Do you remember any of the parallels he drew? — Fooloso4

The discussion comes around halfway through this. Both men also see movies like The Matrix, Dark City, Blade Runner as belonging to a tradition dealing in gnostic themes. Our reality being the fraught product of a demiurge and that there is 'special knowledge' available to those who want to know the truth.

The institutions that have tasked themselves with informing the public have failed in that regard. — NOS4A2

I know hating the media is a popular sport amongst people, right or left-wing. No one ever seems satisfied that the media properly represents their interests and the media is always too right, or too left, or too partisan, too phony, or too corporate... Which is why people seem to pick the media outlet (in the old days, the newspaper/magazine) which best reflects their values and intellectual capacity. I'm not in a position to analyze the media landscape and I consume very little journalism. It mostly bores me, for one thing.

The Time's magazine piece did provide what I asked for. That message is notably absent from other messages.

What is missing from your representation is the marketing aspect of politics. Trump has a talent at playing to the groups who are hoping he will provide what others did not.

What were you hoping for with his ascendence?

There are a couple of news items about the mooted 14th Amendment invocation to declare Trump ineligible for public office. In The Atlantic, David Frum argues against it, saying that Trump needs to be beaten at the ballot box (requires subscription). In Politico, the New Hampshire Attorney General is said to be carefully considering the issue (open access).

But leaving this particular Constitutional mechanism aside, the question that nobody seems to be asking is: how can someone who flouts the rules of a contest be allowed to participate in it? Even without a conviction (as yet!) there is an enormous compendium of evidence indicating that Trump sought to overturn the last election by improper means, and it's beyond dispute that he's never acknowledged loosing the last ballot, even despite he and his associates bringing more than 60 lawsuits. He persists in lying about it whenever he speaks about it (which he does on a daily basis).

You couldn't even get into a chess tournament or a tennis match with that kind of attitude. So if he won't play by the rules, why should be allowed to participate? It doesn't seem a very difficult question to me.

It's certainly interesting. It has something to do with the platform that I used to get input of these two people. The popularity of Trump in China is definitely something to think about. I don't know whether there is something secretive going on beneath it or it's just about what kind of news gains popularity among people and spread faster.

how can someone who flouts the rules of a contest be allowed to participate in it? — Wayfarer

That was the question asked at the beginning of the American Civil War.

Yes, a fair depiction. I noticed that academic and theologian David Bentley Hart, in a conversation with Peter O'Leary, calls this a modern reworking/revival of Gnostic mythos. — Tom Storm

I don't think we even have to go as far as QAnon and all that. Rather, it might be your average Republican who basically sees the Dems as just libs. If given the alternative of "Coke Classic" Republicans (I don't know.. there's really not many but someone who isn't Trump in the Republican primary we'll say", they'll take the bombastic cult of personality. You don't have to look to the loons for lunacy. It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved.

That is to say, party-ism truly "trumps" ideas of fairness. Democracies must be set up with respect for the game above all else. But here's the even more intriguing part of this mess. It's not just that Trump is flouting the rules of the game. It is the willingness of those who support the cult of personality to the point where, they don' even recognize it as flouting the rules. They will say, "he didn't really do anything wrong", or even worse, equivocate and say, "he is doing no worse than X, Y, Z politician". And thus, this political gaslighting is the new narrative.

Even in Watergate, both parties could see Nixon was wrong once the tapes were revealed. Not everyone, but a large portion could see the emperor had no clothes.

The popularity of Trump in China is definitely something to think about. — Hailey

I honestly do think there's an element of propaganda in it. Even though Trump was hostile to China, his foreign policy was inept (for instance, he believes to this day that if he imposes a tarriff on Chinese goods, that China has to pay it). But I think the Party will put up with that hostility in exchange for the fact that Trump will overall greatly weaken America, through a combination of ineptitude and isolationism and creating havoc in the American political scene, which is the only thing he has demonstrated any real aptitude for. And the Chinese Government fears Biden - the CHIPS act is inflicting real pain on their tech sector. They understand that he is a much more fearsome opponent on the world stage, as he actually knows what he's doing.

It's the same reason the Russian Government wants to see Trump elected, and constantly commiserate with his trials in their media. They think if Trump wins that he would immediately drop support for Ukraine and basically support Russia, which, given his long record of adulating Vladimir Putin, is not an unreasonable expectation.

That was the question asked at the beginning of the American Civil War. — Paine

And the stakes are almost that high, except for the Proud Boys and their associated crews are nowhere near as big nor as well-supported as the Confederate Army. But if you watch Rachel Maddow this week, she draws some pretty chilling connections between what Trump is doing, and the upsurge of reactionary right-wing violence. Where it's a lot, or a little, blood will be shed over this conflict.

:100:

That is to say, party-ism truly "trumps" ideas of fairness. Democracies must be set up with respect for the game above all else. But here's the even more intriguing part of this mess. It's not just that Trump is flouting the rules of the game. It is the willingness of those who support the cult of personality to the point where, they don' even recognize it as flouting the rules. They will say, "he didn't really do anything wrong", or even worse, equivocate and say, "he is doing no worse than X, Y, Z politician". And thus, this political gaslighting is the new narrative. — schopenhauer1

I think this is right.

It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved. — schopenhauer1

This is a more hair-raising idea and I agree, that's some riddle.

I imagine that for some Chinese, Trump is popular because he promises to drag America down. I've met a number of hard core Marxists who hope he'll get in because they think it will lead to a system breakdown and a revolution.

It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved. — schopenhauer1

This is a more hair-raising idea and I agree, that's some riddle. — Tom Storm

Hint: He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. He made an attempt to influence NATO members to pay more their share. He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. . . .. feel free to ridicule.

But I hope he's stopped from running for president this time around.

He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. — jgill

And failed. You can't tackle that one without the other side...Mexico.

He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. — jgill

So did Neville Chamberlain. Flirting with tyrants and appealing to their narcissism, is the opposite of leading from principle and is anti-American, unless America is supposed to like fascist and authoritarian tendencies as official policy.

I don't know if I'm also subconsiously thinking about that. Or perhaps I'm just gullible to Trump's speeches and interviews where he appears to be more sensible and competent than Baiden. Considering Trump's popularity in the US, I think one factor that may really matter to his many advocates in the US is that he isn't some shrewd politician who would sacrifice ordinary people's direct interest for their own political agenda the impact of which wouldn't manifest itself in the short term but would eventually serve the country in the long run. I also agree that Baiden would pose a much bigger threat to China and Russia. I myself would really want a safe and peaceful global political environment so there is room instead of incessant tension for everyone to grow. The deeply rooted desire is that I want peace, not war; collaboration, not opposition. This may eventually explain my prefence for Trump.

Hint: He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. He made an attempt to influence NATO members to pay more their share. He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. . . .. feel free to ridicule. — jgill

OK. Are you saying that there is a positive and effective side to Trump's Presidency, or just that these items listed are also part of the popular perception - at the less wacky end of things?

They understand that he is a much more fearsome opponent on the world stage, as he actually knows what he's doing. — Wayfarer

I certainlly agree with all what you said there. However it's a bit strange, because I didn't read those news from any official sites. In China, we didn't quite feel that our govenment explicitly or officially advocate any of them. Yet on an entertaining platform in China, called Bilibili, Trump indeed appears more likable. So i don't know if the govenment is behind this, because if so, they surely have done a very good job.

These are things he said he would do, and at least he made efforts to do so, whether anyone thinks they were appropriate or preludes to disaster.

Early on my daughter, a Brooklynite, told me he was thought a criminal by many if not most of his fellow New Yorkers, but I reserved my opinion - and I liked that he promised to do something about the border situation.

But I was simply relating what I thought might be an answer to the question by

But I was simply relating what I thought might be an answer to the question by ↪schopenhauer1 — jgill

Fair enough.

Or perhaps I'm just gullible to Trump's speeches and interviews where he appears to be more sensible and competent than Baiden. — Hailey

That's interesting, I can't imagine Trump ever appearing more sensible or competent than Biden. I'm not an American, so the matter is largely academic. Trump feels more like a stand up comedian than a politician and I can see how some people might be drawn to the spectacle.

So i don't know if the govenment is behind this, because if so, they surely have done a very good job. — Hailey

I'm sure they do! :wink:

I can't imagine Trump ever appearing more sensible or competent than Biden — Tom Storm

This is interesting. I certainly agree that deep down Biden is a more formidable foe to oppsing countries to the US. However, as for the comedian part, don't we agree that it is a facade that Trump pulled up intentionally to relate to and gain popularity from the majority of the non-elite voters and the unsatisfied middle-class? I thought the real appeal of Trump for Americans is a promise to address the economical problems right at hand and to alleviate some of the economical struggles for the people.

Guess what's happening here? :cool:

I certainly agree that deep down Biden is a more formidable foe to oppsing countries to the US. — Hailey

I don't see that. I am referring to his work as a politician, doing the work of a politician - infrastructure, clean energy, mental health, healthcare - being able to talk about policy and implementation of programs, not just lame point scoring. But this is getting dull, I'm not an American, so it's not my world. :wink:

Guess what's happening here? :cool: — jgill

Surely not...

@Ciceronianus You may recall I raised the question of how Trump's potential disqualification under the 14th Amendment might be enacted. Now it appears that State Attorneys General are starting to express their unease at the possibility that elections might be challenged on this basis, should Trump be found to be ineligible - that it might invalidate the ballot paper or the vote itself. Arizona Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, said:

"We have to have a final certification of eligible candidates [for the primary ballot] by Dec. 14 for Arizona’s presidential preference election,” Fontes, a Democrat elected last year, told NBC News. “And because this will ultimately end up in court, we are taking this very seriously.” ...

“We need to run an election,” Fontes said. “We need to know who is eligible, and this is of incredible national interest. We aren’t taking a position one way or the other.

“If there are people who want to fight this out, they need to start swinging, because I have an election to run,” Fontes added.

The same question is being asked in New Hampshire. It seems the recently-published opinion piece by Luttig and Tribe might be starting to ripple through the landscape.

I thought the real appeal of Trump for Americans is a promise to address the economical problems right at hand and to alleviate some of the economical struggles for the people. — Hailey

Did he deliver on that promise, in your filtered view?

Given the times and the stakes, it strikes me this is a legitimate concern. Perhaps these individuals, and maybe other state AGs and Secretaries of State, are or will be inviting litigation or pursuing it (e.g. seeking a declaratory judgment) to settle the issue as much as possible prior to the election.

A case can be made that American elections have always been, as H.L. Mencken said, "a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." But our politics have become particularly depraved lately.

People trust who they trust, and more often than not they’ll trust Uncle Buck before they trust some state-run or state-influenced mouthpiece. — NOS4A2

State-run or corporate-run mouthpiece. But I repeat myself.

My vague and distant impression is that he didn't drain the swamp, he didn't build the wall or make 'them' pay for it, didn't lock her up, didn't de-rust the rustbelt, transform the economy, or bring back the good old days. Above all, he didn't make America great again, but made it a place where drinking disinfectant is suggested as an anti-viral, and religious fundamentalism is encouraged.

My vague and distant impression is that

he didn't drain the swamp,

he didn't build the wall or make 'them' pay for it,

didn't lock her up,

didn't de-rust the rustbelt, transform the economy, or bring back the good old days.

Above all, he didn't make America great again, but made it a place where drinking disinfectant is suggested as an anti-viral, and religious fundamentalism is encouraged. — unenlightened

:100: :up:

Also, he didn't balance the federal budget in four years but instead increased the federal debt by over $6 trillion dollars;

he didn't bring back jobs from China but indtead engaged in a pointless trade war that has only hurt US farmers and drove up retail consumer prices (e.g. Walmarrt);

plus he encouraged voter suppression efforts targetting minorities throughout GOP-controlled states while losing the US House in 2018 and losing both the WH & US Senate in 2020.

TR45H is an utter failure, complete loser & now criminal defendant in multiple federal and state jurisdictions for the rest of his miserably narcissistic, pathetic life. :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367844

@jgill @NOS4A2

our politics have become particularly depraved lately — Ciceronianus

A very simple point which I often make, is to ask how can someone who denies the electoral process and claims not to have lost the last election in the face of all evidence, be allowed to participate in the next one? Surely a pledge to abide by the rules of the contest ought to be a basic minimum entry requirement. Plain common sense, I would have thought.

//Imagine if DJT were challenged that in order to continue with his bid for the Presidency, all he need do is sign a publlc document acknowledging that he lost to Biden in 2020, and that his previous denials of this were falsehoods, and that he promised to abide by the rules in the next round. If he couldn't bring himself to do it, it would be over.//

The Western world needs Trump to be saved:

Hungary’s Orbán urges US to ‘call back Trump’ to end Ukraine war in Tucker Carlson interview
^{— Bela Szandelszky · AP · Aug 30, 2023}

Call back Trump. … Trump is the man who can save the Western world. — Viktor Orbán

So there. :wink: