President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Uncle Ted]

But ultimately pointless. He already won. If this is what his hardcore base wants him to keep doing, then they're stupid or they're also trolling the rest of the country. It appears this may be starting to backfire on him though. Check out this tracking approval/disapproval poll to see the trend downward.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/ga...-approval.aspx

Gallop also sez that folks identifying as dem has reach an all time low...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Did Gallop also say that Hillary was going to win the election? Also, that RMoney was going to win in 2012?

[Commando]

That video of Shepherd Smith bewildered that Trump is such a pathological liar is great. Of course the sheep are calling for Fox News to fire him. I guess the truth is anathema now.

[myboynoah]

That video of Shepherd Smith bewildered that Trump is such a pathological liar is great. Of course the sheep are calling for Fox News to fire him. I guess the truth is anathema now.

Do you have a link?

[Commando]

[myboynoah]

Thanks. Fair and balanced. Kick his ass, Shep.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Go, Shep!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Stuff like this and that psychologist thing you (or someone else) posted the other day play right into President Trump's hand.

Fighting hyperbole and theatrics with hyperbole and theatrics isn't going to work.

How on earth do you even define hyperbole in the age of Trump?

And what is going to work?

EDIT: I am also going to note the irony of you scolding people for hyperbole in the same thread where you posted a link to an essay claiming that the US media is irreparably broken and then you responded with this:

The scorn that is being heaped on the media is well deserved. They were supposed to be the vanguards and they let us all down, tremendously so:

Fuck the Times. Fuck the media. I'll never forgive them.

Never been a Drudge reader. I hang out at The Atlantic and The Intercept_ and other such venues that still ask important questions. I still visit The American Conservative for my fix of Buchanan. Unfortunately, anti-interventionalist/anti-war voices are getting fewer and farther between now I'm afraid. One party would like to start another World War with Russia, while the other seems fixated on a military engagement with Iran. Lose, lose. We all keep losing.

[myboynoah]

Two of the more hilarious points during that news conference. First, when Trump made his "most electoral college votes since Reagan" claim and someone responds with 4-5 examples that were more. "Well, well, that's the information I was given. But you got to admit it was a big win, right?" Second, the poor Orthodox Jewish guy who was noting increased antisemitism since the campaign and Trump cuts him off and starts ranting. The poor guy looks around at the other journalist with that "does this happen everyday?" look.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Go, Shep!

He used to bug me as he reminded me of an irritating AP on my mission, the smarmy guy that comes at you with what I call The Flying Elbow handshake, "HOW YA DOIN', ELDER?"

But I've gained a greater appreciation for the guy as he seems genuinely committed to being fair, more so certainly than many or his colleagues or his MSNBC counterparts (I listen to Fox, CNN and MSNBC in roughly equal proportions).

[Walter Sobchak]

How on earth do you even define hyperbole in the age of Trump?

And what is going to work?

I read an excellent article about this the other day, but for the life of me can't find it in my chrome history.

In a nutshell, it basically argued that it is pointless to directly engage President Trump or his advisers (it singled out Mrs. Conway), but instead we must engage the American People that voted for him. Publishing article after article and cartoon after cartoon about how incompetent Trump is or how some psychologist says that Trump meets the DSM criteria for some mental health issue or a related NPR piece that suggested we start testing public candidates for dementia and other such disorders completely misses the point. By publishing pieces such as this, the press (and Trump opponents at large) are indirectly attacking those that are responsible for putting President Trump in power; those that voted for the dude. The approach (it was argued) will not dissuade them from re-electing the guy, instead it will just cause them to dig in their heels.

A better approach is to present persuasive arguments about why Trump's positions are not healthy for our nation, not just in news media... but in all media. The example of Superbowl commercials was used. I didn't watch the Super Bowl (or most of the commercials) but I guess there were some commercials that quietly portrayed the positive effects that immigration has had on our nation, whereas others hit false notes that seemed to reinforce illegal immigration (perhaps just to be controversial?). The author then used the example of immigration in and around the World War II era. The USA's nuclear Manhattan project could not have succeeded without key contributions by immigrants that came to the USA from axis nations; for example, Enrico Fermi emigrated from Italy in the late 1930s.

Apologies that I can't find the piece, but I think you get the idea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I read an excellent article about this the other day, but for the life of me can't find it in my chrome history.

In a nutshell, it basically argued that it is pointless to directly engage President Trump or his advisers (it singled out Mrs. Conway), but instead we must engage the American People that voted for him. Publishing article after article and cartoon after cartoon about how incompetent Trump is or how some psychologist says that Trump meets the DSM criteria for some mental health issue or a related NPR piece that suggested we start testing public candidates for dementia and other such disorders completely misses the point. By publishing pieces such as this, the press (and Trump opponents at large) are indirectly attacking those that are responsible for putting President Trump in power; those that voted for the dude. The approach (it was argued) will not dissuade them from re-electing the guy, instead it will just cause them to dig in their heels.

A better approach is to present persuasive arguments about why Trump's positions are not healthy for our nation, not just in news media... but in all media. The example of Superbowl commercials was used. I didn't watch the Super Bowl (or most of the commercials) but I guess there were some commercials that quietly portrayed the positive effects that immigration has had on our nation, whereas others hit false notes that seemed to reinforce illegal immigration (perhaps just to be controversial?). The author then used the example of immigration in and around the World War II era. The USA's nuclear Manhattan project could not have succeeded without key contributions by immigrants that came to the USA from axis nations; for example, Enrico Fermi emigrated from Italy in the late 1930s.

Apologies that I can't find the piece, but I think you get the idea.

Gotcha. Thanks. That is probably the best strategy. And pray that he doesn't destroy the country in the process.

This is one my favorite Superbowl commercials:

[Shaka]

I read an excellent article about this the other day, but for the life of me can't find it in my chrome history.

In a nutshell, it basically argued that it is pointless to directly engage President Trump or his advisers (it singled out Mrs. Conway), but instead we must engage the American People that voted for him. Publishing article after article and cartoon after cartoon about how incompetent Trump is or how some psychologist says that Trump meets the DSM criteria for some mental health issue or a related NPR piece that suggested we start testing public candidates for dementia and other such disorders completely misses the point. By publishing pieces such as this, the press (and Trump opponents at large) are indirectly attacking those that are responsible for putting President Trump in power; those that voted for the dude. The approach (it was argued) will not dissuade them from re-electing the guy, instead it will just cause them to dig in their heels.

A better approach is to present persuasive arguments about why Trump's positions are not healthy for our nation, not just in news media... but in all media. The example of Superbowl commercials was used. I didn't watch the Super Bowl (or most of the commercials) but I guess there were some commercials that quietly portrayed the positive effects that immigration has had on our nation, whereas others hit false notes that seemed to reinforce illegal immigration (perhaps just to be controversial?). The author then used the example of immigration in and around the World War II era. The USA's nuclear Manhattan project could not have succeeded without key contributions by immigrants that came to the USA from axis nations; for example, Enrico Fermi emigrated from Italy in the late 1930s.

Apologies that I can't find the piece, but I think you get the idea.

I agree with Lebowski. This probably has to be the strategy if you want to unseat him next election.

My view is the Trump opposition needs to be much more strategic in picking their battles. Right now they are jumping him for everything. If they continue that strategy his base, and probably others, will grow tired of his opposition and give him a second term.

[Northwestcoug]

Bret Stephens from the WSJ recently gave the Daniel Pearl Memorial lecture. It is a most excellent read. Here are a few good snippets, though it should be read in its entirety:

When Trump attacks the news media, he’s kicking a wounded animal.
But the most interesting conversation is not about why Donald Trump lies. Many public figures lie, and he’s only a severe example of a common type.
The interesting conversation concerns how we come to accept those lies...
I personally think we crossed a rubicon in the Clinton years, when three things happened: we decided that some types of presidential lies didn’t matter; we concluded that “character” was an over-rated consideration when it came to judging a president; and we allowed the lines between political culture and celebrity culture to become hopelessly blurred.
But whatever else one might say about President Clinton, what we have now is the crack-cocaine version of that.

One of the most interesting phenomena during the presidential campaign was waiting for Trump to say that one thing that would surely break the back of his candidacy.
Would it be his slander against Mexican immigrants? Or his slur about John McCain’s record as a POW? Or his lie about New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11? Or his attacks on Megyn Kelly, on a disabled New York Times reporter, on a Mexican-American judge? Would it be him tweeting quotations from Benito Mussolini, or his sly overtures to David Duke and the alt-right? Would it be his unwavering praise of Vladimir Putin? Would it be his refusal to release his tax returns, or the sham that seems to been perpetrated on the saps who signed up for his Trump U courses? Would it be the tape of him with Billy Bush?
None of this made the slightest difference. On the contrary, it helped him. Some people became desensitized by the never-ending assaults on what was once quaintly known as “human decency.” Others seemed to positively admire the comments as refreshing examples of personal authenticity and political incorrectness.
Shameless rhetoric will always find a receptive audience with shameless people. Donald Trump’s was the greatest political strip-tease act in U.S. political history: the dirtier he got, the more skin he showed, the more his core supporters liked it.

Watching this process unfold has been particularly painful for me as a conservative columnist. I find myself in the awkward position of having recently become popular among some of my liberal peers—precisely because I haven’t changed my opinions about anything.
By contrast, I’ve become suddenly unpopular among some of my former fans on the right—again, because I’ve stuck to my views. It is almost amusing to be accused of suffering from something called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” simply because I feel an obligation to raise my voice against, say, the president suggesting a moral equivalency between the U.S. and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
The most painful aspect of this has been to watch people I previously considered thoughtful and principled conservatives give themselves over to a species of illiberal politics from which I once thought they were immune.

http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/

[Walter Sobchak]

Bret Stephens from the WSJ recently gave the Daniel Pearl Memorial lecture. It is a most excellent read. Here are a few good snippets, though it should be read in its entirety:

Don't give Bret Stephens, who has never met a war he didn't like, too much credit please... stopped clock and all that.

Thank you.

[myboynoah]

Bret Stephens from the WSJ recently gave the Daniel Pearl Memorial lecture. It is a most excellent read. Here are a few good snippets, though it should be read in its entirety:

http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/

Awesome, thank you for posting.

This rings so true:

I personally think we crossed a rubicon in the Clinton years, when three things happened: we decided that some types of presidential lies didn’t matter; we concluded that “character” was an over-rated consideration when it came to judging a president; and we allowed the lines between political culture and celebrity culture to become hopelessly blurred.
But whatever else one might say about President Clinton, what we have now is the crack-cocaine version of that.

This as well:

I fear we are witnessing a similar process unfold among many conservative intellectuals on the right. It has been stunning to watch a movement that once believed in the benefits of free trade and free enterprise merrily give itself over to a champion of protectionism whose economic instincts recall the corporatism of 1930s Italy or 1950s Argentina. It is no less stunning to watch people once mocked Obama for being too soft on Russia suddenly discover the virtues of Trump’s “pragmatism” on the subject.

And it is nothing short of amazing to watch the party of onetime moral majoritarians, who spent a decade fulminating about Bill Clinton’s sexual habits, suddenly find complete comfort with the idea that character and temperament are irrelevant qualifications for high office.

The mental pathways by which the new Trumpian conservatives have made their peace with their new political master aren’t so different from Milosz’s former colleagues.