CNN host attributes Trump's success to 'bullsh***ing'

[SueEllenRules!]

CNN's Fareed Zakaria attributes President Trump's success to 'bullsh***ing'

• CNN's Fareed Zakaria has attributed President Trump's success to "bullsh***ing."
• On Friday night, Zakaria and fellow network host Don Lemon discussed a Justice Department report that allegedly "does not confirm Trump's wiretap claim."
• Zakaria commented, "I think the president is somewhat indifferent to things that are true or false."
• He added, "He has spent his whole life bullsh***ing. He has succeeded by bullsh***ing. He has gotten the presidency by bullsh***ing. It's very hard to tell somebody at that point that bulls**t doesn't work, because look at the results, right? But that's what he does. He sees something, he doesn't particularly care if it's true or not, he just puts it out there. And then he puts something else out..."
• Zakaria then referred to Trump's answer when a German reporter asked about the claim that a British agency had wiretapped Trump Tower.
  
• The U.S. president responded by saying, "...we said nothing. All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television. I didn't make an opinion on it. You shouldn't be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox."
  
• Zakaria said of Trump in this exchange, "When pushed on it, he doesn't take responsibility. 'I wasn't saying that, I was just quoting somebody else.'"

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/18/fareed-zakaria-cnn-donald-trump-success/21902336/

 

[SueEllenRules!]

SueEllenRules! to Fareed Zakaria:

 

[Frank Underwood]

"He has spent his whole life bullsh***ing. He has succeeded by bullsh***ing. He has gotten the presidency by bullsh***ing. It's very hard to tell somebody at that point that bulls**t doesn't work, because look at the results, right? But that's what he does. He sees something, he doesn't particularly care if it's true or not, he just puts it out there. And then he puts something else out..."

That's exactly what I've been saying for months. Not that it's a difficult observation to make, of course. What matters is knowing how to counter the bullshit, which involves more than empty platitudes and the status quo.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And it's key to why the white working class adores Trump -- they respect the hustle (for those who even realize it's a hustle, and many sorta-kinda do) and they see it as what "a real man" is and does: hustles 24/7 and is "strong" enough to get away with it.

They hold their contempt and resentment and ire for someone who tells the truth or attempts to help the working class legitimately, because they see that as what a "weak man" does and is -- even though they, the working class, would be the beneficiary of that.

And why? Anyone who tells the truth or tries to help the underclasses sincerely is automatically in the minority and anyone who is in the minority is vulnerable or in a "weaker" position strategically, and that's what the working class has contempt for. While anyone who lies, bull****s and cons and hustles, even if he pretends to be against the status quo, is obviously in a stronger position strategically because he's aligned with the system (even when promising to bring that system down).

So the white working class isn't just politically naive. They're something else, too.

But that's the thing about devil worship: it never helps the worshipers, and yet their egos are so tied to that worship that they're quite willing to be destroyed by it despite their being nothing in it for them. They just can't stop.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And it's key to why the white working class adores Trump -- they respect the hustle (for those who even realize it's a hustle, and many sorta-kinda do) and they see it as what "a real man" is and does: hustles 24/7 and is "strong" enough to get away with it.

They hold their contempt and resentment and ire for someone who tells the truth or attempts to help the working class legitimately, because they see that as what a "weak man" does and is -- even though they, the working class, would be the beneficiary of that.

And why? Anyone who tells the truth or tries to help the underclasses sincerely is automatically in the minority and anyone who is in the minority is vulnerable or in a "weaker" position strategically, and that's what the working class has contempt for. While anyone who lies, bull****s and cons and hustles, even if he pretends to be against the status quo, is obviously in a stronger position strategically because he's aligned with the system (even when promising to bring that system down).

So the white working class isn't just politically naive. They're something else, too.

But that's the thing about devil worship: it never helps the worshipers, and yet their egos are so tied to that worship that they're quite willing to be destroyed by it despite their being nothing in it for them. They just can't stop.

Was Trump's opponent sincerely and legitimately working to help the underclasses? I didn't see it, what with a lack of campaigning in states like Wisconsin and a reference to the TPP as "the gold standard."

I only saw one candidate who legitimately gave a damn about the working class, and he was cut off at the knees. Yet his town halls have shown rural Trump supporters who are receptive to his policies. There will always be the Trump supporters who are unwilling to believe he's screwing them, but some are waking up to it. If you want to beat a guy like Trump, you have to give the voters something to vote for, rather than against.

Platitudes won't cut it. Talking about policy only 25% of the time won't cut it. Neglecting the working class won't cut it. Calling Trump voters deplorable won't cut it. You have to stand on sound principles and policies.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

n about the working class, and he was cut off at the knees. Yet his town halls have shown rural Trump supporters who are receptive to his policies. There will always be the Trump supporters who are unwilling to believe he's screwing them, but some are waking up to it. If you want to beat a guy like Trump, you have to give the voters something to vote for, rather than against.

Platitudes won't cut it. Talking about policy only 25% of the time won't cut it. Neglecting the working class won't cut it. Calling Trump voters deplorable won't cut it. You have to stand on sound principles and policies.

And God Bless your Trump's America. You even said at one point that you would "almost like" to see him win, because of how Sanders was treated. So you've got what you want. Principles intact.

How many times does it have to be said that we're not idealizing the Democrats?

 

[SueEllenRules!]

They hold their contempt and resentment and ire for someone who tells the truth

So the white working class isn't just politically naive. They're something else, too.

But that's the thing about devil worship: it never helps the worshipers, and yet their egos are so tied to that worship that they're quite willing to be destroyed by it despite their being nothing in it for them. They just can't stop.

Yes, if you read some of the comments on YouTube about this, Trump's bullsh!t isn't what's outrageous here, but rather the fact that Zakaria wasn't bleeped. So Trump can lie all he wants, but God forbid someone call him out on it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And God Bless your Trump's America. You even said at one point that you would "almost like" to see him win, because of how Sanders was treated. So you've got what you want. Principles intact.

I said that because I thought it might make the Democrats reevaluate their values and change course. As it turned out, many of them saw no reason to change at all.

How many times does it have to be said that we're not idealizing the Democrats?

I'm talking in general. I've been in debates with people outside of this board who think the Democratic establishment is great, and that us Bernie supporters didn't vote for Hillary because of Russia and sexism.

I can bring policy into it, and they've still made up their minds. So it's just as useless to reason with them as it is an ardent Trump supporter.

I obviously want to see Trump and the Republicans replaced with Democrats, but I don't see that happening as long as the corporatists remain in control. Hence my frustration.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes, if you read some of the comments on YouTube about this, Trump's bullsh!t isn't what's outrageous here, but rather the fact that Zakaria wasn't bleeped. So Trump can lie all he wants, but God forbid someone call him out on it.

Probably the same people who were fine with "grab them by the pu$$y."

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Platitudes won't cut it. Talking about policy only 25% of the time won't cut it. Neglecting the working class won't cut it. Calling Trump voters deplorable won't cut it. You have to stand on sound principles and policies.

Justifications won't cut it. Excusing pure idiocy 100% of the time won't cut it. Failing to hold people accountable for their own actions won't cut it. Blaming the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators won't cut it. You have to expect a reasonable level of sound judgment and common sense.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Justifications won't cut it. Excusing pure idiocy 100% of the time won't cut it. Failing to hold people accountable for their own actions won't cut it. Blaming the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators won't cut it. You have to expect a reasonable level of sound judgment and common sense.

"Justifications won't cut it." Like trying to justify neoliberalism.

"Excusing pure idiocy 100% of the time won't cut it." Like trying to say it wasn't dumb to neglect the working class in swing states needed to win.

"Failing to hold people accountable for their actions won't cut it." Like the DNC. Or blaming sexists, deplorables, third party voters, and anybody else for the failed policies and campaign strategies of the Democratic Party.

"Blaming the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators won't cut it." I blame both because the perpetrators of it exposed the "victim's" tactics to undermine one of their candidates in favor of another.

Sound judgement and common sense is why 44% of voters consider themselves independent now. We can't count on either party to stand up for what's right.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

"Justifications won't cut it." Like trying to justify neoliberalism.

"Excusing pure idiocy 100% of the time won't cut it." Like trying to say it wasn't dumb to neglect the working class in swing states needed to win.

"Failing to hold people accountable for their actions won't cut it." Like the DNC. Or blaming sexists, deplorables, third party voters, and anybody else for the failed policies and campaign strategies of the Democratic Party.

"Blaming the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators won't cut it." I blame both, although the perpetrators of it exposed the "victim's" tactics to undermine one of their candidates in favor of another.

"Enabling" can describe dysfunctional behavior approaches that are intended to help resolve a specific problem but in fact may perpetuate or exacerbate the problem. A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility or blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling

Sound judgement and common sense is why 44% of voters consider themselves independent now. We can't count on either party to stand up for what's right.

If that's true, where did the 46% who voted for Trump come from, considering that 48% voted for Clinton? Are you suggesting that a certain fraction of those who allegedly "stand up for what's right" voted for Trump?? These are people you claim have "sound judgment and common sense?"

 

[Frank Underwood]

"Enabling" can describe dysfunctional behavior approaches that are intended to help resolve a specific problem but in fact may perpetuate or exacerbate the problem. A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility or blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling

Enabling is exactly what many Democrats are doing by choosing to blame everybody but themselves for their shortcomings. Even Hillary acknowledged the Trump voters who had been let down by the establishment, but did nothing to change her image. I'm all for bashing Trump's horrific policies and calling him out on his bullshit. However, Democrats need to recognize their own flaws and fix them if they hope to win again.

If that's true, where did the 46% who voted for Trump come from, considering that 48% voted for Clinton? Are you suggesting that a certain fraction of those who allegedly "stand up for what's right" voted for Trump?? These are people you claim have "sound judgment and common sense?"

That was the percentage based on a Gallup poll from early January. Independents were at 44%, Republicans were at 28%, and Democrats were at 25%.

You can accuse me of enabling all you want, but the fact remains that Trump campaigned against the TPP and in favor of Social Security, Medicare, and a health care plan where everybody would be covered. Obviously he was bullshitting just like he always does, but he knew he couldn't win based on his fascist policies alone. Hillary, on the other hand, told Rachel Maddow she didn't need to court Bernie supporters because she was "winning." Of course, she changed her tune once she realized she couldn't win with the support of establishment hacks alone. However, adopting better policies is meaningless if you do little to campaign on them.

Although Clinton and Trump both have their loyal supporters, many voters had their own pragmatic reasons for voting for them. They were two of the most unpopular presidential candidates for a reason.