Trump is not a ''villian'', he is a ''vaudevillian''

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

In this OP though was what I wanted to pinpoint directly rather than any larger issues we hold, that being his lies about the chanting and how he abandoned his followers in that brief moment to save himself.

Of course he played the crowd in whatever the direction the crowd went. I don't think he held up chant signs, or suggested they chant what they did, but yes he played it off. Most of his rallies are done with very small script, he likes to wing it and from what I been told is extremely good at winging rallies.

Personally I don't think he liked the chant, I would bet he would have liked to move away from his original tweet, or at least re-write it better and the chant kind of threw him back into the mix of his tweet that didn't come off as he would have liked. But as all great showmen he had to play on it...

a reply to: LSU2018

Yeah sorry 'bout that, not going to derail Terry's thread with the usual back and forth (there'll be plenty of other threads where we will hook up on this...I'm sure)

I'm more curious about the preceived action of Trump throwing his own supporters under the bus.

Peace

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can go with that. I"m not sure he liked it either, though the possibility that he knew he might have inspired such a radical crowd reaction could have bolstered his own sense of power.

Live crowds can be scary, what might just stay as a gathering can and has demonstrated the ability to turn ugly where group madness takes charge and all hell breaks loose.

As well, you could be right that this exploded a bit further than he had hoped. Dunno.

a reply to: highvein

Ya know, that is hard to argue against. The ole, wrecking ball theory. It maybe that that is humanities only course, just tear it all down and hope that whatever replaces this #e is a might better. "I've held that position before but ended up finding huge problems with it as well.

One, it maybe now that I am old, all I want is outta here with the level of comfort I have for my last years, I accept that. But more than that is what I see as any possible future our races may have. To me it is clear that pockets of organized human activity will, I say WILL survive. But it is also clear that the survivors will not be so much preppers with their shot guns hiding out in the country but rather the very very rich who with modern technology have already prepared their mountain redoubts and hidy holes thoughout the world.

Conclaves of these folk can go underground for long periods of time and with the tech today even communicate with one another orchestrating what would be left of civilization and only then emerging once the threat of all poor people overrunning them is past.

There future society will be based upon the precepts that they learned in becoming rich powerful and in control and that society will have none of the freedoms for anyone that we all hold so hopefully dear.

a reply to: LSU2018

Friend, have you looked at the diatribes tossed at the other side around here? The contests to see who can invent the worst name they can call liberals? That go home bit, stupid as it was is only a reflection of Trump's own original tweets.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

Live crowds can be scary, what might just stay as a gathering can and has demonstrated the ability to turn ugly where group madness takes charge and all hell breaks loose.

As well, you could be right that this exploded a bit further than he had hoped. Dunno.

That type of chanting is very typical of rallies, so I don't see it as scary or anything that would get out of control... they chant for a minute then listen...then chant then listen...so on and so on...

Remember these?

Lock her up!
Impeach!
Build the wall!
Not my president!
We don't accept the president-elect!

a reply to: TerryMcGuire


I think ''vaudevillian'' is a fitting description , I saw the press conference and the term that came to mind at the time of his comments was thrown under the bus , nice guy.

The post below yours backs it up well.

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: highvein

Sometimes the government is called the ''ship of state''. And while I agree that the course needed changing I don't know as that is best done by blowing up the engine room

When the engine is old worn out and not working, I don't think it matters. Replace it.

Except there has been no replacement of any kind. Bush era warhawks coupled with arguably the swampiest White House in the history of the USA has been brought in with Trump.

Tillerson (yay oil company CEOs in govt), Carson (good lord), Bolton (break out the bombs), DeVos (qualifications... anyone), Rick Perry (straight up wizard), ACosta (let's quietly go light on Epstein y'all), Pompeo (the bible gives us permission to go to war), Mattis (hello SA my old friend) and of course good ole Pence (gays are an abomination). Gimme a break. And that isn't even getting into the never ending scandals and stupidity. Great new machine. But it's working out well for the top 1%... just as planned.

a reply to: Xtrozero

While I agree that it is chanting and crowd think and they are all having fun and stuff, this is one of the things that these politicians rely upon. All of them. And calling for action like impeach is one thing, but this one for me and others crossed the line

I'm not one to stand on this is MY America. I want it THIS way. To me, my great grandparents came here because of a great famine in their country. This country IS a nation of migrants both good and bad. Hell, even back when we were colonies it wasn't just happy people who came here for a better life, some were people running away from the law. Some were brought in as slaves, but still the dream remains. Liberty for all..

Calling send her back send her back for me flies straight in the face of that fundamental hope of our nation. You know this screed just as well as I do.

Open borders is one thing that neither of us like I think. But once here and abiding by our laws even though we may disagree with other politically is not enough to entertain, even in fun time, the idea that we should then send them home. Sorry, here I have to disagree that this was not over the line.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: highvein

Ya know, that is hard to argue against. The ole, wrecking ball theory. It maybe that that is humanities only course, just tear it all down and hope that whatever replaces this #e is a might better. "I've held that position before but ended up finding huge problems with it as well.

One, it maybe now that I am old, all I want is outta here with the level of comfort I have for my last years, I accept that. But more than that is what I see as any possible future our races may have. To me it is clear that pockets of organized human activity will, I say WILL survive. But it is also clear that the survivors will not be so much preppers with their shot guns hiding out in the country but rather the very very rich who with modern technology have already prepared their mountain redoubts and hidy holes thoughout the world.

Conclaves of these folk can go underground for long periods of time and with the tech today even communicate with one another orchestrating what would be left of civilization and only then emerging once the threat of all poor people overrunning them is past.

There future society will be based upon the precepts that they learned in becoming rich powerful and in control and that society will have none of the freedoms for anyone that we all hold so hopefully dear.

Quoted for posterity.

I don't see it going down like that if the engine is replaced.

a reply to: okrian

Great new machine. But it's working out well for the top 1%... just as planned.

What you are witnessing is not the Great new machine. It is simply the destruction of the old machine.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Everything is done for a reason? So telling Congresswomen to go back home was all apart of a plan to connect mid-level democrats with the far left?

Yea.. okay...

4-D chess and all huh? Sounds like you got th he opposite of TDS.

a reply to: blueman12

Do you think it’s better for Trump to run against moderate Democrats or to run against moderate Democrats working with the socialist platform .

The Democrats have even been trying to space theirselves from radical socialist views. He just force their hand. And made them come to the defense of the nuts in their party.

But I guess the left is just going to try to chalk it up to “ Orange man mean “

How’s that been working out for you guys ?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

While I agree that it is chanting and crowd think and they are all having fun and stuff, this is one of the things that these politicians rely upon. All of them. And calling for action like impeach is one thing, but this one for me and others crossed the line

I feel it is crossing the line somewhat, seen worst by far... I do agree with the original message that if you hate America, hate what America is all about then find some other place you like and go live there. People do it all the time. It's not racism, its advice. It is safe to say she kind of called this on to herself, just like Trump does too.

He didn't name them specifically. They volunteered to step forward.

Annnnd Its imperative for trump to distance himself from "send her back", if the DoJ is opening an investigation into Omar, to avoid the appearance of persecution.

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Ummm , one cant leave if they are not here.....

a reply to: Xtrozero

I first heard the ''love it or leave it'' routine back when several of us were upset with the direction of American actions overseas in Vietnam. Those of us protesting American interventionism were labeled haters of America and were told the very same thing, ''love it or leave it.

Now the lessons of that day and the outcome of world history might be very different had we not ended that action. As well, had Nixon not been the tricky dick he turned out to be ending his presidency by resigning in disgrace, his enemies might have had no other choice than to do as he suggested and leave.
Our attitude at the time was ''love it and fight the wrong headed authority for it ..

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Xtrozero

I first heard the ''love it or leave it'' routine back when several of us were upset with the direction of American actions overseas in Vietnam. Those of us protesting American interventionism were labeled haters of America and were told the very same thing, ''love it or leave it.

Now the lessons of that day and the outcome of world history might be very different had we not ended that action. As well, had Nixon not been the tricky dick he turned out to be ending his presidency by resigning in disgrace, his enemies might have had no other choice than to do as he suggested and leave.
Our attitude at the time was ''love it and fight the wrong headed authority for it ..

It's funny that the democrats got us into that war and tricky Dick got us out...Seems the democrats and republicans are about the same again today with Trump as the only one not screaming for war.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Actuallly, that is a glossed over historical assessment of our involvement there. After ww2, one of the things that was done to help France get back on it's feet was to give them back their provence in Vietnam that had been taken by the Japanese. This sis not set well with the Vietnamese who had been fighting against the Japanese for their freedom. The revolution came and Ho Chi Min turned to the west for assistance but was snubbed which then led him to the communists for help. At that point under Truman, ships were diverted from coming home and turned back to patrol the waters of the area.

In 50. Truman sent financial assistance to the Vietnamese government to fight the rebels. Then in55 Eisenhower created seato and sent the first military advisors to help train the Vietnam government to fight against the rebels uner Ho.
thevietnamwar.info...

This was carried on by Kennedy though there is substance the belief that Kennedy intended to withdraw our troops before his assassination.
bostonreview.net...

So our involvement in Vietnam was a product of fear of communism held by both American parties and escalated mostly by the LBJ administration.

But as far as Tricky getting us out, well that is a stretch. Rather, even though the LBJ administration had escalated our involvement, that escalation was continued by Nixon. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party was becoming more and more against that war and the major presidential candidates were for withdrawal . Likewise, the increasing pressure of the liberal youth at that time to end the war was moving the dems more and more against the war while Republicans for the most part wanted us to stay there.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The majority of Americans do not approve of “the squads” socialist views.

Really? Bernie Sanders is still pretty popular.