Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

"You can see this a few pages back where the troll on this thread that I long since stopped responding to nevertheless responded to a comparative counterargument I made not by addressing the comparison on its merits, but by simply saying that that entire form of argument could not be used with respect to Trump because "I refuse to let you normalize this traitor.""

 

Hah, you me and both. That guy/girl is about as obnoxious as die-hard Trump supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone.  Trump is a completely normal president.  Nothing shady at all about getting a special prosecutor, firing an FBI director, interfering with a House investigation, accusing your predecessor of a crime, threatening the former FBI that you fired, meeting Russian diplomats in the oval office with no US media.  Carry on people.  There is nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there are some very vocal factions of the left wing that will fight Trump at every stop.  They aren't shy about it either - "resist".  Nothing to hide there.  But let's not pretend that there is anything normal about this President.  And, for f#ck's sake, I'd think we can at least expect that The Donald can put his big boy pants on and act like a grown up once in awhile.  He gets what he doles out.  He tries to bully people, so people bully him back.  He insults people, so people insult him.  He spreads lies and conspiracy theories about others, and others do the same to him.  This is the tone he set during the campaign..... hell, well before the campaign ever started by being the leader of the birther movement.  He gets what he deserves.  I have no sympathy for his hurt feelings and damaged ego.  He expects everyone to kiss his arse.  He has not extended one single olive branch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there are some very vocal factions of the left wing that will fight Trump at every stop.  They aren't shy about it either - "resist".  Nothing to hide there.  But let's not pretend that there is anything normal about this President.  And, for f#ck's sake, I'd think we can at least expect that The Donald can put his big boy pants on and act like a grown up once in awhile.  He gets what he doles out.  He tries to bully people, so people bully him back.  He insults people, so people insult him.  He spreads lies and conspiracy theories about others, and others do the same to him.  This is the tone he set during the campaign..... hell, well before the campaign ever started by being the leader of the birther movement.  He gets what he deserves.  I have no sympathy for his hurt feelings and damaged ego.  He expects everyone to kiss his arse.  He has not extended one single olive branch.

 

It's really weird how some expect those who disagree with Trump to respect him and the office simply for being president, but don't want to admit that Trump is busily destroying the integrity of that office.  Simply being president would normally afford one some level of grudging respect despite political disagreements, but we are so far beyond what is normal that I find it absurd to keep demanding normal reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are so far beyond what is normal that I find it absurd to keep demanding normal reactions.

 

QFT


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there are some very vocal factions of the left wing that will fight Trump at every stop.  They aren't shy about it either - "resist".  Nothing to hide there.  But let's not pretend that there is anything normal about this President.

 

Anything normal?  Really?

 

And, for f#ck's sake, I'd think we can at least expect that The Donald can put his big boy pants on and act like a grown up once in awhile.  He gets what he doles out.  He tries to bully people, so people bully him back.  He insults people, so people insult him.  He spreads lies and conspiracy theories about others, and others do the same to him.  This is the tone he set during the campaign..... hell, well before the campaign ever started by being the leader of the birther movement.  He gets what he deserves.  I have no sympathy for his hurt feelings and damaged ego.  He expects everyone to kiss his arse.  He has not extended one single olive branch.

 

On this, I completely agree.  But we're not talking issues of temperament and maturity here, both of which I freely admit he is sorely lacking, which is why I opposed him in the Republican primaries.  Or at least, most people aren't really talking about those issues when they talk about not "normalizing" him.  They're talking wildly overhyped allegations of treason, and they're talking about his substantive policy positions on law enforcement, immigration, trade, and the environment.  They're well past talking about his inflated ego and fragile masculinity.

 

Note that even I do believe Trump has significant legal vulnerabilities, particularly with respect to the Emoluments Clause (though with the caveat that Congress has the authority to approve emoluments, so if Congress wanted, it could pass a resolution tomorrow OK'ing Trump's continued receipt of money from foreign sources via his hospitality and entertainment businesses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing normal about Donald Trump. I will not normalize him.  He is an embarrassment to American and his action are beneath the dignity of the office of the president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On this, I completely agree.  But we're not talking issues of temperament and maturity here, both of which I freely admit he is sorely lacking, which is why I opposed him in the Republican primaries.  Or at least, most people aren't really talking about those issues when they talk about not "normalizing" him.  They're talking wildly overhyped allegations of treason, and they're talking about his substantive policy positions on law enforcement, immigration, trade, and the environment.  They're well past talking about his inflated ego and fragile masculinity.

 

Can his temperament really be separated from his policy positions? This incessant need to uphold his "tough guy" image has, and likely will continue to, played a role in him actually implementing bad, poorly thought out policies. His instability combined with the amount of power he has is scary and dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Look at the Muslim Ban for a perfect example.  The idea of the ban was that the administration needed 120 days to come up with their "extreme vetting."  We are well beyond that.  Therefore, this ban should be moot.  But he is too much of a tough guy to admit it.  He is motivated by revenge and is obsessed with loyalty.  This is the reason he is a terrible human being and even worse president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this, I completely agree.  But we're not talking issues of temperament and maturity here, both of which I freely admit he is sorely lacking, which is why I opposed him in the Republican primaries.  Or at least, most people aren't really talking about those issues when they talk about not "normalizing" him.  They're talking wildly overhyped allegations of treason, and they're talking about his substantive policy positions on law enforcement, immigration, trade, and the environment.  They're well past talking about his inflated ego and fragile masculinity.

 

Can his temperament really be separated from his policy positions? This incessant need to uphold his "tough guy" image has, and likely will continue to, played a role in him actually implementing bad, poorly thought out policies. His instability combined with the amount of power he has is scary and dangerous.

 

His temperament can be separated from his policy positions, absolutely, and in fact his temperament--in particular his need for affirmation--may actually explain why he has trouble sticking to very many policy positions with anything resembling consistency.  It is possible to have his temperament without his policy positions (such as they are), and more importantly, it is possible to support all or most of his policy positions (again, such as they are) without sharing his tempestuous and insecure temperament.  I gather that there is a sizable faction of the left that really has trouble with the second part of that, and believes that anyone who would ever support withdrawing from Paris, restricting Muslim and Latin American immigration, deeply cutting the budgets of many nondefense federal agencies, etc. must be an insecure, hypermasculine egomaniac.  That doesn't mean it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anything normal?  Really?

 

 

I mean...

 

-no previous government experience

-fastest ever President to 60% disapproval rating

-openly welcomed Wikileaks/Russia to release HRC's emails

-openly praises Russia and Putin, foreign adversaries

-fired FBI director for investigating Russia ties to his campaign/administration

-openly peddles conspiracy theories which have been proven false

 

And that's just putting together a few thoughts in a minute or two.  I'm sure there's more.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an alternate universe, Chelsea Clinton and her husband both have jobs in the Clinton Administration and Chelsea's husband is under FBI investigation for lying on SF86 form. I'm sure all of the"rational" people on this board would be totally cool with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there are some very vocal factions of the left wing that will fight Trump at every stop.  They aren't shy about it either - "resist".  Nothing to hide there.  But let's not pretend that there is anything normal about this President.

 

Anything normal?  Really?

 

As a President?  Yes..... really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking a mayor of a city that had a terrorist attack is totally normal. 

 

The fact that people are still trying to normalize an abnormal person is weird.  The fact that people still support him makes me sad as an American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump could catapult his approval rating if he were to give a public address stating the following:

 

1. The rhetoric between American parties has become dangerous and unacceptable

2. No one is to blame for this but the shooter's deranged act

3. The rhetoric of all needs to change, and President Trump includes himself in those that needs to be a cooler head, noting that he has great responsibility as our leader to be a beacon of stability in hectic times.

4. This is not a time to gain cheap points in a political argument.

5. Urge and encourage all able-bodied persons in the Greater DC area to come out and attend the Congressional baseball game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump could catapult his approval rating if he were to give a public address stating the following:

 

1. The rhetoric between American parties has become dangerous and unacceptable

2. No one is to blame for this but the shooter's deranged act

3. The rhetoric of all needs to change, and President Trump includes himself in those that needs to be a cooler head, noting that he has great responsibility as our leader to be a beacon of stability in hectic times.

4. This is not a time to gain cheap points in a political argument.

5. Urge and encourage all able-bodied persons in the Greater DC area to come out and attend the Congressional baseball game.

 

This is irrelevant. Donald Trump cannot self reflect or self criticize. He cannot. People with his type of disorder are incapable of these things. It's the whole core of the disorder.

 

I know, I'm a broken record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... Here is my gripe, as a conservative, about this entire scandal:

 

1. THIS IS NOT BINARY - Trump could have validly won the election AND Russia meddled with our electoral processes - the very heart of our democracy. Some in my party's complete inability to realize this fact is exhausting, frustrating, and at times infuriating. An acknowledgment that there was an attack on our electoral systems (which, by the way, does not stricly mean voting machines) in no way means you love Hillary Clinton or that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Presidency. Unfortunately, being faced with overwhelming data and fact and calling it a farce is turning into a growing trend on the right.

 

2. This is an act of undeclared war. I challenge my fellow conservatives and those of you who otherwise support our President to consider... would this not be an act of undeclared war if we replaced Russia with ISIS, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan?

 

3. At the very least, we need to make a tacit acknowledgment that somewhere in the correspondence between Sessions and Trump is a lie or a breach of recusal, one must be present, given the circumstances we've seen today.

 

4. For the love of God, stop personally attacking devoted civil servants. If you want the President to get into a credibility or integrity contest with Mueller, I might also suggest getting in a foot race against a Ferrari.

 

5. Last, and perhaps most frustrating, hold the man accountable without a "But, Obama..." statement. If Donald Trump is the "law and order president" and Comey really did lie under oath, then we should be seeing a perjury investigation beginning very soon at DoJ.

 

I love this country, I wish for the best for our President and the health of our nation. I just do not see how its possible when we have grown infatuated with one man to the point that it makes him impervious to even the slightest criticism.

Here's my take as an independent and someone who did not vote for Trump.

 

1. Putin was probably somehow behind the timely release of emails within the Democratic Party showing they stacked the deck against Bernie in favor of Hillary.  Why?  Most likely due to Hillary shafting Putin in a deal somewhere because that's just what she (and the Clinton's) have done their entire lives, F--k people over.  It had nothing to do with politics or even Trump, Putin would've done the same if McCain or Romney had been running, and it had everything to do with getting back at Hillary.

 

2. Russia had nothing to do with Hillary losing the election, absolute nothing.

 

3. There are no logical D's on this site, so trying to discuss logicically here is impossible and why I gave up months ago.  These are people that kept Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo in office and thought they were doing a great job.

 

4. Seeing how the media and liberal elites have rallied together to manufacture all of these false narratives have turned me into a de facto Trump supporter, again I did not vote for him but would likely the next time.  There are many others like me.

 

5. Hillary was a terrible candidate for middle America and why Trump won the election, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Seeing how the media and liberal elites have rallied together to manufacture all of these false narratives have turned me into a de facto Trump supporter, again I did not vote for him but would likely the next time.  There are many others like me.

 

Not really.  Trump won 46.4% of the popular vote and now has a 38% (and declining) approval rating.  If you can equate approval rating to "would vote for" then he has lost some 8% of those who voted for him.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Seeing how the media and liberal elites have rallied together to manufacture all of these false narratives have turned me into a de facto Trump supporter, again I did not vote for him but would likely the next time.  There are many others like me.

 

Not really.  Trump won 46.4% of the popular vote and now has a 38% (and declining) approval rating.  If you can equate approval rating to "would vote for" then he has lost some 8% of those who voted for him.

 

Can you?  What 8Titles is actually saying is that he might tell a pollster he disapproves of Trump but would vote for him anyway.  I might say the same, though I'm still unconvinced that I would vote for Trump in 2020 (and I definitely hope he faces a credible, principled conservative primary challenge).  I certainly don't approve of Trump, and yet I find myself somehow in the not-exactly-comfortable role of defending him more than I attack him here, simply because I don't see or support him being impeached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3. There are no logical D's on this site, so trying to discuss logicically here is impossible and why I gave up months ago.  These are people that kept Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo in office and thought they were doing a great job.

 

 

 

Never heard of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. There are no logical RD's on this site, so trying to discuss logicically here is impossible and why I gave up months ago.  These are people that kept Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo voted for in office Trump and thought they werethink he is doing a great job.

 

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump could catapult his approval rating if he were to give a public address stating the following:

 

3. The rhetoric of all needs to change, and President Trump includes himself in those that needs to be a cooler head, noting that he has...

yes, everyone needs a "cooler head," but how do you do that when the Democrats, the mainstream media and the Hollywood crowd (the latter two arguably the most influential forces in popular culture) have done nothing but gin up relentless hatred of Trump, still denying his legitimacy months after his election. All this shooter has been hearing non-stop are phony assurances from these groups that Trump will probably be impeached in short order because of phony Russian scandals and what-have-you. They've poisoned any possibility of civil dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It is perfectly normal to hate a president.  I might have an ounce of sympathy for Trump if he wasn't a POS.  It's a good thing he never made up phony stories about his predecessor. 

 

Did his investigators ever get back from Hawaii with the bombshell about the birth certificate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what our normal president did when he met with Russians in the oval office. 

 

Donald Trump 'handed Russia classified intelligence on Israel successfully hacking Isis computers'

Israeli cyber operations had reportedly succeeded in penetrating one of the terror group's cell

 

I'm sure this will help defeat ISIS.

 

Tell me again why I should treat this moron with kid gloves. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russian-intelligence-investigation-classified-israel-hacking-isis-computers-bomb-plot-a7787676.html

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is...


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump could catapult his approval rating if he were to give a public address stating the following:

 

3. The rhetoric of all needs to change, and President Trump includes himself in those that needs to be a cooler head, noting that he has...

yes, everyone needs a "cooler head," but how do you do that when the Democrats, the mainstream media and the Hollywood crowd (the latter two arguably the most influential forces in popular culture) have done nothing but gin up relentless hatred of Trump, still denying his legitimacy months after his election. All this shooter has been hearing non-stop are phony assurances from these groups that Trump will probably be impeached in short order because of phony Russian scandals and what-have-you. They've poisoned any possibility of civil dialogue.

 

That's the thing, no one relevant has questioned his legitimacy - that is the result of our paranoia as conservatives. Secondly, if he calls for cooler heads and begins to act like it, there will be no "self-defense" claim behind which any Kathy Griffin or the like can hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3. There are no logical D's on this site, so trying to discuss logicically here is impossible and why I gave up months ago.  These are people that kept Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo in office and thought they were doing a great job.

 

4. Seeing how the media and liberal elites have rallied together to manufacture all of these false narratives have turned me into a de facto Trump supporter, again I did not vote for him but would likely the next time.  There are many others like me.

 

 

Anyone who blames the other side without taking any blame themselves are the biggest part of the problem. There's no way a coming together can possibly happen with that type of rhetoric.

 

Also using labels to dehumanize the opposition, such as "liberal elites," makes it easier to resort to violence as a political solution.

 

Lastly grouping all liberals together, such as claiming we all supported corrupt officials like Dimora and Russo, then you're contributing to the increasingly unresolvable divide in our country. Try to resist such temptations just as liberals should resist similar temptations to associate all Republicans with Trump's corruption.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really and truly cannot understand how one can look at the situation today and conclude that it's the media's fault and hollywood's fault and the left's fault that we don't have civil dialogue. Did you watch the 2016 election? From the left we had debates over issues and policy, from the right a debate over penis sizes. Then in the general election, there were three debates where Hillary Clinton calmly discussed her nerdy policy papers.

 

Donald Trump ran around starting lock her up chants at rallies.

 

Is the left now indulging in some hyperbole? Yeah, I think a little bit. But I also think Trump really is that bad, and I don't think "civil discourse" will ever be possible while he and the Fox News crowd are running the GOP, because they've gone and alienated the majority of the country. And they brought that upon themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump could catapult his approval rating if he were to give a public address stating the following:

 

3. The rhetoric of all needs to change, and President Trump includes himself in those that needs to be a cooler head, noting that he has...

yes, everyone needs a "cooler head," but how do you do that when the Democrats, the mainstream media and the Hollywood crowd (the latter two arguably the most influential forces in popular culture) have done nothing but gin up relentless hatred of Trump, still denying his legitimacy months after his election. All this shooter has been hearing non-stop are phony assurances from these groups that Trump will probably be impeached in short order because of phony Russian scandals and what-have-you. They've poisoned any possibility of civil dialogue.

 

So you are suggesting that Trump not be a leader on this issue?  He shouldn't be the one to tone down the rhetoric which he ratcheted up during the campaign and since he has been in office?

 

I'd argue the well was already fairly well poisoned by people like you during the Obama years.  You can feel free to point me to one single post you made about Obama which was not an attack on the man.... but you'd be wasting your time.  All you did was spew divisive rhetoric for 8 years.  And now, along with your Donald, you want to act like a spoiled brat who goes crying to mommy when you got hit back on the playground.  Please.  I was raised to expect to be treated how you treat others.... to not expect any respect from people you don't give it to.  You missed that lesson if you think you are the one to come on here and say that someone else has poisoned any possibility of civil dialogue.  Take a look in the mirror if you want to point fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pretty good satire here....

 

Man Ravaged by Amnesia Somehow Able to Hold Down Demanding Legal Job

 

An Alabama man whose brain was ravaged by severe amnesia is somehow able to function in an extremely demanding legal job, leading neurologists reported on Tuesday.

 

The man, whom neurologists are calling a “medical mystery,” has performed highly exacting tasks in one of the country’s top legal positions despite having virtually no short- or long-term memory.

 

Dr. Davis Logsdon, the chairman of the neurology department at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said that the Alabaman’s brain “defies explanation.”

 

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/man-ravaged-by-amnesia-somehow-able-to-hold-down-demanding-legal-job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I'd note that today's calls to tone down the rhetoric in politics is no different than calling for more gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook or Charleston or any other much more severe tragedy caused by gun violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ What do Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Crooked Hilary think about the viciousness in DC?

 

Don't forget the coward John McCain who was captured.  Donald doesn't like those people since he received multiple deferments from Nam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I'd note that today's calls to tone down the rhetoric in politics is no different than calling for more gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook or Charleston or any other much more severe tragedy caused by gun violence.

 

A closer analogy to that would be lobbying for measures to expressly outlaw overcharged rhetoric in politics, wouldn't it?  One side is making a request to be responsible in using a Constitutional right, the other is making a demand to abrogate a Constitutional right for the asserted cause of safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is reasonable gun control an abrogation of constitutional rights?  We already have some restrictions on the right to bear arms therefore, one would have to conclude that the right is not absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I'd note that today's calls to tone down the rhetoric in politics is no different than calling for more gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook or Charleston or any other much more severe tragedy caused by gun violence.

 

A closer analogy to that would be lobbying for measures to expressly outlaw overcharged rhetoric in politics, wouldn't it?  One side is making a request to be responsible in using a Constitutional right, the other is making a demand to abrogate a Constitutional right for the asserted cause of safety.

 

I figured I would get this response.  If I had referenced any calls for a ban on guns, then you may be right.  But I said gun control measures, which are not an abrogation of a constitutional right.  Even Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment has its limits, as evidenced by he ban on automatic weapons and the frustration I feel in not being able to own a nuclear submarine. 

 

A outright ban on guns would be more akin to Trump's proposal that we apply normal libel/slander laws to the news media.  Both would be abrogating a constitutional right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the Devil's argument........

 

Senator Rand Paul tweeted this morning:

Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

 

And remember when Trump offered to pay legal fees for guys fighting at his rallies & suggested 2nd Amendment people do something about Hillary?

 

So, was the shooter at this morning's baseball game merely exercising his Constitutional right as the Framers had intended? To weaken a tyrannical government? Or was he taking a cue from Trump, but merely turning his own words against his GOP colleagues?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this, I completely agree.  But we're not talking issues of temperament and maturity here, both of which I freely admit he is sorely lacking, which is why I opposed him in the Republican primaries.  Or at least, most people aren't really talking about those issues when they talk about not "normalizing" him.  They're talking wildly overhyped allegations of treason, and they're talking about his substantive policy positions on law enforcement, immigration, trade, and the environment.  They're well past talking about his inflated ego and fragile masculinity.

 

Can his temperament really be separated from his policy positions? This incessant need to uphold his "tough guy" image has, and likely will continue to, played a role in him actually implementing bad, poorly thought out policies. His instability combined with the amount of power he has is scary and dangerous.

 

His temperament can be separated from his policy positions, absolutely, and in fact his temperament--in particular his need for affirmation--may actually explain why he has trouble sticking to very many policy positions with anything resembling consistency.  It is possible to have his temperament without his policy positions (such as they are), and more importantly, it is possible to support all or most of his policy positions (again, such as they are) without sharing his tempestuous and insecure temperament.  I gather that there is a sizable faction of the left that really has trouble with the second part of that, and believes that anyone who would ever support withdrawing from Paris, restricting Muslim and Latin American immigration, deeply cutting the budgets of many nondefense federal agencies, etc. must be an insecure, hypermasculine egomaniac.  That doesn't mean it's true.

 

No.  Just... no.  His temperament, at least for me, is just an added sideshow to his actual policies.  He's not done a whole lot, but what he has either proposed or put forth through EOs and such has been beneficial to big business or the 1% (healthcare bill debacle, environmental regulation rollbacks, workplace protection rollbacks, etc.).  Even his big campaign promises like the wall were just simply terrible ideas that had no hope of ever working, and things like pulling out of the Paris Accord and wanting to leave NATO seemed specifically designed to piss off all of our allies and ultimately make the country less safe.  His personality is what it is.  It's easy to make fun of and point out because it's so glaringly un-presidential in every sense of the word, but his policy positions are every bit the disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really and truly cannot understand how one can look at the situation today and conclude that it's the media's fault and hollywood's fault and the left's fault that we don't have civil dialogue. Did you watch the 2016 election? From the left we had debates over issues and policy, from the right a debate over penis sizes. Then in the general election, there were three debates where Hillary Clinton calmly discussed her nerdy policy papers.

 

Donald Trump ran around starting lock her up chants at rallies.

 

Is the left now indulging in some hyperbole? Yeah, I think a little bit. But I also think Trump really is that bad, and I don't think "civil discourse" will ever be possible while he and the Fox News crowd are running the GOP, because they've gone and alienated the majority of the country. And they brought that upon themselves.

 

How could I have forgotten that time Trump bragged about his penis size in a national debate for the presidency.  It seems like so long ago in more innocent times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those darn Democrats. Oh wait, they don't run Congress....

 

Senate Panel to Probe Donald Trump’s Firing of Ex-FBI Director James Comey

The Senate Judiciary Committee ‘has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations,’ chairman Grassley says in a letter

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-panel-to-probe-donald-trumps-firing-of-ex-fbi-director-james-comey-1497459756


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I'd note that today's calls to tone down the rhetoric in politics is no different than calling for more gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook or Charleston or any other much more severe tragedy caused by gun violence.

 

A closer analogy to that would be lobbying for measures to expressly outlaw overcharged rhetoric in politics, wouldn't it?  One side is making a request to be responsible in using a Constitutional right, the other is making a demand to abrogate a Constitutional right for the asserted cause of safety.

 

I figured I would get this response.  If I had referenced any calls for a ban on guns, then you may be right.  But I said gun control measures, which are not an abrogation of a constitutional right.  Even Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment has its limits, as evidenced by he ban on automatic weapons and the frustration I feel in not being able to own a nuclear submarine. 

 

A outright ban on guns would be more akin to Trump's proposal that we apply normal libel/slander laws to the news media.  Both would be abrogating a constitutional right.

 

An outright ban on all guns would be akin to an outright ban on all speech.

 

Similarly, "reasonable gun control measures" ought to be just as chilling as someone proposing "reasonable speech control measures," particularly when someone says that without listing a single specific measure that they consider "reasonable."  That's a bait-and-switch waiting to happen, or at least it almost always have been in the past: an invitation for the other side to agree in principle on the word "reasonable," followed by proposals that would in fact dramatically reduce the population of gun owners or at least dramatically impede expanding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this, I completely agree.  But we're not talking issues of temperament and maturity here, both of which I freely admit he is sorely lacking, which is why I opposed him in the Republican primaries.  Or at least, most people aren't really talking about those issues when they talk about not "normalizing" him.  They're talking wildly overhyped allegations of treason, and they're talking about his substantive policy positions on law enforcement, immigration, trade, and the environment.  They're well past talking about his inflated ego and fragile masculinity.

 

Can his temperament really be separated from his policy positions? This incessant need to uphold his "tough guy" image has, and likely will continue to, played a role in him actually implementing bad, poorly thought out policies. His instability combined with the amount of power he has is scary and dangerous.

 

His temperament can be separated from his policy positions, absolutely, and in fact his temperament--in particular his need for affirmation--may actually explain why he has trouble sticking to very many policy positions with anything resembling consistency.  It is possible to have his temperament without his policy positions (such as they are), and more importantly, it is possible to support all or most of his policy positions (again, such as they are) without sharing his tempestuous and insecure temperament.  I gather that there is a sizable faction of the left that really has trouble with the second part of that, and believes that anyone who would ever support withdrawing from Paris, restricting Muslim and Latin American immigration, deeply cutting the budgets of many nondefense federal agencies, etc. must be an insecure, hypermasculine egomaniac.  That doesn't mean it's true.

 

No.  Just... no.  His temperament, at least for me, is just an added sideshow to his actual policies.  He's not done a whole lot, but what he has either proposed or put forth through EOs and such has been beneficial to big business or the 1% (healthcare bill debacle, environmental regulation rollbacks, workplace protection rollbacks, etc.).  Even his big campaign promises like the wall were just simply terrible ideas that had no hope of ever working, and things like pulling out of the Paris Accord and wanting to leave NATO seemed specifically designed to piss off all of our allies and ultimately make the country less safe.  His personality is what it is.  It's easy to make fun of and point out because it's so glaringly un-presidential in every sense of the word, but his policy positions are every bit the disaster. 

 

Hang on, you said "no" but then you largely agreed with me on the central point (that his policies could be taken and judged independently of his temperament); you just also judge his policies negatively on their merits as well.  But that's not because of the temperament of the mind defending them.  You'd presumably have a similar reaction if similar EOs were promulgated by President Jeb Bush (whom I think of as the anti-Trump on the right in terms of a level-headed, anodyne, pro-Establishment Republican ... or you could say President Mitt Romney, for example), which a great many Trump EOs might well have been.  (The immigration ones likely would not have been, but many others would have.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I'd note that today's calls to tone down the rhetoric in politics is no different than calling for more gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook or Charleston or any other much more severe tragedy caused by gun violence.

 

A closer analogy to that would be lobbying for measures to expressly outlaw overcharged rhetoric in politics, wouldn't it?  One side is making a request to be responsible in using a Constitutional right, the other is making a demand to abrogate a Constitutional right for the asserted cause of safety.

 

I figured I would get this response.  If I had referenced any calls for a ban on guns, then you may be right.  But I said gun control measures, which are not an abrogation of a constitutional right.  Even Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment has its limits, as evidenced by he ban on automatic weapons and the frustration I feel in not being able to own a nuclear submarine. 

 

A outright ban on guns would be more akin to Trump's proposal that we apply normal libel/slander laws to the news media.  Both would be abrogating a constitutional right.

 

An outright ban on all guns would be akin to an outright ban on all speech.

 

Similarly, "reasonable gun control measures" ought to be just as chilling as someone proposing "reasonable speech control measures," particularly when someone says that without listing a single specific measure that they consider "reasonable."  That's a bait-and-switch waiting to happen, or at least it almost always have been in the past: an invitation for the other side to agree in principle on the word "reasonable," followed by proposals that would in fact dramatically reduce the population of gun owners or at least dramatically impede expanding it.

 

Restrictions on weapons ownership exist already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...