I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
If the debate was a cognitive test, the former president failed.
By Richard A. Friedman
Quote
...Much of the time, following Trump's train of thought was difficult, if not impossible. In response to a question from the moderator David Muir about whether he regretted anything he'd done during the January 6 insurrection, Trump said:
"I have said "blood bash—bath.” It was a different term, and it was a term that related to energy, because they have destroyed our energy business. That was where bloodbath was. Also, on Charlottesville, that story has been, as you would say, debunked. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Jesse—all of these people, they covered it. If they go an extra sentence, they will see it was perfect. It was debunked in almost every newspaper. But they still bring it up, just like they bring 2025 up. They bring all of this stuff up. I ask you this: You talk about the Capitol. Why are we allowing these millions of people to come through on the southern border? How come she's not doing anything—and I'll tell you what I would do. And I would be very proud to do it. "
Evading the question is an age-old debate-winning tactic. But Trump's response seems to go beyond evasion. It is both tangential, in that it is completely irrelevant to the question, and circumstantial, in that it is rambling and never gets to a point. Circumstantial and tangential speech can indicate a fundamental problem with an underlying cognitive process, such as logical and goal-oriented thinking. Did Trump realize that his answer was neither germane to the question nor logical?
Eleven days before the debate, at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to criticism of his rambling speech by claiming that it is part of a deliberate strategy to frustrate his opponents. "I do the weave,” he told the audience. "You know what the weave is? I'll talk about, like, nine different things that they all come back brilliantly together. And it's like—and friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say: 'It's the most brilliant thing I've ever seen.’” Viewers can judge for themselves whether the disjointed statements they heard during the debate cohered brilliantly in the end....
...In psychiatry, the tendency to conspicuously and rigidly repeat a thought beyond the point of relevance, called "perseverance,” is known to be correlated with a variety of clinical disorders, including those involving a loss of cognitive reserve. People tend to stick to familiar topics over and over when they experience an impairment in cognitive functioning—for instance, in short-term memory. Short-term memory is essentially your mental sketch pad: how many different thoughts you can juggle in your mind, keep track of, and use at the same time. Given the complexity of being president, short-term memory is a vital skill...
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Tweety said:
It's what we do. On and on we point at someone else other than the original remark.
Remark: Trump is racists because.....
Response (not addressing the original remark but quoting it): Kind of reminds me when Biden did....
Or:
Remark: Biden lied about....
Response (not addressing the original remark but quoting it): But that's nothing compared to Trump's lies...
And so it goes. You can't remark that Trump's and team are not inclusive because of Biden. You can't complain that Biden is dishonest because Trump is dishonest. It's exhausting.
There is a difference between comparing the candidates and simply using whataboutism, in my mind. Maybe others don't see a difference.
Biden isn't a candidate for president and his historical utterances and behavior are irrelevant to Trump's current utterances and behavior as a candidate.
We can remark how we prefer. When we use whataboutism or strawman or projection to try to make our points they are likely to get called out by other members. Most people learn what those communication tactic are and avoid using them in discussion if they dislike getting called out in their usage. Others just continue to project or deflect or create strawman arguments.
It is exhausting but that's our current political world.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
One person made a comment. Not "team Trump". An associate who recently attended 911 ceremonies with him. This is plane left wing propaganda. It also seems many Republicans have denounced this person and her comments. One being zMTG. Trump has yetvto comment.
Maybe the chosen source you read didn't mention these facts.
However you will say that left wing politics doesn't engage in propaganda 🙄
A member of Trump's campaign team did indeed make the remark about the smell on airforce 2. Another conspiracy theorist did make another racist remark and she traveled with Trump to the 9/11 ceremonies. That was interesting judgment on Trump's part given that she is one who maintains that 9/11 was an "inside job".
Trump didn't denounce the racism.
I will say what? What does your wild speculative claim about propaganda have to do with the clear racist tropes flowing from Trump's campaign? Is that even the same topic?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
An activist made those comments. Not anyone on Trump's campaign. You know that. MTG called her out on it and said they were racist comments, and now they're fighting on Twitter.
Which one is "Team Trump"?
Nah. First, it was Trump's spokesman, Chueng, who made the comment about the smell on airforce 2. You can find that on Musk's platform if he hasn't deleted it.
Second, Laura Loomer, who is a far right activist, white nationalist and conspiracy theorist was on Trump's short list for a campaign position last year. She was Trump's guest at the 9/11 ceremonies this year. She made the comment about the white house smelling like curry should Harris get elected.
I would say they are both Team Trump but only one is officially on the payroll.
If the criticism gets too intense, Trump may just say he barely knows them. That general works with his voters.
It's nice to suggest discrimination and racism without actual evidence and proof.
I'm not sure there was an accusation of racism or discrimination. But I'm glad to hear you're all about "evidence and proof" and don't speculate about things like mental decline or ill or racism but want proof.
I saw it more as a comparison of DEI. There is no denying that Trump's administration was not as DEI as others. It might be left to the observer as to how to interpret that. There are posters here that totally object to DEI as discriminatory to white people and expect only qualifications to matter and I understand that too.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Unless there is evidence that these white men were hired because they were white men and a POC was denied for these positions because of their skin color and genitals it is irrelevant.
It's nice to suggest discrimination and racism without actual evidence and proof.
That's how systemic racism and misogyny have always worked in this country. That's why the racist response to a woman of color on a high position is to suggest that she is a DEI or affirmative action hire.
I'm not sure there was an accusation of racism or discrimination. But I'm glad to hear you're all about "evidence and proof" and don't speculate about things like mental decline or ill or racism but want proof.
I saw it more as a comparison of DEI. There is no denying that Trump's administration was not as DEI as others. It might be left to the observer as to how to interpret that. There are posters here that totally object to DEI as discriminatory to white people and expect only qualifications to matter and I understand that too.
The racism accusations was made here by a member. By making a misleading statement allocating it to Trump.
I would fully support DEI if it was focused on creating business goals to have your employees resemble the population. I'm going to use colors to give my example.
The population has, 70 % purple people, 20% green people and 10% orange people (excluding Trump LOL). A Business/government bodies should also reflect that.
However some may say the state of DEI currently focuses on " we have more purple people than you, we are more inclusive.......". Then the discrimination and racism accusations follow. This is evident when comparing the ethnic make up og the Biden Admin and the Trump admin.
DEI has the risk to put businesses and government bodies in a impossible position. There may be many more purple people available for positions depending on the population of the geographical area. (A city with more purple people will have more potential hires). Thus making it impossible to to fufill a DEI quota or mandate. The business could be accused of discrimination or bias. This could lead to businesses puposly chosing the less qualified applicant. In certain professions this could be dangerous.
With the current state of division, it could be used to to make accusations of racism/discrimination and/or making a certain demographic considered hired due to their ethnicity not their merit. As we have plenty of example currently.
I do not trust that these would not be exploited for a benefit. Too much risk of misuse and abuse.
I have to follow a initiative that does not consider ethnicity as a qualification or a trophy or something to exploit.
That's how systemic racism and misogyny have always worked in this country. That's why the racist response to a woman of color on a high position is to suggest that she is a DEI or affirmative action hire.
Are you again denying that reality?
Please provide an example of a systemic policy/proseedure/ law/bill etc etc that discriminate against a class at a systemic level. Other than Affirmative Action....
How do we know of she was a DEI hire or not? And if she was then that's great. Means DEI is working right?
I might agree that calling her a DEI hire is inappropriate. Actually I do agree it is. However both sides, yes, I know you feel Republicans do it more... are shamefully guilty of mud slinging and desparaging their opponents.
Reality in which you couldn't provide actual examples? Is that your "reality" you think it is so it must be?
The stable genius wants ABC to fire staff because he looked and sounded deranged in that debate.
Quote
The Republican candidate posted on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday evening expressing his dissatisfaction with the network.
"People are just starting to give me credit for having a GREAT DEBATE. The Voters and Voter Polls showed it, but the Fake News Media wasn't giving the credit that was due. Now they are seeing the results with independent Voters, Evangelicals, and more—and saying, WOW!" he wrote.
"Remember, I wasn't debating one person, I was debating three. They should fire everybody at ABC Fake News, whose two lightweight 'anchors' have brought disgrace onto the company!"
The liar really really doesn't like when people fact check his lies.
Nah. First, it was Trump's spokesman, Chueng, who made the comment about the smell on airforce 2. You can find that on Musk's platform if he hasn't deleted it.
Second, Laura Loomer, who is a far right activist, white nationalist and conspiracy theorist was on Trump's short list for a campaign position last year. She was Trump's guest at the 9/11 ceremonies this year. She made the comment about the white house smelling like curry should Harris get elected.
I would say they are both Team Trump but only one is officially on the payroll.
If the criticism gets too intense, Trump may just say he barely knows them. That general works with his voters.
Except you purposly worded your comment that suggested it was "Trump" that said it. Or "Trump's team".
The fist comment about curry was racist. The second comment was distasteful and inappropriate. Feel free to continue with your propaganda you claim Republicans do more....
The stable genius wants ABC to fire staff because he looked and sounded deranged in that debate.
The liar really really doesn't like when people fact check his lies.
And I think they only fact-checked him on 2, and they were pretty heinous.
On a tangental note, I really wish that democrats would drop the "very fine people" quote. It's old and by now any one who would care has made their judgement about it.
NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN
10 Articles; 19,199 Posts
Here's the Atlantic article
Trump's Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign
If the debate was a cognitive test, the former president failed.
By Richard A. Friedman