Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

If he does go head to head with Harris, as I presume he will, I presume Harris team are prepared for the obvious responses he will go for, whatever happens.

Ie, if he manages to talk over her and interrupt and derail, the GOP will take the line 'You can't have a female leader, she's weak, everyone will talk all over her, no one will respect her'

If she doesn't let him do that it'll be 'Oooh, angry black woman! She'll talk over everyone and no one will respect her!'

If I were the Dems I'd broadcast far and wide ahead of the debate that this is the GOP's plan - to use misogyny, racism or both - because it is, and that'll make it much harder for them to say it and it'll make Trump look more shitty whatever approach he takes.
 
Cloo said:
If he does go head to head with Harris, as I presume he will, I presume Harris team are prepared for the obvious responses he will go for, whatever happens.

Ie, if he manages to talk over her and interrupt and derail, the GOP will take the line 'You can't have a female leader, she's weak, everyone will talk all over her, no one will respect her'

If she doesn't let him do that it'll be 'Oooh, angry black woman! She'll talk over everyone and no one will respect her!'

If I were the Dems I'd broadcast far and wide ahead of the debate that this is the GOP's plan - to use misogyny, racism or both - because it is, and that'll make it much harder for them to say it and it'll make Trump look more shitty whatever approach he takes.
Click to expand...

I think in the Biden/Trump debate they cut each others mics while the other was talking, hopefully they'd have the same policy if they debate.
 
Trump now desperately trying to distance himself from Project 2025 because of the widespread coverage it's had, courtesy of Harris & co. Behind a paywall but a couple of quotes from the WaPo article:

The former president has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025 after relentless attacks from Democrats using some of the 900-page playbook’s more aggressive proposals to impute them to Trump’s agenda since many of the proposals were written by alumni of Trump’s White House... While some participants in the project started avoiding interviews and public appearances, Trump advisers grew furious that Heritage leaders continued promoting the project and feeding critical news coverage."
Click to expand...

“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way.”
Click to expand...

😄 Yeah, right.
 
kabbes said:
It pre-supposes that people have some kind of personal and static interior process that produces particular behaviours for that individual regardless of context, thus completely ignoring the rich social and cultural artefacts through which people make meaning of themselves and others within one context differently to another.
Click to expand...
Is it not just sampling individuals' attitudes which needn't be static but will indeed change over time. And don't all peoples' individual attitudes and actions add up to the rich cultural artefacts?

Or can we not use interviews of this sort at all in research, or is it the classing people according to those psychological categories? I'm not sure why you don't like it.
 
two sheds said:
www.theguardian.com

‘Say it to my face’ says Kamala Harris as she again challenges Donald Trump to debate – as it happened

This blog is closed. You can find our latest US elections coverage here.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

He and his supporters will be getting more and more extreme if it looks like he's going to lose won't they.
Click to expand...
Ugly overreaction could be what swings the election decisively to Harris.

Biden was much too cautious and polite towards Trump, getting him wound up and foaming at the mouth is the better approach.
 
two sheds said:
Is it not just sampling individuals' attitudes which needn't be static but will indeed change over time. And don't all peoples' individual attitudes and actions add up to the rich cultural artefacts?

Or can we not use interviews of this sort at all in research, or is it the classing people according to those psychological categories? I'm not sure why you don't like it.
Click to expand...
They're two different approaches to the same issue. It's not so much that one is wrong and the other right. They can both be right on their own terms, but which one has the greater explanatory power?

So in this case, they've used pretty clearly leading questions in a questionnaire to out individuals as 'psychos', then attached to those some more questions to measure their likelihood to do various provocative things, asked just after they've outed themselves as more likely to do that kind of thing. (Aside from anything else, there is a serious case of 'priming' going on there.) Does the survey tell us anything interesting? Not really. Self-regarding, self-important twats tend to do self-regarding, self-important things.

The survey has nothing to say about how these people became formed as self-regarding, self-important twats. That would be potentially interesting and explanatory. It also doesn't say anything about the way this self-importance manifests itself and how that might be a culturally dependent phenomenon. Does the US produce more people with these personality traits and values than other cultures? And do people with these personality traits and values act differently due to the influence of US culture?

There is something deeply objectionable about a lot of the nonsense spoken about personality traits, often treating them as if they were genetically pre-determined. But we can see that they are not simply by comparing peoples from different cultures. Is there a genetic component? Of course. There is a genetic component to just about everything. But that nature is then nurtured. It's not nature or nurture. It is always both. It is nurture of nature. And any study of this kind that doesn't address this point is unlikely to explain very much.

I think I would argue that it is meaningless to separate personality traits from values. That's like having an econony and not a political economy. And values are very certainly something that is formed in the context of a society. Our values, at a basic level, are brain modules that inform and guide our activity and decision-making. And how do you judge someone's personality traits if not through examining their activity and decision-making?
 
two sheds said:
Is it not just sampling individuals' attitudes which needn't be static but will indeed change over time. And don't all peoples' individual attitudes and actions add up to the rich cultural artefacts?

Or can we not use interviews of this sort at all in research, or is it the classing people according to those psychological categories? I'm not sure why you don't like it.
Click to expand...
In simple terms, it says “these people do these things because they are just bad people. They are psychopaths, that’s just what they are.” It locates the reason for the behaviour as essential to the individual.

A completely different way of looking at it is that within the culture, there are various ways of making sense of in-groups and out-groups, which position individuals with certain roles and associate them with particular rituals and practices. Those individuals then behave “normally” according to what is “normal” within those practices. They understand what constitutes appropriate ways to perform their political identity by drawing on those narratives. The human within a culture that is inextricably part of the ways of their being. Not just bad man do bad thing.
 
kabbes said:
In simple terms, it says “these people do these things because they are just bad people. They are psychopaths, that’s just what they are.” It locates the reason for the behaviour as essential to the individual.

A completely different way of looking at it is that within the culture, there are various ways of making sense of in-groups and out-groups, which position individuals with certain roles and associate them with particular rituals and practices. Those individuals then behave “normally” according to what is “normal” within those practices. They understand what constitutes appropriate ways to perform their political identity by drawing on those narratives. The human within a culture that is inextricably part of the ways of their being. Not just bad man do bad thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just had to look at that article again to check on the study's methods. It is remarkable in how it manages to say absolutely nothing. It's basically a great big, rather obvious tautology.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yeah, I just had to look at that article again to check on the study's methods. It is remarkable in how it manages to say absolutely nothing. It's basically a great big, rather obvious tautology.
Click to expand...
Welcome, unfortunately, to the majority of contemporary academic psychology. This is what comes of thinking that a natural science epistemology is the best way to gain insight into the complexity of the human in culture.
 
two sheds said:
Fucking hell even criticisms on Fox News I see why Trump has turned against it.
Click to expand...
One of those reporters on the stage, the lady in pink, is a Faux hack, and she continued to try and defend his performance after. Jessica, who was the one calling him out, is the lone liberal voice on their awful channel. I don't know how she sticks it, but she does tell it like it is to the rest of the stooges. I'm surprised she is allowed on there.
 
wow - whose idea was it to have him grilled by black journalists? great to see the hate-clown actaully being called to acount for once. And he really doesnt like it.
Fucking hell - starting to think hes going to lose. (bigly)
The contrast between him and KH is really really striking - shes all positive, laughing, articulate, confident and not intmidated by him whilst he's old, tired, angry, scowling and often incoherent.
 
Last edited:
kabbes said:
In simple terms, it says “these people do these things because they are just bad people. They are psychopaths, that’s just what they are.” It locates the reason for the behaviour as essential to the individual.

A completely different way of looking at it is that within the culture, there are various ways of making sense of in-groups and out-groups, which position individuals with certain roles and associate them with particular rituals and practices. Those individuals then behave “normally” according to what is “normal” within those practices. They understand what constitutes appropriate ways to perform their political identity by drawing on those narratives. The human within a culture that is inextricably part of the ways of their being. Not just bad man do bad thing.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of...."The need to lend voice to suffering is a condition of all truth, for suffering is objectivity that weighs upon the subject. It's most subjective experience is objectively mediated". Adorno. We get into all sorts of nonsense when subject and object is split and divorced absoloutly. There's no split. All that sounds pretentiously philosophical but it's not really - "no man is an island" is anotehr way of putting it and they truly aren't, to their deepest core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
495
frogwoman
frogwoman
Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
15K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
editor
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
25
Views
572
hash tag
hash tag
Back
Top Bottom