What i have read was mainly articles on the BBC about the book and the most controversial points included in it. What i noticed is that most of the points are critical of Trump as a person more than discussing policy issues. They are also based on opinions and impressions of people surrounding him such as they did not believe that he was going to win, that his wife cried (not out of joy) when he won the elections, that some of his staff view him as childish, there was also comments/opinions of Bannon about his son's meeting with Russian officials during the elections without the presence of a lawyer which Bannon believes that this is treasonous ...etcchownah wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:28 pmBundokji,
You start with:THis seems really theoretic. No need to be so theoretic....It seems that you are failing to actually take a look at what is in the book and make a statement about that. It sounds like you are saying that not all truths when expressed are beneficial.....I won't dispute that.....but.....this is not some theoretic situation....there is a book...its already existing content is what I am talking about.From your input, you are using the word "truth" in the sense that what is written in the book corresponds to events that took place in the real world, and you both concluded that this will necessarily be beneficial.
My view is that if what is written in the book is true then it is a matter of great public interest and even international concern that the issues raise be dealt with or at least analyzed and considered........perhaps you are not aware of what is written in the book.
I want to stress that I am not saying that what is written is true.....but then I am not saying that it is false either.....but I think that some of the issues raised are of great importance.
Apart from possible Russian involvement in the elections (which is being investigated) and which is open to many different interpretations as if countries (including the US) don't try to influence policies of other nations, there is nothing useful or based on facts (as opposite to opinions) from what i have read.
We, as human beings, are vulnerable to suggestions. What we view as important and relevant, or the opposite, is driven to a large extent by how the content is presented to us. For example, how the news is ranked or organized on a website or a newspaper gives us the impression that a particular story is so important (the size of the words, the font, the cunning use of certain words that appeals to emotions more than reason ...etc)
The abovementioned approach by news agencies corrupted the public mind in my opinion. The main focus becomes excitement rather than rational reporting of policy issues. This created a reaction on the opposite direction in the sense that people defended the person as reaction to attacks on him as a person. The least concern of everyone, it seems to me, are policy issues, and even when they are discussed, they are often used as a disguise to attack or defend the person. Trump has created for himself a personality cult and those who hate him fall for it more than those who support him in my opinion.
More generally, respecting the ruler is not a virtue that is valued in the west, all in the name of democracy. I think avoiding personal attacks on a president would help make criticism of his policies more effective as this would strip him from using personal attacks as an excuse to justify wrong policies.
Also in history, we can see evidence of how personal attacks against presidents influenced their policies in ways that created more suffering. It is widely believed that Bill Clinton's Scandal with Monica Lewinsky was a major contributing factor of Rocket attacks against Iraq at that time to deviate the public attention from the personal affair. At the end of the day, presidents are human beings.