President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie B said:
Except for the perceived racism, each of those characteristics were really shared by both candidates.
Click to expand...
To the same extent? I doubt you would put them on equal footing especially, for example, lying. Sure both made "misstatements" but Trump lied constantly, even about things that were public and refutable with no trouble. The guy is a pathological liar.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Funny thing on that front... Trump isn't going to be able to become that sort of a fascist unless he takes away the citizenry's right to bear arms - something that his supports absolutely will not tolerate or allow.
Click to expand...
How does that follow? His supporters if they supported him based on what he said wanted him to be that sort of leader.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes.

His supporters are exactly the cohort of people who deeply believe that we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves from usurpers and tyrants. They firmly believe that it is the duty and obligation of the citizenry to protect themselves from a government that overreaches.

Why would you expect them to meekly support a tyrant overreaching?
Click to expand...
Because that is what they voted for?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes - the military are citizens too, and a large number of active duty take their oath to defend the constitution pretty seriously. To disarm the populace, Trump would have to use the military... and the military isn't going to follow that order.
Click to expand...
Why would he want to disarm his supporters, the ones who want him to do what he promised?
 
SezMe said:
To the same extent? I doubt you would put them on equal footing especially, for example, lying. Sure both made "misstatements" but Trump lied constantly, even about things that were public and refutable with no trouble. The guy is a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you see, Clinton lied about the important stuff. :rolleyes:
 
rdaneel said:
I've been saying that I will laugh and laugh if it turns out Trump really is a wildcard and drives Ryan and McConnell up the wall.
Click to expand...
One thing we do know he is quite capable of changing his mind within the same speech and being bare faced about it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah but you see, Clinton lied about the important stuff. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not saying I agree with this, but a reasonable position is that Clinton lied about things that could have affected National Security. There were classified documents on her personal server despite her sworn testimony that there weren't.

I thought Trump's lies, and unwillingness to backtrack on them when they were pointed out, was disturbing. Almost sociopathic. But now I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the whole thing might have been an act, an act which achieved its goal. If that IS the case, now that he's achieved his goal, maybe the act will change. We can only hope.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not saying I agree with this, but a reasonable position is that Clinton lied about things that could have affected National Security. There were classified documents on her personal server despite her sworn testimony that there weren't.

I thought Trump's lies, and unwillingness to backtrack on them when they were pointed out, was disturbing. Almost sociopathic. But now I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the whole thing might have been an act, an act which achieved its goal. If that IS the case, now that he's achieved his goal, maybe the act will change. We can only hope.
Click to expand...

We have to "hope" that Trump isn't who he has been for the last 30 years? :jaw-dropp:confused:

I really don't have a clue whether Trump will or can do many or any of the things he said he would do. I do believe that a man who has cheated thousands of people in his own lifetime would have no issue implementing policies that will be destructive to a a great many people and I guarantee that the Republican agenda will do just.that.

The problem that Trump presents is that he has consistently espoused radically different even contradictory positions on everything from abortion to healthcare to trade. I'm convinced that very often he has done this just to keep himself in the public eye. I expect him now that he's going to be President that he will be moderate to hard right. Not because he believes in those positions per se, but that he is now surrounded by people who do.
 
Trebuchet said:
Good luck with that. The bill will be on his desk the day he takes office. He's going to veto something he's been promising for a couple of years? I think not.
Click to expand...


He can simply say, as he actually appears to be doing, that there are provisions in the ACA that are useful and that Congress needs to present a plan to replace it not simply repeal it. In fact what he actually said during the campaign was that they would come up with a better plan, so he has plenty of wiggle room here, and for that matter it would hardly be the first time he's done a 180.
 
And with this dramatic season-ending episode we look forward to next year's exciting developments on USA, the Culture Wars.
 
Planigale said:
Not true her constituency voted her in as an MP. This arguably is as much as any PM, since the PM is chosen by the largest party (in whatever way that party decides) from the current MPs. We do not elect a prime minister, but individual MPs.
Click to expand...

Technically correct, but you're splitting hairs really.

Howabout "we have a PM that almost none of the electorate voted for."
It's also not really much of an election if you're in one of the safest seats in the country. Her constituency Maidenhead has *always* voted conservative, and the constituencies that made up that area before 1997 when the boundaries were redrawn always voted conservative as well. A monkey wearing a blue rosette would probably win that seat.

When we have a General Election here we know who the party leaders are so I'd suggest it's safe bet that this is a significant factor in peoples votes.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not saying I agree with this, but a reasonable position is that Clinton lied about things that could have affected National Security. There were classified documents on her personal server despite her sworn testimony that there weren't.
Click to expand...

I'm open to correction here but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that there weren't any emails that were classified.... however some non classified emails (single figures out of the 35k I believe) contained classified information and had not been correctly marked up?

It may seem a minor differential but I would say a crucial one.
 
Minoosh said:
IMO the media has to go back to "show don't tell." Don't make every headline something about Trump not following through on a promise...
Click to expand...

I don't really agree. First of all, studies have shown that most incoming presidents deliver on about 70% of the promises they made during the campaign. Obama's transition team actually went back through his campaign speeches and appearances and tried to itemize the promises he had made and then figure out, "Okay how does he deliver on them?"

Second, reporting on a politician's broken promises seems to me to be legitimate news. In Trump you seem to have someone who repeatedly promised repealing Obamacare would be one of the first things he would do once he entered office. Now -- seemingly with no explanation -- he's saying he won't do it. For me that is not only legitimate news it is what freedom of the press is all about. Because if the news media doesn't put it on the record when a leader lied, or went back on his word, who will?

Holding politicians to their word, trying to make them accountable, I think that's a very important role the media plays.
 
acbytesla said:
I expect him now that he's going to be President that he will be moderate to hard right. Not because he believes in those positions per se, but that he is now surrounded by people who do.
Click to expand...


This seems reasonable. He's going to want to be known as the President that gets stuff done, and that will mean going with the flow of a Republican majority Congress.

I'm sure he thinks he'll get stuff done by being the one steering all the talks in the direction he wants, but Congress has already had 8 years of practice with a President that wanted to do things "his way". They're unlikely to cave to this one.
 
Holding politicians to their word, trying to make them accountable, I think that's a very important role the media plays.
Click to expand...
That, and classified ads, were the entire core purpose of most dead-tree newspapers of the old media.
 
newyorkguy said:
Holding politicians to their word, trying to make them accountable, I think that's a very important role the media plays.
Click to expand...


Trump should be held to his word for the campaign promise he made in front of a television audience of 66 million Americans:
“I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. People have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done, and it’s a disgrace, and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.”​
 
newyorkguy said:
Second, reporting on a politician's broken promises seems to me to be legitimate news. In Trump you seem to have someone who repeatedly promised repealing Obamacare would be one of the first things he would do once he entered office. Now -- seemingly with no explanation -- he's saying he won't do it. For me that is not only legitimate news it is what freedom of the press is all about. Because if the news media doesn't put it on the record when a leader lied, or went back on his word, who will?

Holding politicians to their word, trying to make them accountable, I think that's a very important role the media plays.
Click to expand...


It's the most important to the people who actually voted for that politician. If your chosen candidate, after winning, suddenly chooses not to do the things you voted for him or her to do, what was the point of voting for them?

If we want to remain ignorant about a politician's position reversals after we vote for them, why even have elections? Just pick politicians at random, or let "the elites" do it.

Not very appealing.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Given the rules of the game, that's 100% correct.
Click to expand...
The popular vote matters a lot, at the state level. Which is why it's important for the federal government to have little power, and for most policy to be decided by the states themselves.

America is designed to work best when power is concentrated in the states, not the federal government.

The real political conflict in this country isn't between the progressives and the conservatives. It's between the Fascists and the Liberals. And the Fascists have been on top for so long that most of us have forgotten it was never supposed to be this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom