A friend told me about a series of videos that I believe we should all watch, no matter what our political or non political leanings are.
The first video is an examination of Donald Trump, our current president.
The comments under all of these videos are also worth checking out as they give honest accounts of how Americans feel. I understand how difficult it can be to interact with those of opposing views who seem so set on their beliefs. I understand how many of those commenters feel. As an American it is painful to watch the divisions within my own country. Because I can still connect with those of differing political beliefs on the mundane issues of life. We can agree on many things, just not politics.
So on this July 4th maybe we need to examine us.
H/T - A Friend
62 comments:
The (generally unacknowledged) third stanza of "The Star Spangled Banner" promises terror and death to escaped black slaves who fought for the British Empire in the War of 1812 (in return for a promise of freedom after the conflict was over--a bargain the British had made with American slaves during the Revolutionary War as well). To wit:
♫♪"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
"From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave".♫♪
But, they don't generally sing that part at the ballpark before the game.
I did not know that about the third verse. It just goes to show that history is written by those in power. If we let them.
And it's generally not acknowledged anymore that the late great Jackie Robinson refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem when he was breaking the color barrier in professional baseball.
I had a chance to sit down long enough to play your first recommended video. It is not as shallow as I had feared it would be. (It asserts at several points that Trump's actions are not simply the result of malice, but kinda glosses over the fact that there is nevertheless real, actual malice involved there.) But, if it's not overly deep on that score, that may well be because Trump himself isn't overly deep.
I'll get around to the second part before too long.
The first video took a lot of Trump's formative history from Mary Trump's book I think. But it did explain better why Trump has to come out on top all the time. Or at least in his mind, whether it is true or not.
The second and third videos run longer, but I feel are of more interest. Especially the third. They make it clear that this is not politics as normal. They are a warning of how difficult the future is going to be.
There was a Trump supporter that was interviewed recently who lost a lot of money investing in one of Trump's schemes. He didn't blame Trump, he blamed Democrats. The second video will explain why.
During the second video they quit saying that Trump's cult isn't purely about malice, and started saying it wasn't about malice--dropping the adverbial qualifier. I tend to disagree with that move. But, it was otherwise interesting. I'm glad you posted the links. I'd have probably asked you how it turned out had you not put 'em up to look at.
If anything I think turning the Trumpkins back away from the cult is gonna be harder than those shrinks know. I don't think they hang out with many Trumpkins on a day to day basis.
Being a Trumpkin isn't just a mental defense mechanism. It's also a release--not just a protective wall but also a cudgel.
Yes, I think it will be more difficult as well. They are right that at times it is better to walk away.
But the videos did make me think of Trump supporters in another way and maybe that will help.
The third video makes clear who may or may not be reached.
As they open their third video the shrinks quoted a comment made to their second video which they described as "brilliant".
"They loved to say that facts don't care about your feelings.
Only to find that their feelings don't care about facts."
According to the shinks: "This sentence cuts straight to the core of what one must grasp if one hopes to counter populism." (This is supposedly part of what convinced them to do the third video.)
Problem is, it's wrong. The Trumpkins "feelings" care tremendously about facts, that's why they've spun up an alternate universe replete with ‛alternative facts’. (And they will often defend their false ‛facts’ just as fiercely as they defend Trump.)
Proceeding from a wrong set of premises, the shinks then make occasional mistakes in their subsequent analysis. (It's perhaps consistent and correct when judged by their known psychoanalytic/psychological scholarship, but it doesn't always match up with real Trumpkins in the real world.)
If the Trumpkins do care about facts, then if those facts result in adverse affects to their own lives, they may be reached. So there may be hope in this sense.
I am thinking of the farmers who have been hurt by tariffs.
The fellow who didn't seem to connect the fact that he lost money on a Trump scheme with Trump and blamed Democrats may be of the ilk that do not care about facts but are living in a delusional world made to fit their protective shell.
"The fellow who…blamed Democrats may be of the ilk that do
not care about facts…"
Or, he may be of the ilk who find that they have to cling to belief in some imaginary ‛alternative’ facts in order to sustain their dedication to Trump and to the cult. Not knowing the particulars of the man nor of his monetary loss, I can't guess which it is in that particular case.
But, their dedication to the cult can make them immune to the truth--some of them simply won't give up their belief in their imaginary facts no matter the evidence marshalled against them.
As for the farmers who're losing money and markets, I believe the most common coping mechanism across the board is to acknowledge that Trump's tariffs have been bad for farmers in particular (they will choose to believe it's a temporary discomfort), but it's worth it to them (so far) because they so strongly approve of his social agenda.
It's not clear to me that they'll maintain that posture as farm bankruptcies begin to spread to cover them and their families and friends.
The man who lost money was one of the many who bought into Trump's meme coin scam. If I remember right he lost about $40,000. Those investors lost in total about $1.4 billion, while Trump made $636 million. These are probably the people the third video referred to when they talked about them not breaking their protective bubble, or as you just said they won't give up their imaginary facts.
That was just a new twist on a classic Ponzi scheme, and again, Trump is a classic conman.
While he dangles all of those social issues before his supporters with one hand he robs them blind with the other.
I can't even imagine how he manages to blame the Democrats for that one.
Lol! I know. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Apparently Trump made some sort of speech at Mt. Rushmore yesterday to kick off the 4th of July celebration. Still angling to get his head up there, I guess.
Trump appears to have made another $799 million from another memecoin he promoted under the name of "World Liberty Financial" #1 (with a huge investment by the UAE) Investors there seem to have faired similar to investors in $TRUMP coins.
The New York Times is predicting a class action lawsuit as soon as Trump leaves office (assuming Trump leaves office). NYT
I read somewhere that Trump makes sure that he gets his cut up front, so he will never lose money.
That is correct. He also gets a commission on each subsequent sale even if the holder is selling at a loss. (I.e. If they try to bail out, cut their losses, they have to pay Trump for the privilege.)
Front end and back end load.
Changing subjects: It looks like Trump's war against Iran is back on again.
Yes, I noticed that. His not a forever, forever war.
Yup, the war is back on.
I'm sure it doesn't surprise a lot of people.
Another ICE killing in Houston.
Trump seems to have been rattling back and forth between the idea of an 'imaculate' military conquest of Iran (in which he never has to put troops on the ground) and the equally improbable idea of a negotiated suicide by the Islamic regime.
Attempts to enforce either of these visions have had unfortunate effects on American stock values (and fuel prices).
Post Script:
On the way home from Türkiye, Trump returned to an old lie, claiming that Iran had "called" and was desperate to make a deal.
I heard somewhere that he didn't fly back in his fancy new plane. Any clue why? I thought it had been delivered.
No information as to why.
Speculation I've seen centers around a possible "security" breach.
"President Donald Trump has ousted the remaining commis-
sioners from a bipartisan federal agency charged with helping
state and local officials conduct elections in an apparent move
to assert control over voting ahead of the midterms."
Politico
He has also cut off funding and briefings for security of the elections.
Spelling errors...
There seems to be a plot by Iran to assassinate Trump, according to Israel.
Looks like the Housing bill becomes law despite Trump not signing.
Trump and the ayatollahs have been engaged in dueling declarations regarding the status of the Strait of Hormuz.
I will not attempt to predict how that one will turn out.
However, I will notice that Trump has no mechanism to collect the 20% he's claiming he'll charge for the passage of commercial traffic through said Strait.
And what is the fee based on? Cargo? The number of ships passing through the Strait? Would insurance companies pay for it? All questions that are being asked.
Another Trump diversion from the fact he screwed everything up...again.
Will the death of Lindsey Graham affect the balance of power? Long term?
Lindsey Graham had no power. He was reduced to a hanger-on who amused Trump. They'll drop him out of the headlines before the flags go back up to full staff on the 18th.
"And what is the fee based on?"
The fee is a total fantasy, not based on anything; nobody's gonna pay Trump to seize control of Hormuz.
It appears Trump has dropped the talk about a 20% fee for passage through the Strait of Hormuz in favor of some inchoate offers of future "investment" in the American economy, supposedly made by Trump's Middle Eastern allies. TheHill
Ahh, Taco'd again.
I hear the Dear Leader is going to give some kind of address on Thursday with regard to election security. He says it's going to be big.
Sooo...it may be interesting to see exactly what big is.
Switched subjects there did ya? Or think ya did?
Maybe not. May be that they're related.
Trump hadn't figured out how he was going to implement his protection racket on the Strait of Hormuz. He was waiting for the involved parties to begin squabbling over who was gonna pay the protection money. Figured that'd give him ideas on how to collect. But, instead he got a general, across-the-board rejection of his proposal. So, now he's gonna take an unsecured promise to ‛invest’ in America at some point in the future.
Quaere then: How does that help Trump, given that he's going to be out of office within roughly 2½ years, long before any ‛investments’ could possibly come to fruition?
Answer is: Trump doesn't figure to be out of office. Instead he's plotting on how to overstay his current term.
Huh! Trump has endorsed the creepy pillow guy for Governor of Minnesota. Doesn't surprise me.
Yeah, given that so many actions by the GOP in general and Trump in particular have seemed to burn bridges they do seem to be planning on staying beyond their welcome. If they ever were welcomed by the majority of Americans.
I'm gonna record it, just in case I later decide that shoulda watched it.
My guess though is that it's gonna be directed at Trumpkan/Republican holdouts in the Congress, to get them to pass his "SAVE America" bill. If so, it'll be of interest to dedicated Trumpkins who're the folks he wants to help him pressure those holdouts, and it'll be of interest to those holdouts themselves, but likely won't hold my interest.
I thought about tuning in, but he Is so hard listen to I just may wait for the highlights, or lowlights, that are sure to be picked over.
I don't know what to make of this, but…
The local NBC tv affiliate did not bother to preëmpt it's regularly scheduled broadcasting to carry the President's address. So, I recorded a nature show of some sort focused on animal life in the Americas.
Well, now I know what to make of it.
Neither NBC nor ABC carried the president's speech live. (Although both made it available on streaming platforms for free.)
Trump was not pleased.
ABC came on later with reporters' analyses debunking the speech that they hadn't carried. Guess they thought it was bad enough to warrant a quick rebuttal.
Lol!
My guess is the nature show would be a more interesting watch.
From what I am reading on CNN the speech was a nothing burger. You were right in thinking it had to do with the SAVE Act.
I decided to finish a Harlan Coben book I have been reading. A more productive use of my time.
CBS News was carrying the speech live.
They cut away from Trump (left him live in a box with no sound) at about 18 minutes into Trump's presentation.
CBS was just recently purchased by a conservative mega-billionaires CEO David Ellison and his father Larry Ellison, a vocal long-time Trump supporter. And they cut away from Trump while he was speaking anyway. Too much for them to stomach going out on their own airwaves.
I did manage to watch 18 minutes of it, before CBS cut away. (I had another station recording.) Seemed clear to me that Trump isn't going to wait until 2028 to try to send in the troops to stop the election counts. He's intending to try to pull that off this round--in the upcoming mid-terms. It's not clear to me that he'll have the guts to actually pull the trigger on that plan. Not after tonight's speech blows up in his face.
Trump's "American Flag Blue" sealant on the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has already sunbleached out to a dull bluish-gray color. TheHill
I think I may have to listen to some of it. There was one Trump official saying something about warning state election officials that if they don't use information sent to them by federal officials they will be subject to fines or even prison time. Don't know what he was talking about.
If you're looking for an argument that holds water, don't bother. It ain't there. His intended audience ain't looking for an argument that holds water. Just one they won't have to laugh at when they try to repeat it, something they can hold a straight face to.
This is instead where Trump and his minions begin to gin up the faithful to expect some violence this fall. (And to expect to maybe engage in some violence themselves in his support.) And this is just the start. He'll progressively ratchet up the hysteria as the general election approaches. They ain't backin' down from this one. (Trump may yet chicken out when the time comes, leave a lot of them hanging out on a limb. That's what he did on Jan 6ᵗʰ. But we'll have to wait 'til November to see 'bout that.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Side note: Stephen Hayes (now editor of "The Dispatch" after a prior lifetime as an acclaimed conservative journalist and commentator) said on Friday (on "Washington Week" on PBS) that applicants for positions within the Trump administration, even low-level positions, are asked in their interview, usually as the first question, who won the 2020 election. The necessary answer is to affirm that Trump won. Anything else and the applicant doesn't get a job with the administration. (Hayes says it's a question of demonstrating the necessary "loyalty" to Trump and Trump's narratives.)
If they are smart they will not take a job with the Trump administration.
The war with Iran seems to be heating up. Two of our service personnel have been killed in the latest Iranian attack. There is a real risk of this spreading. Some people have been speculating on a Houthi blockade of the Suez Canal.
I was talking this evening to someone who actually listened to Trump's whole speech. She said it was boring. She usually listens for the entertainment, but there was none of that in this speech.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard is claiming that two oil tankers have "exploded" while trying to navigate the Strait of Hormuz under U.S. protection. TheHill I haven't seen any confirmations of that claim, but it appears the Houthi in Yemen have announced a "blockade" specifically against Saudi Arabia. AlJezzera And that has been confirmed by several sources.
Confirmation on the two oil tankers being hit in the Strait. (Hit but not sunk apparently.) Reuters
Wouldn't you think they would have tricked out that new plane for Trump with all the security bells and whistles before he used it?
Seriously, that guy who poured inflammatory liquid on the sidewalk in front of the federal building was an idiot. There are some really crazy people out there. What did he think that was going to do?
Yeah, it seems that our Navy is having a little difficulty assuring safe passage in the Strait. No surprise.
Hello $5 gas?
"What did he think that was going to do?"
He probably thought it would draw attention, get him in the headlines. He probably hoped those headlines would report on his favorite political grudge, but they mostly have not. Although there are hints he was anti-ICE.
________________________________
"Nearly half of Americans say they believe the Supreme Court
is ruling on President Trump’s policies based on ideology
instead of the law, according to a new poll.
"The Washington Post/Ipsos survey, conducted July 8-13,
found that 46 percent of 2,648 respondents said they believe
the nine justices are ruling on cases impacting the president’s
agenda based on ideology.
"A quarter of respondents said the high court is ruling on
those cases based on the law, while 28 percent had no
opinion and 1 percent skipped the question."
TheHill
I always look at those polls and wonder, not about those who voted yes or no, but about those who have no opinion.
This is their country too. Despite what they may think, this all affects them too. They should at least notice.
Trump has made a deal with KSA that allows them to enrich uranium. 911 families are rightly upset. Wonder what the Saudis bribed him with?
Will Congress grow a pair and nix it or roll over as usual?
Post a Comment