Trump

[claig]

Another Trump thread for those who want to discuss what it all means

Article from another thread

"History Tells Us What Will Happen Next With Brexit And Trump"

www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html?

If Trump's reasons for running for president are truthful, then he is to be lauded and applauded. If he was lying, then he will be found out.

At the moment, the West has an emergency on its hands. Our litle country has done a lot for a nation of people who are very tolerant, dont like to fuss or get involved. USA has no such reservations about making a fuss and has come to a similar conclusion.

In that journey, millions of people's intuitions and gut feelings have at last been acknowledged, and their long-held perceptions that there are 'worlds within worlds' proven to be correct. The bewilderment that so many felt for years was not due to any shortcomings in them, but rather to the machinations of various well-positioned people within and without our society.

The problem with millions of people's intuitions and gut feelings is that millions of other people have opposing intuitions and gut feelings. What happens when everybody acts on them?

if your position is a point blank refusal to believe anything in the msm

It's not that. I imagine that most people use a form of triangulation to come to their understanding. They use several sources, plus their own experience of what they see and hear, plus other, perhaps more unconventional resources, and constantly sift through to see what makes sense and what doesn't. Personally, I read widely including some pretty eclectic material. Nothing is out of bounds, and this applies to 'wings' (left, right, whatever) of all kind. I am just a lot more careful about how I think about what is presented in front of me.

I wouldn't disagree with that. And yet there seems to be a curious blind spot amongst Trumpers when it comes to Russia's dezinformatsiya despite pretty specific evidence.

People pick up on information far keener than others, but cannot make sense of what has been reported - because some info is not intended to make sense.

About 20 yrs ago a friend of mine began to talk about UK social workers 'stealing' children from their parents thru forced adoption when it was not necessary, and when the parent(s) had recovered composure from a financial or domestic or emotional episode and were back on track. It did not pique my interest particularly because I had not spotted a trend, but she had.

It is only now that others are noticing that some adoptions are being completed so swiftly as to be out of character for social services. Family Court is still in camera, but I recall a judge criticising SS this year for pushing thru an adoption in which a SWorker perjured himself and wrote a fake assessment of the parent. Apparently this is a tangible goal of SS depts, brings kudos and presumably explains the enthusiasm.

What I'm trying to convey is that some people will always view life thru a 9 to 5 prism, others will read or see something a bit "off" and years later a similar event will occur which registers for them but not others. From then on that individual will be alert to similar events as reported in the papers.

"Well if your position is a point blank refusal to believe anything in the msm unless it's Russia Today, you have a problem. Not sure where you go from there."

Gosh. All we want is evidence based reporting Kaija. Its not hard. If Putin says he has 3 military bases outside Russia, and hes right, hes right. If Obama impllies Putin has 100 military bases outside Russia, hes wrong. Obama will tell you hes right, because he only implied it, but the threat is there!!! He COULD have 100 bases!!!!! Spin spinny spin spin. The facts really dont matter, its the message.

But that wasn't what was in the link that you were rubbishing

Claig if you believe the current government are going to support the industry in the North East now we are free of the EU, well I just don't know how to respond to that. Some amazing utopia where regeneration is spearheaded by Theresa May and Boris Johnson. All along it was the EU preventing the conservatives recognising the issues faced by the people in those areas. Who knew? Immigration in Consett is negligible. But the people in this area have been 'spun' a tale that closing the borders will make their lives better. Farage is a master of spin, and I would bet any money that Trump is the same.

millions of people's intuitions and gut feelings - these have enabled our survival for centuries. We tend to dismiss them because we have created a specific category of 'expert' in our societies, and have elevated these above all else, but before people could read, write and educationally reason en masse, they probably played a large role. Gut feelings are just another, very small column that goes into propping up what we know. Others are formal education, chatter, lectures, journalism, blogs, etc.. Importantly, the internet has destabilised the traditional divide between 'expert' and 'non-expert' without the sky falling in. In fact, a lot of effects of this destabilisation have been positive (increased medical knowledge among patients, increased political awareness among ordinary people, young girls following 'blogs' of snappy dressers as an alternative to the 'Bible' of Vogue).

Your right Kaija, sorry, I should have started...."for example.."

But the facts contradict the very basis of what your article was attempting to say, hence , you can dismiss it pretty quickly, especially when you look at the 'media reach' of say Harry Styles in comparison.

takes: Really? You need a dead man to come and shred to pieces a well laid out post?
Spinflight brought him up by using his quotes to strengthen her argument, and Claig seemed keen to conscript him (along with Victor Hugo) into "the illustrious people's army", I am just a bit by people so confidently quoting from books they have never read.

(Claig, I don't know who you are and you will probably ignore this, but if you do ever get around to reading any Orwell start with Animal farm and pay particularly close attention to the fate of Boxer. Please.)

fourmummy: Orwell was writing about relativism. Is this your "truth"?
"there is no mechanism to determine absolute truth"
-No, but not all "truths" are equal. Not all opinions hold equal weight.
If I jump out of the window, the "truth" that I will fly is not as valid as the truth that I will fall. If I am unwell, the opinion of my doctor is worth a hell of a lot more than the opinion of my cat. The informed opinion of an evolutionary scientist who has spent many years studying is worth more than a hunch of Pence's.
" societies live according to their truth" - and some die by them.
As for the world splitting up into smaller nation states - why stop there, by the way? How small do the groups have to become before everyone in it is united by the same truth?

This expert bashing is just anti-intelectualism masquerading as anti-elitism, a sort of metaphorical book burning.

"But the facts contradict the very basis of what your article was attempting to say"

Could you be specific about this?

Delurking again to say I think I love squishy. I know I'm adding nothing to this debate but I'm too slow to respond.

As you were.

And Kaija

Southallgirl: "If Trump's reasons for running for president are truthful, then he is to be lauded and applauded. If he was lying, then he will be found out."

What about the damage that could have been done before he is "found out"? Anyway, I am pretty sure that when if he fails you, it will all be someone else's fault.

Thanks shirley. You just made me feel a lot less alone. .

I love Kaija's posts too, btw.

Thank you, Shirley. Squishy, you are very much not alone.

Squishy - got to run but for now:

I am making the same arguments as you. The 'truth' of what happens to you when you jump out of the window is there but before we can get to it, we have to contend with a human interpretation of it. Some say you'll go to heaven. Others will think you'll turn to dust. That's what I meant when I said that there's always human interpretation that stands between us and an absolute truth (which is why there'll never be a universal one - because all humans have different interpretations of what they see). So, how do we live when some believe A and some believe B? Side by side (relativism)? Doesn't work. So how? The only way that I can see is via small societies that live according to how they want to live, where they prioritise one truth that works for them over another.

Experts - nothing wrong with experts. The problem is when the process between expert and non-expert becomes subverted and manipulated. If a doc tells me that I need some antibiotics because evidence shows that I might die without them, then I'll take them. If a doc tells me that I need antibiotics blah blah (fill in the reason here) because a pharmaceutical company has sold them to him for nefarious (profiteering?) reasons, then I might think twice about it.

I think in that scenario the fact of being smashed to a pulp on the pavement would be enough truth for me to be going on with.

squishysquirmy did you hear Trevor Noah on R4 this morning? I think you'd enjoy his take on truth having become a matter of opinion (and his view on African dictators).

fourmummy: "So, how do we live when some believe A and some believe B?" When it comes to beliefs like like where we go when we die, the answer is often quite happily.
eg: My family do not all agree on this. We get along fine (most of the time). I don't think I know anyone who agrees with me on absolutely everything. Does that mean I should live alone?
And yes, human beings did use to live in much smaller groups. I think the way we live now is an improvement to then, and given the massive increase in population since we all lived in these tiny societies, I don't think that way of life would be practical without a huge decrease in world population. Which sounds pretty shit to live through.

Informal: No, but it sounds interesting. I've been out most of the morning, but I will try to find it on IPlayer. Thanks.

Yes I heard part of that, Informal. The similarities of style between Trump and Idi Amin were quite uncanny.