Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[CP87]

Ok so you've heard all the negative stuff. I doubt you know too much about his success stories. If you allowed yourself access to people who have good things to say about Trump instead of only listening to people who talk negatively about him, you may still have am overall negative opinion of him (which is completely fine) but you most certainly wouldn't have the bitter disdain for him that you have. That's how it works. Just completely flood the news with negative stories and over time, you will change perception of a person. Like I've said before, the legacy media made Trump killing the ISIS leader a negative story for Pete's sake. It's just negative negative negative until you have people saying "I don't need to hear what he says. I already know he's a terrible person."

I'm not saying they're tricking people into thinking a great person is a terrible person (although that would also be easy to accomplish for the legacy media). I'm just saying 100% negativity is clearly going to change perception of someone for the worse. Even if that means changing someone from really bad to Hitler. I'll say it one more time so hopefully it sinks in. They made a negative story out of killing the ISIS leader. That's really messed up.

I think the media has done a terrible job covering Trump. As our news model has changed to more click-based, all outlets saw him as a goldmine. Anything Trump-related, especially something designed to stoke outrage, is automatic huge engagement. So, everyday they took the most innocuous things (stuff that was out of the ordinary, but not necessarily bad) and ran stories that made it seem like the sky was falling. This constant barrage of, "Trump bad!" understandably turned people off and made them distrustful of the media. And then when Trump actually did things that were quite bad, the media had lost credibility and it could not convince people that this dude is actually proposing some very anti-democratic and unconstitutional things.

 

[Fryowa]

I often wonder what it would take to fix things.

2 year term limits on congress/senate members, 4 year term limits on president for stability, maximum $60,000 salary, lifetime ban on owning any traded investments other than index funds (no individual stocks, no “managed” mutual funds, etc.), lifetime ban on holding a seat or executive position within a public or private corporation over $100,000,000 per year in revenue, 10 years of publicly-disclosed audits and publicly-disclosed tax returns. If you have the desire to make a difference—whatever side you’re on—you can still make a living and if it’s not enough money for you, then you aren’t someone who’s putting the good of the country first.

No, I’m not kidding. You can still pay bills, own a home, own your vehicles, have retirement accounts. The only people you’d get to run for office would be those who have a conviction do what they think is right to make that sort of commitment. In return you get lifetime deductible-free health insurance paid for.

I fit those criteria other than being very slightly over the income limits. I’d have to take a small pay cut but other than that I hold no positions on boards and I already only invest in no-load index funds for my retirement. You might say many qualified people wouldn’t run, but you’d still get wealthy people to do it. They just wouldn’t be able to have a lifetime job and wouldn’t be able to be bought out. You’d still get millionaire lawyers and business owners, etc., but they wouldn’t be doing it for money or power.

Being a politician was never intended to be made a lifelong career out of, and was never intended to be something to be made rich and powerful from. Until you remove the opportunity to become a career lawmaker and incentive for corruption—there is no fix my friend. None at all.

Guess who makes those rules, though…

 

[CP87]

The Arnold has spoken:

x.com

x.com