President Trump: Part II

[wareyin]

Ah, so the solution is to be entirely partisan, then!

No. That is what is going on now. The solution is to call out both sides, or neither. Being more ready to "virtuously" call out one side means that is the only side being called out. Really, do we see anyone here on the conservative side calling out their own?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It is fair and proper, as a result of due diligence and matter of honesty from historical perspective, to call Trump a strutting egomaniac whose ignorance is only superseded by his greed.

Agreed. Or to point out he may have a diagnosable personality disorder. Or any one of many, many valid criticisms.

President Jerk of All Time.

You seem to be conflating name-calling with criticism. I don't think anyone has said nor implied that Trump should be above criticism. "Jerk of All Time" is not critism.

The difference is obvious. Right?

 

[CapelDodger]

What America will be like at the beginning of Trump's second term, and how we got there:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

An excellent piece. The scenario laid out at the beginning seems to me all too feasible, and what's chilling is the banality of it. No FEMA death-camps, just an administration that will spend with no thought for the deficit.

This is a particularly good point, I think :

“The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”

 

[Arcade22]

Mr. Trump’s blustery phone call with Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was enough to pull the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee into the diplomatic breach.

In a remarkable statement, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, announced that he had called Australia’s ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, to assure him of an “unwavering support for the U.S.-Australia alliance.”

“I asked Ambassador Hockey to convey to the people of Australia that their American brothers and sisters value our historic alliance, honor the sacrifice of the Australians who have served and are serving by our side, and remain committed to the safer, freer and better world that Australia does far more than its fair share to protect and promote.”

Mr. Trump angrily berated Australia’s prime minister after the leader pressed Mr. Trump to honor an agreement to accept 1,250 refugees from an Australian detention center. He then followed up with a Twitter post announcing his displeasure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-congress-tax-code.html

Good to see that there's at least one competent and influential person in congress trying to patch up Americas foreign relationships after Trump's tantruming.

 

[dudalb]

An excellent piece. The scenario laid out at the beginning seems to me all too feasible, and what's chilling is the banality of it. No FEMA death-camps, just an administration that will spend with no thought for the deficit.

This is a particularly good point, I think :

Intresting piece, but what it implies that Trump does not crash the economy of get America Involved in a major, unpopoular war....two things I think are strong probabilities.

 

[Bob001]

Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize basically for not being GWB.

How will the world celebrate the president replacing Trump?

What makes you think there will be a president after Trump? Robert Mugabe has run Zimbabwe for 37 years. And he was elected.

Time for a second look at Trevor Noah's take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPrJxTvgdQ

 

[Distracted1]

It's quite simple. When one's opponents behave badly, that's a shame for them. When one's allies behave badly, that's a shame for us, and we should call it out.

Obviously, the term "libtard" is a sad reflection of the state of discourse for those who use it. They look like insensitive and juvenile morons. It's okay to point that out.

But when our allies use similarly (if less extreme) juvenile terms, then we have an interest in pointing this out and distancing ourselves from such puerile nonsense, so that we are not lumped in with this behavior.

We may as well call him President Trump, as that is who he is. Nicknames do us no good.

You miss the point of the examples of Trump himself making extensive use of epithets throughout his life, and campaign.

Point out an instance of President Obama engaging in name calling, and I will concede to your assertion that referring to the "Trumpster" carries the same ethical baggage as referring to President Obama as "Obamanation".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I saw Pence interviewed on PBS last night and when questioned about the Trump immigration EO he just answered in generalities. We want to do everything to keep the American people safe, we want to make sure we check people. This is one of the complaints the security people have voiced. They wish Trump would identify what exactly he thinks is lacking in the current programs. What needs to be fixed. That by implying there is little vetting or it's poorly done he is doing a huge disservice to the people who have been doing this work.

But Pence seemed to pretty clearly state, during the campaign Trump promised that if he was elected he would interrupt immigration from the Middle East and that's why he's doing this. It's not because he necessarily thinks the current programs are inadequate it's because he said he was going to stop the immigration and that's what he's doing.

It's politics aimed at domestic voters.

The Trump apologetics continue to spew out from the GOP legislators that surround him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

President Trump may want to scrap a deal that I believe was made between President Obama and Australia that was made after the election. I would have to assume both parties knew that this deal would go against the new administrations policies and no one should be surprised at the reaction.

The Military action that resulted in a child and a US serviceman being killed fits that timeframe. But if you look at the details the plan and go ahead wasn't created in Nov after the election. The refugee deal is the same thing, Obama didn't just agree to the resettlement on a whim. It was part of the UN trying to address the horrendous situation in the two camps where children are committing suicide by self immolation. No doubt negotiations went on for months if not years before the election.

Last year, a UN committee report found multiple cases of "attempted suicide, self-immolation, acts of self-harm and depression" among children who had lived in prolonged "detention-like conditions."

Obama was trying to help Turnbull out politically, but also Obama must have felt like some of these people needed relief from their intolerable situation.

Trump doesn't give a **** if a brown kid is in such desperation that he'd burn himself to death.

 

[bruto]

Point taken, of course. It's hard not to fall into the trap of calling someone bad names when one thinks so very badly of him, and it is, occasionally satisfying, like a fart. I suspect and hope that it won't be too long before the simple name "Trump" carries with it the implications of evil that some other names do. I look forward to the time it will be considered "godwinning" a thread to call someone a Trump. In the mean time I'll try to behave and let one presume that the use of the word "Trump" carries with it a carload of negative connotations, bad names and condemnations of bad behavior, and true distress at the possibility that his tenure will do irreparable harm to our society and our republic.

In the mean time I will deny I ever said anything nasty about Trump, and if caught out deny I meant it. Of course if you believe there are any literary or urinary implications to an epithet I will deny all possibility that it referred to anything but the color of his hair.

But I will try henceforth not accidentally to be a trump myself.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The problem is that this results in nobody, or virtually nobody, calling out one side (Trump's side), while everyone "virtuously" calls out the side that doesn't rise to his level. It doesn't just give a false impression of which side you agree with, it gives a false impression of who is wrong.

Tell me what party you support so I know not to vote for them. A party with such low regard for the decision making and information interpretation of others does not deserve power.

 

[Emily's Cat]

From my POV, those people either had no clue just how mentally disturbed Trump actually was (which is why I'm asking people if they still hold that belief), or, they bought a completely false narrative about Clinton, or both.

Even if a voter knew Clinton was a typical politician, which she was, a voter had to have totally missed all the warning signs about Trump to have not voted for Clinton anyway.

I get it people who believe the false Clinton narrative are convinced they have not been hoodwinked. It's too late to debate that now. But at some point many of those same people are going to see what a mentally ill POTUS can really do.


On that note, Chris Matthews tonight called one on his panel about Trump's mental problems. Matthews brought up the partisan psychiatric accusations against Goldwater and asked the person to name a liberal politician with a mental illness. She answered, there is no one like Trump.

The panelist didn't counter with the right question: How many other politicians have you seen who were obsessed with their inaugural crowd size and the fact they didn't win the popular vote?

In other words, it is your opinion that anyone who didn't support Clinton was either stupid... or stupid. Their actual beliefs and positions are irrelevant and can't possibly have any validity to them or anyone else. At the end of the day, they're just stupid.

 

[Armitage72]

Name-calling can serve a function if the insult refers to a specific failing of the person you want to draw attention to: Killary, Il Douche, $hillary and so on can become shorthand for what would otherwise require a longer explanation.

Donald "Windrip" Trump.
The problem is that a lot of people, almost certainly including Trump, wouldn't get the reference, and would probably think it was a flatulence joke.

 

[wareyin]

Tell me what party you support so I know not to vote for them. A party with such low regard for the decision making and information interpretation of others does not deserve power.

Was Trump's election a good or a bad decision? Did people vote for him because they interpreted all the facts correctly, or fell for false statements?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In other words, it is your opinion that anyone who didn't support Clinton was either stupid... or stupid. Their actual beliefs and positions are irrelevant and can't possibly have any validity to them or anyone else. At the end of the day, they're just stupid.

You seem to only be able to address these issues with straw man ad homs.

In other words there are some very specific issues here that you don't address.

Buying a false narrative does not equate to stupid. Very intelligent people who don't recognize narrative propaganda often buy into it.

Some key lies about Clinton: The whole Clinton Cash book was discredited, there was no pay to play going on with the Clinton Foundation and the Foundation had a very high rating by charity watch groups.

There was no crime in the email controversy no matter how you slice it. Not to mention the hypocrisy given GW purposefully side-stepped FOIA by using the RNC email system when he was firing the 8 State Attorneys General that refused to compromise their integrity by taking actions to influence elections.

Both of these examples are easily supported with evidence.

As to Trump, I find it difficult to accept that 40-some % of the voting public are alt-right or knew what they were getting with Trump. Clearly some of the white nationalists exist. Are you one of them? Is Bannon your guy?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Was Trump's election a good or a bad decision? Did people vote for him because they interpreted all the facts correctly, or fell for false statements?

If they are good or bad at, it does not alter my vote gaining strategy. I refuse to support a campaign that disqualifies the candidate.

 

[3point14]

I think I agree to some extent. "Little Marco" repeated enough times can "stick" and make him seem small. "Lying Ted" can make one start to notice inconsistencies in his future statements, as can "Hilliary" or "Crooked Hillary".

But the very nature of such slurs are ad hominem attacks, attacking the person rather than particular arguments. Something I'd expect more on Facebook than a forum with "skeptics" in its name.

note: written before I read your most recent post. I think we're definitely on the same page.

Agreed

 

[Emily's Cat]

As a person in the medical profession, I know the difference between a narcissistic personality and a pathologic narcissistic personality disorder. And there is a difference.

Are you speaking as a psychologist in the medical profession, or as an anesthesiologist, or pharmacist, or orderly? Simply being broadly "in the medical profession" doesn't necessarily grant one the expertise required to make a diagnosis. i'm inclined to say that those with the expertise would be significantly more reticent in making a diagnosis from second-hand observations without having evaluated the individual under consideration.

Of course, my opinion is based on nothing more than an understanding of professional ethics and the opinions of friends and family members who are actually psychologists. I could be wrong. You could be completely qualified to issue an armchair diagnosis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Clinton lost by a small margin in three states while winning a large margin in the popular vote altogether.

Pretty sure Clinton lost in many more than three states.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-congress-tax-code.html

Good to see that there's at least one competent and influential person in congress trying to patch up Americas foreign relationships after Trump's tantruming.

Trump is a member of his party - it would be their job to prevent Trump from taking a dump on our allies, not clean up after him.