(12-08-2016 03:27 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: (12-08-2016 02:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Couple that with things like Trump feeling the need to single out and attack *by name* a local union leader who criticized him.
As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the head of the automakers (pre-bailout, post-inauguration) by name?
As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the secured creditors of GM and Chrysler?
Not that I am saying that what Trump did was copacetic, but good god "tomayto tomahto"
Quote:This is a guy who encouraged violence against protestors during the campaign. How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?
Well.... perhaps you should review the Project Veritas undercover expose on Scott Foval and Robert Creamer's activities in conjunction with the DNC and Hillary (per their own words) relating to the same topics cited above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
Sorry for the snark, but I am continuously intrigued by the hypocritical lamentations of both sides given that their "boys" typically engage in roughly *exactly* the same typed of activities and stances complained about.
I find it just as disgusting that a President elect calls out the union boss by name as a sitting President calling out corporate management and secured creditors by name for the*exact* same reasons.
And I find the issues re: violence disgusting across both camps. Getting real tired of hearing one side is slush and the other side pure as the driven snow, when both engage in *exactly* the same activities.
To be blunt it really doesnt help to harp on issues that have exact duplicates on your side of the spectrum......
Rice Lad made my point re: Project Veritas. I mean, seriously.
To the larger point, a president or presidential candidate criticizing a CEO is very much NOT the same as tweeting ad hominems at a private citizen. The latter, is in fact, pretty weird. I mean his second tweet was basically "I bet you're the reason all the jobs left!" I await his third "I know you are, but what am I?"
And the SNL stuff is again, just strange. Why is he fuming over SNL and tweeting about it? It's worrisome both because it seems like he's going to make Nixon and his "enemies list" seem balanced and well adjusted, and because he seems to think he's not allowed to be satirized.
But back to the violent incidents. Saying "both sides do it" and pretending like it's equal is BS. Show me the clips of Obama or Clinton saying telling supporters to "beat the crap out of" protestors, saying they "ought to be brought out on a stretcher" and offering to pay legal bills. Hell, show me the clips of OTHER REPUBLICANS doing that. Oh wait, there aren't any because what Trump has been doing is completely not normal. (Yes, I know Biden made some ridiculous comment about taking trump behind the barn.)
After no other election have I heard first or second hand stories of violence, threats, and harassment. (Meaning I either know the person or know someone who knows them.) Yet I am over a dozen after this election.
I don't wish to defend Trump's tweeting. I think it's pointless, divisive and escalates (rather than defuses) tensions. See Pence's response at the Hamilton show for the proper way to handle stuff like this.
Much of what has happened since the election has supported my contention that Trump is not qualified for the job. I will concede he has improved in many areas and seems to be trying to take on the responsibility in most ways. But being 25% obviously unqualified, is still unqualified (and I don't expect him or anyone to be knowledgeable on every subject. I'm talking temperament and actions)
But his reaction to criticism is not unique to the American experience either. It is just not "modern". After all, dueling was hardly a singularly rare occurrence in the late 18th and early 19th century, often over slights that were not much different than an SNL skit.
Aaron Burr and Andrew Jackson both took lives in duels. I have no doubt that research would turn up additional politically-related murders committed by less illustrious office holders.
Political muckraking was an art form throughout the 19th century.
An interesting discussion would be: Which is worse, tweeting your annoyance and disdain in public, or keeping a secret enemies list (a la Nixon), or quietly having the IRS target certain groups you don't like?
I don't think our modern world with mass and instant communication lends itself well to someone with Trump's temperament. However, as discussed in another post, I also think what Trump 'believes as true' at any given moment may be much more related to his Myers-Briggs personality type than a set of idealogical beliefs.
To the degree that congressional and foreign leaders can accept that fact and adjust their own interpersonal approaches to Trump accordingly, the better the chance that something workable and perhaps even positive can come out of Trump's being elected.
e.g., witness Trump's seemingly recent discovery of admiration for Obama
Most of the media, on the other hand, are going to crucify him daily on the inconsistencies that can be a fairly normal occurrence for someone who is more of an F than a T on the Myers-Briggs scale.
Put it another way, if you react to your spouse (male, female does not matter) on strictly a logical, factual base when they are reacting out of feelings and emotions rather than logic and truth . . . . how productive is that?
And even the most logical, truth-centered "T"'s out there will at times react emotionally and irrationally. They say that people who test out with the strongest proclivity towards one side of the Myers Briggs personality pairs are usually very, very weak on the opposite side of the pair, and when under a lot of stress can behave very badly when forced to the other side (in this case, the emotional or "F" for feeling side can 'blow up' on an extremely logical, truthful person under extreme stress).
Regardless, Trump's personality style is certainly not what the 'modern world' generally has come to expect in a President.
Edit: And one other thing. I'm not sure the president of a union should not be considered a public official or public persona. They generally are elected and wield a decent amount of power. (Not that it should change anyone's general feelings about a world leader tweeting his opinions and emotions)