What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/

Trump retweets a video saying 'the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat'

The speaker said he wasn't being literal — but later suggest he might have been, at least in part. And this is part of a pattern for Trump.

If there was ever a tweet tailor-made for promotion by President Trump, it might be this one: A video by an account called "Cowboys for Trump" in which the speaker begins by saying, "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." The speaker quickly qualifies that he's not speaking literally.

At precisely midnight, the president felt this was the kind of message that people needed to see. "Thank you Cowboys. See you in New Mexico!" he said in a retweet.

What lay ahead was entirely predictable. People are rightly pointing out that a president just promoted the idea of dead Democrats. Trump will have the kind of plausible deniability he craves — the guy even said he wasn't being literal! — and the world will keep turning.

But the speaker has also made clear he wasn't being entirely figurative. And Trump's history with this kind of thing makes clear he knows exactly what he's injecting into the national dialogue.

The video is actually more than a week old, having caused a stir back then. The speaker, an Otero County, N.M., commissioner named Couy Griffin, has already been disavowed by the New Mexico Republican Party, even if he was just speaking figuratively.

"The Republican Party of New Mexico wants to state for the record that any statements, whether in jest or serious about harming another individual are just plain wrong," the party said in a tweet on May 20. The Young Republicans of New Mexico have also called for him to apologize.

Griffin initially declined to back down and claimed persecution, though he eventually said he "could've chosen a different verbiage, you know. I guess I need to be more careful when I choose the words that I speak."

But his other comments indicated he's not entirely discounting the idea of violence or dead Democrats.


In the same remarks, Griffin said that a "Plan B" after "Plan A" of winning elections would be some kind of uprising. "If we have to get shoulder-to-shoulder and create posses and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our great sheriffs, we'll fight you at the county lines, but we're not letting you have our guns," he said.

He was later asked by the Daily Beast whether protesters against coronavirus-related restrictions might resort to violence, and responded, "I'll tell you what, partner, as far as I'm concerned, there's not an option that's not on the table."
...

[Eddie Teach]

I'd say Trump's history makes clear he knows little about anything, but I guess the evil mastermind makes better press.

[garbon]

I'd say Trump's history makes clear he knows little about anything, but I guess the evil mastermind makes better press.

I think Trump has made it quite clear he knows how to troll and loves the attention that gets him. 'Mighty fine people on both sides'

[The Brain]

Is Trump a moran, or is he a mastermind cunningly acting like a moran? I need a razor.

[DGuller]

Is Trump a moran, or is he a mastermind cunningly acting like a moran? I need a razor.

He's Forrest Gump.  He keeps making plays that pay off without ever understanding why that is or even what they are.

[The Brain]

Is Trump a moran, or is he a mastermind cunningly acting like a moran? I need a razor.

He's Forrest Gump.  He keeps making plays that pay off without ever understanding why that is or even what they are.

Didn't Forrest Gump have a big dick?

[crazy canuck]

Christ, Seedy was right about you guys.

Raz, even CC gave up on this.  Let that sink in.

As I said earlier, the reference should have been to workers or the workforce.  JR's observation that the proper term to use was labour is accepted as a friendly amendment.  Not sure why you and Grumbles find the need to defend the odd phraseology.  Perhaps just let that sink in.

Also, Raz, I had drafted a post about how Seedy, Jacob and others, have found the road out of here because of the quality of posting in response to your post.  But I thought it self evident.  On the positive side, I don't think we have yet reached the point of critical mass of the posters worth interacting with having departed - yet.

[Sheilbh]

The other point is, he's on the news to communicate. If he'd use a phrase like "workers" is everyone would understand it and he'd have done his job. Even dullards like me would get what he meant.

As I say I don't think this is shocking intellectually dishonest social media witch-hunting like never before, this is politics 101 since the radio was invented.

[Admiral Yi]

The other point is, he's on the news to communicate. If he'd use a phrase like "workers" is everyone would understand it and he'd have done his job. Even dullards like me would get what he meant.

As I say I don't think this is shocking intellectually dishonest social media witch-hunting like never before, this is politics 101 since the radio was invented.

It's one thing when people scratch their head and say "wtf does that mean?"  It's another thing all together when someone like AOC jumps on her soapbox and concocts this elaborate accusation of racism and promoting slavery over the use of an innocuous term.  It's analogous to a situation long ago in the DC government when a white worker was jumped on for using the word "niggardly."  That's the intellectual dishonesty DGuller is talking about.  At some point AOC has to realize that everything she said is premised on an incorrect understanding.

[crazy canuck]

The other point is, he's on the news to communicate. If he'd use a phrase like "workers" is everyone would understand it and he'd have done his job. Even dullards like me would get what he meant.

As I say I don't think this is shocking intellectually dishonest social media witch-hunting like never before, this is politics 101 since the radio was invented.

Yeah, that is the first and most obvious point. But DGuller and Grumbles insist that speakers should only speak to people as smart as they are.

[crazy canuck]

The other point is, he's on the news to communicate. If he'd use a phrase like "workers" is everyone would understand it and he'd have done his job. Even dullards like me would get what he meant.

As I say I don't think this is shocking intellectually dishonest social media witch-hunting like never before, this is politics 101 since the radio was invented.

It's one thing when people scratch their head and say "wtf does that mean?"  It's another thing all together when someone like AOC jumps on her soapbox and concocts this elaborate accusation of racism and promoting slavery over the use of an innocuous term.  It's analogous to a situation long ago in the DC government when a white worker was jumped on for using the word "niggardly."  That's the intellectual dishonesty DGuller is talking about.  At some point AOC has to realize that everything she said is premised on an incorrect understanding.

Using that phrase is a revelation of character though.  A person who thinks about workers as workers would use the obvious term "workers".  If they wanted to sound more sophisticated they might even say labour or labour force.  But if the person thinks of workers as an entry in a balance sheet then they might well use the tortured term that was used.

[Sheilbh]

It's one thing when people scratch their head and say "wtf does that mean?"  It's another thing all together when someone like AOC jumps on her soapbox and concocts this elaborate accusation of racism and promoting slavery over the use of an innocuous term.  It's analogous to a situation long ago in the DC government when a white worker was jumped on for using the word "niggardly."  That's the intellectual dishonesty DGuller is talking about.  At some point AOC has to realize that everything she said is premised on an incorrect understanding.

I mean was that the aide to the Mayor of DC in 1999? I'm going off the list of "controversies about the word niggardly":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly

Given that Wiki exists, it's clearly not a commonly used word and is liable to give offence. Don't use it, based on that, especially in schools or politics (which makes sense - imagine hearing from your 10 year old about this new word they've learned).

I think the same point holds for him - he's a public figure communicating to the public and doesn't think of his audience. Best case no-one knows what you mean, worst case it sounds offensive/creepy/weird to the average users. If you're their political opponent - then you make hay.

To me it's like Joe Biden's gaffes, nine times out of ten we all know what he means especially if you're in politics. Maybe it's intellectual dishonest (I'm not sure I care about that), but I think it's fair game to jump all over it and imply whatever you can get away with if someone's mis-speaking, miscommunicate, flubbing their lines.

[The Brain]

To many people language isn't a tool for communication, but a weapon used to assert dominance and silence others. Pretending to be shocked by innocent words is part of this. I think they are being destructive and their behavior saddens me, but I'm told it's for a good cause so it's OK.

[Admiral Yi]

To me it's like Joe Biden's gaffes, nine times out of ten we all know what he means especially if you're in politics. Maybe it's intellectual dishonest (I'm not sure I care about that), but I think it's fair game to jump all over it and imply whatever you can get away with if someone's mis-speaking, miscommunicate, flubbing their lines.

Dang.  I thought we were supposed to be the side fighting post-truth. 

[DGuller]

Maybe it's intellectual dishonest (I'm not sure I care about that), but I think it's fair game to jump all over it and imply whatever you can get away with if someone's mis-speaking, miscommunicate, flubbing their lines.

Ugh, good God, this sentence is like a cyanide for the soul. 

I think communication is a good in itself, one necessary for proper social functioning, and an absolutely essential part of any communication is the good faith attempt to understand what is being communicated and acknowledge the communication as intended.  That requires some reasonable tolerance for less than immaculate choice of words for the context, because communication is not a programming language but instead requires constant balancing between conciseness and completeness, and it's impossible to get this balance exactly right exactly 100% of the time. 

If we treat communication as just a game to be won or lost, we're going to be in a very dark place.