Well, that's what is so galling about it. Trump holds all these phony 'campaign stops' and fills the stadium (or, not quite), to re-inflate his ego after a few days in the office - and then rails about 'fake news'. Nothing worse than being called a liar by a liar!

I don't know if Trump is a symptom or a cause, although I suspect the former. Only a profoundly confused electorate could elect someone so manifestly incapable of doing the job he lucked into, and then continue to stand by him when his manifest incompetence and mendacity become more obvious every day. — Wayfarer

Wow, it's been a long time since I've checked this thread and a lot has transpired since then. I don't even recall much of the previous discussion, and I'm too lazy to look back over it, but to the point you made here, Wayfarer, I think there are other relevant issues to consider.

The choice between the Republican 'establishment' and the Democratic Party as it currently exists was one which left many citizens in the US--specifically those white middle and lower class voters--with two bad alternatives. Speaking generally, the globalist/militaristic neoconservatives seem to have much more in common ideologically with the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama than they do with the values of non-elites of European ancestry living in the US. Nor could traditional 'small government' Republicans, fixated as ever on continued tax cuts for the wealthy and the elimination of as many social programs as possible, create a message which resonated deeply with people struggling financially, 'spiritually,' even physically.

On the Democratic side of things, the focus on identity politics surely alienated many white working class voters. This voting bloc (especially white men over the age of, say, 30) has been conspicuously left out among the groups which Democrats claim to represent: blacks, Latinos, Muslims, young people, etc. In fact, Democrats make no attempt to conceal their giddiness at the demise of this group's political influence. Their narrative has been more focused on racial (and sexual) identity than about finding common ground between white working class voters and people of color in a similar economic predicament.

So where should these people have turned, if they truly felt unrepresented by the only relevant political parties? Many of them obviously ended up supporting a manipulative blowhard like Trump, unfortunately, since he was the only candidate capable of connecting with them on a deep emotional level. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders was able to do that too. But dude's an idiot, and even worse a horrible human being, but neither of the viable alternatives (Republicans focused on helping the rich at the expense of the poor as usual, and Democrats seemingly focused on helping everyone BUT white middle and lower class citizens) made a genuine attempt to address some of the legitimate grievances this group may have had, and those largely being due to the economic and social policies of the past 40-50 years.

Add to those conditions the continued dumbing down of the populace through mindless entertainment and consumerism during that same stretch, in addition to a large bloc of immigrants (many of) whom seem to come here strictly for economic opportunities rather than to adopt some more ethereal American cultural identity--thus creating more resentment from many native-born Americans who feel affronted by this snub--and you have a situation which was ripe for a tough-talking chauvinistic douche like Trump, i.e. someone without a conscience or a sense of higher purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement, to manipulate this group as malleable material for his own purposes.

Now of course there are racists and xenophobes in the US who soaked up his hateful rhetoric, but I would maintain that there are also many Trump supporters who voted for (and continue to support) him who did so out of desperation and as a vote of no confidence in 'the system' as it currently stands. So yes, I think his support has at least as much to do with particular social/historical/political circumstances in the US than it does with people really believing that he's a wise statesmen who's going to lead this country to some sort of new golden era with his broad vision and foresight.

Anyhow, it seems as though he's at least partly moved in the direction of the 'establishment' over the past couple months, so I guess most educated and 'reasonable' people would consider that a good thing. I felt that during our last conversation my explanations of Trump's support being largely due to the failures of the existing parties was equated with my personal support of him and/or his policies. That's not true and I hope the separate issues won't be conflated this time around. It's a somewhat nuanced position, admittedly, and speaking out against (what I feel are) the equally narrow visions of Dems and Reps does not necessarily mean one likes Trump. One can dislike both Trump AND his many political opponents.

At best IMO he represents a 'fuck you' to a corrupt and self-serving political and economic system (and of course the two are intimately intertwined) and a corresponding wake up call to the representatives of this establishment to shift their priorities towards the average people who've been neglected during the last few decades. But sure, the risk here is that he's going to be much worse than the previous administrations and may even get us all killed.

These are my intuitions on the matter. To repeat, I feel that he tapped into a reservoir of resentment that he clearly did not create out of nothing due to his brilliance or charisma or rhetorical skill. He shaped it a bit, misdirected it no doubt, but he did not create it. That honor goes to the incompetence and shortsightedness of the previous few administrations, along with global trends which even they were powerless to counteract.

Hope all is well.

You make many valid point, but there's only one thing that Donald J Trump could ever possibly say, which would lead me to respect him, which is: 'I am a phony, and I resign from the Office of President'. Everything else is more lies.

Ha! That sort of sincerity, stepping away at the apex of power after lying to get there, would be some sort of Nietzschean overman-type thing. Not going to happen, but what he would lose in current power and influence would be compensated for posthumously as indicative of greatness of soul. Oh yeah, I do recall some conversation about romanticism a few months ago. Old habits die hard.

I don't think that Trump is going to badger, bully, lie and harass his way out of this one. James Comey is not some poor trades guy you can stiff for a payment, or a business dude on the wrong end of a deal.

Yeah, Trump is Hitler guys. He should be kicked out of office, kicked in the nads, and sent to a tiny, sparsely populated island. Maybe Corsica. Or Palm Beach, where Rush Limbaugh is. Then the next liberal-approved president can drone strike it.

You obviously don't understand how things work out in the hood bro.

He should be kicked out of office, kicked in the nads, and sent to a tiny, sparsely populated island. — Thorongil

Or maybe, made to understand the meaning of truth, law, the constitution, the meaning of the Presidency. That alone would be all the punishment that he could ever need, it would be such a painful awakening.

And I suppose you're a veritable savant on those topics, hmm?

Do you think Trump has a good grasp on the truth, the law, the constitution and the meaning of the presidency?

Why, do you? If not, then you have no grounds for judging whether he does. I myself don't claim to have a good grasp on such things. A decent grasp perhaps, but not much beyond that. So far as I am aware, he hasn't broken any law or violated the constitution while in office. As for his grasp of the meaning of the presidency, well, that's going to be highly subjective. I loathe Trump's tone and attitude, but the policies he enacts are ultimately more important than his character. It's not about electing a saint but someone who will effectively govern.

I don't presume that anyone has a good grasp on as broad a category as "the truth," but I also think it's obvious that a president of the US is going to know more than the average citizen about the law, the constitution, and his own office, simply by virtue of being president. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with his interpretation of such things, just that he probably knows far more about them than I do.

Could you give a clearer answer? That's far too philosophical an answer to quite a straight forward question. Don't over think it.

No, I was as clear as I could be. And I fail to see how giving a "philosophical" answer to a question on a philosophy forum is anything out of the ordinary or inappropriate. :-}

Also, it wasn't a straight forward question, and I suspect you know this.

There was a good essay recently on why Trump is not just a liar - he's a bullshitter. He invents a lot of distractions, muddies the waters, changes the subject, and then gets the media coverage to be all about the bullshit that he's talking about. Donald Trump’s secret isn’t that he lies. It’s that he crowds out the truth.

The bullshitter...is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Trump actually has no connection with, or conception of, 'truth' whatsoever. There's only what's useful, and only winning counts. And it only works because there are those willing to go along with it. That is the sense it which is actually becoming something like a demonic force.

I also think it's obvious that a president of the US is going to know more than the average citizen about the law, the constitution, and his own office, simply by virtue of being president. — Thorongil

:-}

Just to set the record straight here - during Trump's campaign, according to Politifact, which is a fact-checking service, not a media organisation, Trump continually told untruths. I say untruths, because many of the untruths and falsehoods that Trump tells, are not lies per se, but statements he makes about matters he doesn't understand. So he doesn't know if they're true, and generally doesn't care. As is also well-documented, he has never read a book in his life, refuses to read briefing papers or listen to experts in his cabinet, and gets all his 'information' from Brietbart and Fox News. Anyway, he is proven liar, and has been caught out time and time again, even since assuming, or hijacking, the office of President.

How he has accused James Comey of perjury - of lying under oath to the Senate.

If it's a question of the truthfulness of Trump vs Comey, I have absolutely no doubt whose account I would rely on.

Good read from a left wing perspective: https://newrepublic.com/article/142977/new-paranoia-trump-election-turns-democrats-conspiracy-theorists

Thanks - back to the OP.

"And there'd be nothing wrong with it if I did say that, according to everybody that I read today, but I did not say that."

I don't think he is so much post truth as he is apparently not interested in it. He is driven by his ego, whatever he says is the truth, his truth, he's proven it time and time again and his loyal followers go along him with it regardless of the craziness of what he says. He's a bullshitter through and through.

I find it shocking that people find it shocking that politicians lie. What is more, the people in this thread are quite selective in their shock. Obama was as mendacious as Trump. A pox on both their houses, I say.

Obama was as mendacious as Trump. — Thorongil

I see no evidence of that, but I suppose evidence doesn't really matter, post truth.

>:O

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

And many more....

I find it shocking that people find it shocking that politicians lie. — Thorongil

It pisses me of when you pull this "oh you naive little lambs" crap, but I'm going to make an effort to take your point seriously.

So, the founding fathers, they knew people could be right bastards. But freedom is worth having. Justice is a necessity. So you try to craft a system that will provide justice and freedom but won't depend on people being virtuous. They weren't writing the charter for a commune.

Has it worked? How's the republic doing? If it's gone wrong, why? Have we blown it, or could it still be fixed? We still think freedom's worth having, right? We still think justice is a necessity. And we still think everyone has a right to freedom and justice, don't we? So what do we do?

It pisses me of when you pull this "oh you naive little lambs" crap — Srap Tasmaner

If you bitch, moan, complain, whine, and bloviate about the mendacity of one president or one party and pretend like the other side isn't guilty of the same, then you are, in fact, naive. Case in point Wayfarer just now: "Who, Obama? No, he never lied! How could there possibly be evidence of that?! He was just an innocent little dove in the White House!"

So, the founding fathers, they knew people could be right bastards. But freedom is worth having. Justice is a necessity. So you try to craft a system that will provide justice and freedom but won't depend on people being virtuous. They weren't writing the charter for a commune.

Has it worked? How's the republic doing? If it's gone wrong, why? Have we blown it, or could it still be fixed? We still think freedom's worth having, right? We still think justice is a necessity. And we still think everyone has a right to freedom and justice, don't we? So what do we do? — Srap Tasmaner

Apologies, but I'm not following how this is a reply to what I said.

Obama was as mendacious as Trump. — Thorongil

Since you've heard of Politifact, here's Barack Obama's scorecard and here's Donald Trump's scorecard.

Do you think "as mendacious" properly characterizes the comparison?

According to the total number of incidents selectively collected by that one website, no. But I wasn't thinking in terms of numbers but in terms of the severity of the lie in question.

Apologies, but I'm not following how this is a reply to what I said. — Thorongil

Well one interpretation of your posts would be that you don't give a shit, and for some reason don't think anyone else should either. The world's a snakepit and we should all just accept it.

But maybe you're a serious conservative, or whatever you are. Maybe you've got some values. So I took a guess at what those values might be, and asked, in all seriousness, how you think our little experiment is going.

If you care, I would honestly like to know what you think. If you don't, I won't pester you anymore.

According to the total number of anecdotes collected by that one website, no. But I wasn't thinking in terms of numbers but in terms of severity of the lie. — Thorongil

That's a reasonable distinction. I'll look closer.

Well one interpretation of your posts would be that you don't give a shit, and for some reason don't think anyone else should either. The world's a snakepit and we should all just accept it.

But maybe you're a serious conservative, or whatever you are. Maybe you've got some values. So I took a guess at what those values might be, and asked, in all seriousness, how you think our little experiment is going.

If you care, I would honestly like to know what you think. If you don't, I won't pester you anymore. — Srap Tasmaner

I see Western civilization in decline, which obviously includes the US, so I don't think it's going all that well, but it hasn't collapsed yet. And if you want to know what I think on any more specific issue, just ask, instead of floating vague insinuations to the effect that I'm some kind of nihilistic crank. The world is a snakepit, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it or think that no one else should.

That's a reasonable distinction. I'll look closer. — Srap Tasmaner

I also added the word "selectively," as I'm not about to take Politifact's word for it that they've dutifully found all the false statements both men have made. So it could well be that Obama has lied more depending on what one is aware of to tally.

So too am I content in simply claiming that both men have equally mendacious characters. Obama is subtle, but no less ruthless a politician as Trump, whose buffoonish mode of appearance amplifies the impression of mendacity people have of him. Most businessmen sound like liars, even if they're not. Obama had a well manicured appearance and cultivated an affable tone to his public speaking, so I can easily imagine, and could likely prove, that many of his lies went underreported. The fear of being called a racist also likely played some role. Trump actively rebukes the mainstream media, so they have gone into overdrive picking apart every last syllable the man utters, like spurned lovers.

I see Western civilization in decline, which obviously includes the US, so I don't think it's going all that well, but it hasn't collapsed yet. And if you want to know what I think on any more specific issue, just ask, instead of floating vague insinuations to the effect that I'm some kind of nihilistic crank. The world is a snakepit, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it or think that no one else should. — Thorongil

For the record I don't think I was particularly vague. Whether it was an insinuation, well, who's to say?

As for Obama and Trump, I don't actually care that much. I do care about institutions. I believe it is important that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Shall we take Politifact as a reliable source?

Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Yeah, about the same... not.