela is the issue that this Maduro is a dictator and tyrant. The problem is more in the political structure, not the villianed socialism that conservatives always seem to associate with the rise of any tyrant, plain and simple.
                     
                     Socialism on a scale not possible in America works well with the European Democratic traditions and leadership models. 
                     
                     We have the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government.
                     
                     Doc, that large amount of money provided for the bailouts had to have been appropriated by Congress, the President and Executive Branch does not have neither the purse striings nor authority to hand out such a sum on its own.

                     replyreport
                     1. 99

                        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I am glad to hear that you think autocratic socialism would not work in the US and hope you are right, However, it did not start with Maduro. The countries industries were nationalized and Maduro just came along later for the ride. When for the good of the people it is decided to nationalize the industries in the US, that same thing could happen. It does not matter if you think the US runs on European democratic principles. If one party gets all of the power, executive, legislative, and judicial, and the industries are being controlled by that party, elections can easily be managed.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Like many believe the 2020 election was?

                           replyreport
                           1. 99

                              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              In Venezuela, even though a dozen eggs costs a months salary and people are dying of starvation, the ruling socialist party wins all of the elections.
                              https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … 021-11-21/
                              How is that even possible?

                              replyreport
                        2. 79

                           Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           There can be nothing  that define the American tradition more than the concept of private property. That has NEVER been a serious danger of nationalization of industries in America.
                           
                           Neither political party here would seriously go that route as neither side would dare cross that line.
                           
                           What do you think the issue has been here, Doc?
                           
                           It is keeping one party from shutting down all forms of competition with the other, that is the problem which has to be avoided. And that biggest threat currently is coming from the Republican party.
                           
                           We have had situations in American history where one political party has dominated the executive and legislative branches, but certain lines have never been crossed.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              I dunno, Cred; if we haven't crossed the line we certainly tip toe right down the very edge of it.
                              
                              Is not screaming about price controls, from rent to gas to drugs, really any different than govt. owning the business itself?
                              
                              Do we not set those controls very firmly for hundreds (thousands?) of businesses in the energy field?  Do we not tell them what they must do, what they can charge and how much profit they can make? 
                              
                              In my area I must (no choice) pay the irrigation district for the availability of irrigation water.  A govt. owned business.
                              
                              Govt. denies anyone but itself ownership of weapons of war (jets, tanks, bombs, etc.), which means no private company can contract to wage war.  They also restrict the sale of weapons to itself - is that not a business?
                              
                              Even simple things like a toll road - govt. owns the business and collects the profits.
                              
                              I think you will find, over and over, that government really HAS crossed that line and continues to do so.  Of course it is always argued that it is best for all, but then don't the advocates of true socialism do the same?

                              replyreport
                              1. 79

                                 Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Points are well received, Wilderness.
                                 
                                 I will take them on in parts.
                                 
                                 I know that people scream about price controls, but how successful are they really? I just know that in the places that I have lived, rent control never was really considered as a viable solution to exorbitant rents. You will have to educate me a bit on all of the "controls" placed on the energy industry. But it may be similar to the idea of Public Utilities having to go through a Public Utilities commission in order to raise rates?
                                 
                                 When it comes to certain products that are required by all and not simply under the economic principles of supply and demand, Utilities( water, natural gas, electric) being among those, a Government overview of price increases are in order, in my opinion.
                                 
                                 The Congress has the sole authority to declare war, not DuPont. There is that balance again between an orderly society verses allowing the corporate sector the caprice to do as it likes. I put the Government, as a citizen, in charge of war, acquiring the needed materiel, etc. As part of the balance, no private entity has any justification for possession of military ordinance.
                                 
                                 While you might own the company, you are not free to operate outside of the rules. (See my Kelloggs example earlier in the thread) The government representing the larger society is responsible to go beyond the assurance that the corporate class gets its profits at the expense of anyone else.
                                 
                                 So Cudahy will have its meat products inspected by USDA, to avoid any future Upton Sinclair sorts of expose'.
                                 
                                 WKRP of Cincinnati is privately owned, but it is not free to broadcast pornography over the airwaves which belongs to the public, and must adhere to its frequency assignment according to the FCC.
                                 
                                 Union Carbide cannot dump its effluent into the aquifer from which I may need to get my drinking water, regardless as to what that may cost them. This is coming from the EPA.
                                 
                                 Denver and almost anywhere else required inspection of restaurants, private business, to insure that minimum safety and cleanliness standards are being met. They have to pay taxes, their fair share of the costs that maintain the city, part of that being the access to their very place of business.
                                 
                                 If you own a gun, does that mean that you are free to do as you wish with it?
                                 
                                 I simply don't trust corporations or industries to adequately police themselves in these regards, because they never have.
                                 
                                 These businesses do not operate in a vacuum, here or anywhere else where a responsible society resides.
                                 
                                 I don't consider imposition of the rules of the game as "owning" the companies as implied in the classic definition of Socialism.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    You seem to misunderstand: I don't disagree with most (most) of the regulations on business.
                                    
                                    
                                    I merely point out that there are many, many cases where government either "owns" the "business" in question or controls it to the point they might as well.
                                    
                                    (Yes, energy costs are controlled by utilities commission (government), not the company).

                                    replyreport
                           2. 99

                              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Re private property: "Bernie Sanders has put the abolition of private property back into public debate. At least that is what Ryan Cooper at The Week thinks, although he softens the blow by remarking: “This is not as extreme as it sounds. You’ll still be able to own a computer, clothes, and a home under democratic socialism.”
                              
                              That is from https://lawliberty.org/bernie-sanders-i … -the-most/
                              
                              And we do know from experience that thing change after an election, right? You will still be able to own your clothes though.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ah, but will it be the clothes of your choice?

                                 replyreport
                              2. 77

                                 Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Not really sure that's a Bernie Sanders thought so much as an interpretation by a left-leaning columnist of what he thinks Bernie Sanders is thinking.  So, it's really, one person's opinion who's trying to come up with a clickbait gotcha statement.  And he gotcha.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 99

                                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Could be.

                                    replyreport
   2. 83

      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Cred:  Trump is a sick narcissistic master con artist.   . He is obsessed with winning and will do and say anything to win even at the cost of others. look at all the people who have gone to jail and are still going to jail because of Jan. 6 and he gets away scot free. 
      
      Look at all the lawyers he has put in jeopardy, just because he wants to win cases against him.  He intimidates those who oppose him, by calling them names and giving them labels He then uses those names in his rallies to demean and devalue those who oppose him. 
      
      He has taken over the GOP congress by destroying politically those who opposed him..  Look at how many are dropping out because of him.. Those who did oppose him and stayed have become silent.  It's like setting up a firing squad in front of them.
      
      As a  narcissistic master con artist, if you expose him, he will attack you and then will play the victim to his people.  Just look at his rallies.  He is now setting the stage for his indictment, by saying if he is indicted, you will see problems like you have never seen before.  I think that is why he is making nice to the Q Anon people because he will used them just like he used the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers on Jan. 6.. A lot of them are now in jail, so he will turn to trailer trash like Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boebert.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "He intimidates those who oppose him, by calling them names and giving them labels He then uses those names in his rallies to demean and devalue those who oppose him. "
         
         Do you refer to Biden in his recent speech about Trump or was it Nancy's comment about "deplorables" that brought this statement out? 
         
         (Either way, I find name calling by our exalted leaders to be pathetic, disgusting beneath them.  Or should be beneath them anyway.)

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Trump has no loyalties except to Trump. He is totally devoid of principle or integrity. He is manipulating people for his own personal and political gain. When has he ever done anything else?
         
         I am hoping as this stuff piles up, people will cease in having their "eyes wide shut".

         replyreport
      3. 71

         Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I wonder if it will work?
         
         I guess when the stock market crashes, when gas prices soar above $5 a gallon and food prices double by this time next year we might get to find out.

         replyreport
2. 82

   FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago

   He "embarrasses" himself because he gets off on their hero worship.
   
   Exhibit A: who the hell would write a book like this? Who would read it?
   
   (Yes, this is a real book. The reviews on Barnes & Noble are quite entertaining.)
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gosh, Keith, I did not think that anyone would actually write a book making Trump into the Messiah.
      
      As narcissistic and superficial as Trump is, he is probably eating this phony "adoration" up whole.
      
      Who could possibly follow Trump into the voting booth now?

      replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Got a kick out of the summary. Yeah, the reviews were telling.

      replyreport
3. 82

   FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago

   Sadly, there seems to be an entire cottage industry of literature (and I use that term loosely) portraying ol' DJT as some sort of superhero chosen by Jesus to take back the USA from the lizard people, or whatever.
   
   More examples here:
   https://www.amazon.com/s?k=trump+christ … _sb_noss_2

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why would God send us a "dirty angel" as the Messiah?
      
      False prophets?

      replyreport