Disappointing day for Trump
The series "Roseanne" was about a Trump supporter.

But like a Greek tragedy sadly Trump supporters carry the seeds of their own destruction within them.

As an example just look at the White House revolving door

Meanwhile today President Trump has reportedly bashed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross as being "past his prime" amid tensions within the administration over trade negotiations with China in recent weeks.

Source

EDIT: The President called Roseanne Barr to congratulate her on the shows high ratings after its debut.

To say Roseanne was about a Trump supporter is not quite fair. The series began ages ago - no Trump in sight.
Only lately it took that turn, apparently. I saw a newish episode on the internet a few weeks back and was a bit surprised.

Watching the new season of the TV sitcom Roseanne, which rebooted in the US last month after a 20-year hiatus, has been like finding an old school friend on Facebook: full of affection and nostalgia and thrilling suspense as one waits to discover if she turned out to be awful.
In the case of Roseanne Barr, that question had already been answered in pre-publicity for the show in a way that, for many people, left no room for doubt or discussion: Trump supporter, case closed.

The problem, obviously, is Roseanne herself. Choosing to make Roseanne Conner a Trump supporter was a smart dramatic choice, and a plausible one too, but it does leave one wondering about the politics. Onscreen, she is charming and reasonable (“He talked about jobs, Jackie,” Roseanne Conner says desperately to her sister of why she voted for Trump); the palatable face of an ugly political movement.
In real life, or at least on social media, Roseanne Barr has a significantly less amenable presence.

Many of Barr’s old tweets have been deleted, but for a while now she has been a reliable disseminator of nutty pro-Trump conspiracy theories and a general amplifier of the lunatic fringe. In a bad-tempered interview with the New York Times last month, Barr said it was her idea for Roseanne to back Trump, “because it’s an accurate portrayal of these people and people like them”. But by the standards of her own Twitter output, this isn’t quite true.

Source

That's exactly how it was. LOL.

I only saw part of a new episode (the "he talked about jobs Jackie" line I actually remember .... but maybe she didn't use it only once). I actually thought the connection to actuality would mean, she'll be taking the piss out of Trump (which could have been fun ). But as I never went back since (I hardly watch TV these days) I did not see the way it went.

She should have left it at where it ended back then, obviously.

Because Trump-supporting hicks are well known for their love of high-end Sushi restaurants.

Dow fell almost 400 points today; due, it is claimed, to the current circus in Italy.

Only mentioned it as a good example of how impossible to achieve is Trump's dream of isolating the US from the rest of the world.

In today's global world everything is linked!

And there are still people downplaying the effects of the Italian circus.

I'd say Rosanne has consumed her fair share.

You don't get the analogy? "People who...(insert opinion they hold) should take a long look at themselves" is just another way of saying "I think ill of you because you hold certain opinion or belong to a camp of (insert your prefered enemy of choice)". It is not necessary to shame people for what they think just because you happen to personally interpret it certain way.

The way you define racism will go directly against Trump's idea of protection of a country for the citizens. Your idea of homophobia will clash with traditional values, etc etc. You don't know exactly why people support certain ideas, you are not them. The freedom to debate ideas (not people nor their personality) makes the concepts and exchange better quality. I appreciate that aspect of Swiss culture and environment, it is democratic. Things are out there to be debated about. Attributing your interpretation to people just to shame them or belittle them - is a weak cognitive strategy. Manipulates and shuts people up.

Debate the ideas. Let people voice their concerns before you ask them "to take a look long at themselves". That is is also valid for others who quickly saw an opporfunity to try to discredit what analogy I drew.

People were shamed for holding certain concerns for too long which certainly made Trump's triumph possible. It is a massive movement and they are immune to being called stupid or immoral without a respectful debate. His answer in the form of tweets is unbeatable, it excludes debate from the get-go. The only way out from this is to ask to debate ideas respectfully. Not crap on people for holding ideas.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

you brought 'shaming' to the table, you put your own interpretation on what I wrote, so you could attack the idea of shaming, this is called a 'straw man argument.'


I think the concepts of racism and homphobia are well defined already, it's not me defining them. We can agree that debate is a good thing but it is a two way street, all this thread is, is a dump of the frankly horrifc behaviour of a clown president interspersed with occasional comments from supporters who ignore his lies. I've asked before if anyone can desribe a redeeming feature of Spanky, or offer an example of fake news targeting Spanky, not a mistake that is acknowledged and corrected but a genuine made up story - silence.


Do you understand that this man is to a liar? am I missing something that he actually has redeeming features if you can look beyond the lies, the racism, the rapant egotism, the mysogny, the pettiness, the self agrandisement... anything to counter Gary Cohn's characterisation of him as 'less a person than a collection of terrible traits '

Debate for debate's sake is not a good idea. Giving equal validity to opinion and facts is not a good idea.

Should I spend time debating someone who believes that the earth is flat, or only 6000 years old, when we have manifold facts debunking these opinions?

It seems it's getting harder and harder for people to defend him. We lost Phos' occasional "Winning" outbursts so it's left for supporters to throw shade at the nay-sayers.

Maybe the North Korea talks will provide a bit of relief for the supporters, if it goes ahead and he doesn't have some kind of meltdown. A sliver of positivity they can dine out on for the next few months.

Fingers crossed, eh..?

Live in hope. But my prediction is that the summit is doomed to failure when Trump falls at the first hurdle, the introduction:

"Hey, Kim, good to meet you, I'm Don."

I got BOMBS, bigly BOMBS.

I wonder if he'll do that grip and jerk handshake to show him who's boss.

Or if he'll go full Teresa May and hold his hand down a flight of stairs.


ETA - well whaddaya know.. he's having a meeting with another Kim today.

don't underestimate the guy and remember he is the first US president ever to meet a North-Korean leader. this is quite a historical breakthrough.

What we see happen now is just the ritual dance between the two.

It hasn't happened yet...

Hope it does and I hope they manage to forge some kind of future to improve the peninsula but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

he is probably also the first US president that has planned for a meeting

This! Oh please...

"Gee, Kim is a really popular Christian name in North Korea", said Trump just before meeting the hermit nation's Vice Chairman (whose simple name he managed to misspell in a tweet).

FTFY.

True, several ex-presidents met the N Korea leader
Jimmy Carter, the first former President to visit NK in 1994.
Bill Clinton, in 2009.
Jimmy Carter, again in 2010