Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings.

I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." rabbithole. It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real and far too much of here's what I think so now let's interpret everything based on my view is a "given." Look at each action and effort item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly. There are more than enough of the latter in my opinion.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

I have supported the GOP with few exceptions since the 1970s. I have to actively consider voting for whatever yahoo the Dems put up -- who will likely be a big government is the only way crazy, given the current polarization in our politics -- to keep the asshat from demeaning the office further. Galling.

[Montmorency]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings. I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real. Look at them item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

But what has he done well (holistically in life)? He lies by volume, not effectiveness.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But what has he done well (holistically in life)? He lies by volume, not effectiveness.

I edited my post. You were too quick and are responding to the abridged version.

Nothing he has ever done is right, nothing worked, he always was wrong, it was all given too him, he only knows how to shout louder whether it is whining or crying, he is the font of all evil, the bastard is responsible for us losing the Vietnam war, he was probably the thug in the crowd hired by the Pharisees to get them stirred up enough for Pilate to crucify Jesus.

With that mantra we can now close the thread. Why bother going through the particulars when the decision is cast in stone already.

[Montmorency]

I understand it is difficult to conceive of any particulars, but that is what I'm asking.

Although an aside again: why would you support the Republicans if you don't like "big government is the only way"? Any alleged distinction against the Democrats here is so marginal that without considering any other factors you would be obliged to give Republican and Democratic candidates an equal hearing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I understand it is difficult to conceive of any particulars, but that is what I'm asking.

Although an aside again: why would you support the Republicans if you don't like "big government is the only way"? Any alleged distinction against the Democrats here is so marginal that without considering any other factors you would be obliged to give Republican and Democratic candidates an equal hearing.

I have no problems with particulars. I am inundated with a litany of strident comments that all boil down to Trump is wrong because he is Trump. A reasoned discussion of the particulars would be refreshing.

You may parse out your reasons for loathing him fairly well, but the bulk of the no Trump crowd is so pro hoc ergo propter hoc about everything that nothing gets evaluated except in the light of preconceived judgement.


Many of the GOP are nearly as big govt. as the Dems, that has to be acknowledged. Most of those GOPers tend towards toleration and not wanting to change things rather than towards accelerating things towards one big happy government like a goodly portion of the Dems. There are even a few GOP types who are actively seeking to dial back government in a measured fashion. When I spot one of those, I can actually vote happily. I am not, for the most part, a social issue traditionalist, so those issues rarely bother me.

Gary marriage cheapens the sanctity of marriage? Laughed out loud at that one. The only persons who can cheapen my marriage are myself and the wife. I dislike "hate crimes" laws not because the crimes are not heinous, but because I do not believe the government should be in the business of punishing thoughts. Gun control? Not in favor as it is the last tool of the citizenry to combat tyranny. However, since when they wrote that amendment folks were more or less ubiquitously trained with guns -- and if you missed you went hungry -- a few laws requiring safety training and storage etc. are no less than reasonable. There are others....

Trump offends me less on a policy level then he does with his poor management style, reactive planning approach, and crass disregard for anything resembling a classy approach to the Presidency.

[rory_20_uk]

People invariably have an impression of someone and then look for facts.

So Trump is a vulgar narcissist who displays almost no traits to be the President. But Obama failed to reach consensus with Congress much of the time, failed to close Guantanamo repeatedly, undertook illegal raids into sovereign states and expanded the use of drones in many others leading to the deaths of thousands of people... whilst hoovering up a Peace Nobel. Equally he flip-flopped on the Middle East (not an easy area for anyone) but he definitely let Russia become the main player by being so timorous. He equally had a vacuous strapline "yes we can" which he mainly failed to deliver on.

He was the outside hope, just like Trump was, Bill Clinton was, Reagan was... The USA seems to constantly pick "outsiders" hoping that they can suddenly sort out the malaise and get frustrated when they fail.

My preferred President to date has been Bill Clinton. As long as his recurrent infidelities did not damage the functioning of the state, that is a relatively small price to pay to have someone who is frankly able to do the job. It is rather unfortunate he ousted the Republican "Royalty" which seems to have caused ire he never overcame.

So I can't stand Trump as a person, but I also think he is a worse President than most in recent memory mainly for having no driver beyond "winning" and having very little interest in what has been won.

[Montmorency]

No particulars? I ask because I've seriously never seen or heard of a person so inferior that didn't end up dead in a ditch after a lifetime of crime and vice.

Look, sure I'll give you this one if Trump manages to beat the investigations, eliminates his opposition and retains his office for a few years or decades.

Half points if he dies within a year of peak power.

Trump offends me less on a policy level then he does with his poor management style, reactive planning approach, and crass disregard for anything resembling a classy approach to the Presidency.

IMO the superficial norms are relatively unimportant to the substance. At least you can laugh about it. Pretty much every President is an asshole. For instance, what LBJ did and how he talked to people was often racist and crass and reprehensible, yet somehow... impressive?

Many of the GOP are nearly as big govt. as the Dems, that has to be acknowledged. Most of those GOPers tend towards toleration and not wanting to change things rather than towards accelerating things towards one big happy government like a goodly portion of the Dems.

This is happening because the past generation of Democrats decided going right of "Eisenhower Republicans" was a good idea.

CLINTON SWIPES THE GOP'S LYRICS

"THE GOOD news is that we may elect a Republican president this year," said Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. "The bad news is that it may be Bill Clinton."

"I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"

Here is a selection of the "big happy government" Democrats.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours -- ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

Socialist beats GOP House-majority Whip in 2017 Virginia elections; Democratic colleague responds by trolling him with Soviet flag during floor-talk on corporate-inducements bill (1:52).



Blue Dog party elite explains machine politics to hard-left upstart.



Times a thousand.

Storm the citadel and drive out the occupants. What Corbynites did to Labour may be the only option for left-wing movements.

If you stick with the Republicans, you can integrate those of the Democrats' right flank (i.e. the leadership) who leave, moderate the Republicans a sliver.

Flipping the South sure changed the Republican Party's priorities:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Husar]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings.

I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." rabbithole. It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real and far too much of here's what I think so now let's interpret everything based on my view is a "given." Look at each action and effort item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly. There are more than enough of the latter in my opinion.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

I have supported the GOP with few exceptions since the 1970s. I have to actively consider voting for whatever yahoo the Dems put up -- who will likely be a big government is the only way crazy, given the current polarization in our politics -- to keep the asshat from demeaning the office further. Galling.

You're wrong about my point and you're also not answering my question anywhere as Monty also pointed out.
My point is not that lying makes him stupid, but that him gaining his welath via lies does not make him a great manager, it says more about the failure of others to check his statements. I don't count gaming the system as a great management skill just like being able to type god mode into a console does not make you the best shooter player deserving of the ESL top prize for whatever league.

His statements, the logic he displays in public and most other indicators do not make me think he is particularly clever. Maybe not stupid either, but certainly not clever. Yet you state you believe him to be a great businessman and a great dealmaker. So I ask you to name some examples where he managed a business very well or made a great deal, before he became president.

If your only argument in favor of him being a great dealmaker is "let's wait and see what he still does as president", you're also doing the cumquad hoc propter somethingorother by claiming he already is a great dealmaker before you know of even a single great deal he made.

Just name two or three concrete examples of great deals he made before he was elected president. There have to be some, or the claim is simply empty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're wrong about my point and you're also not answering my question anywhere as Monty also pointed out.
My point is not that lying makes him stupid, but that him gaining his welath via lies does not make him a great manager, it says more about the failure of others to check his statements. I don't count gaming the system as a great management skill just like being able to type god mode into a console does not make you the best shooter player deserving of the ESL top prize for whatever league.

His statements, the logic he displays in public and most other indicators do not make me think he is particularly clever. Maybe not stupid either, but certainly not clever. Yet you state you believe him to be a great businessman and a great dealmaker. So I ask you to name some examples where he managed a business very well or made a great deal, before he became president.

If your only argument in favor of him being a great dealmaker is "let's wait and see what he still does as president", you're also doing the cumquad hoc propter somethingorother by claiming he already is a great dealmaker before you know of even a single great deal he made.

Just name two or three concrete examples of great deals he made before he was elected president. There have to be some, or the claim is simply empty.

I said effective, not great. Great are things like the Camp David Accords, Nixon's efforts with the PRC, Google buying Doubleclick and YouTube...None of Trump's deals rise to those levels. Trump did take himself from the verge of bankruptcy (his fault) to a turnaround that totals in the billions (also his fault). Bill Gates or Warren Buffet good? Hell no.

[Husar]

I said effective, not great. Great are things like the Camp David Accords, Nixon's efforts with the PRC, Google buying Doubleclick and YouTube...None of Trump's deals rise to those levels. Trump did take himself from the verge of bankruptcy (his fault) to a turnaround that totals in the billions (also his fault). Bill Gates or Warren Buffet good? Hell no.

That still doesn't prove him an effective manager. Plenty of gurus just scam the right gullible people and become rich that way, that doesn't mean you could give them a well-run company tomorrow and watch them succeed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The ability to take advantage of the abused and unfortunate is not clever nor a show of any strong intellect. And let's be clear, when we talk about Trump's position it is entirely built upon the unfortunate and the abused, down to the fake promises of reviving the rust belt to its 1960s heyday.

If we want to elevate our opinion of Trump's intellect above Grade A moron, we must be ready to bestow the same level of praise to Jim Jones and Charles Manson. Cults of personality don't require intellect, only strong ego's and willing listeners.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The ability to take advantage of the abused and unfortunate is not clever nor a show of any strong intellect. And let's be clear, when we talk about Trump's position it is entirely built upon the unfortunate and the abused, down to the fake promises of reviving the rust belt to its 1960s heyday.

If we want to elevate our opinion of Trump's intellect above Grade A moron, we must be ready to bestow the same level of praise to Jim Jones and Charles Manson. Cults of personality don't require intellect, only strong ego's and willing listeners.

Gotta agree on the Rust Belt stuff. That kind of factory job in those numbers simply cannot recur.

[Montmorency]

By the way, doesn't Kim Kardashian come to mind? At least as good a brander and salesperson as Trump.

Though it could help that she presents as a glamorous high-life woman and Trump presents as a crusty gasbag.

Both ultimately have to disappear.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That still doesn't prove him an effective manager. Plenty of gurus just scam the right gullible people and become rich that way, that doesn't mean you could give them a well-run company tomorrow and watch them succeed.

I am not sure he is an effective manager. I know that the idea behind the "everybody unsure all the time, always competing with one another" model is supposed to generate high performance from people busting but to not fail and get trashed by their peers, but I have problems with that approach to management in business and suspect it doesn't work for [insert favorite synonym for excrement here] in government.

[spmetla]

I am not sure he is an effective manager. I know that the idea behind the "everybody unsure all the time, always competing with one another" model is supposed to generate high performance from people busting but to not fail and get trashed by their peers, but I have problems with that approach to management in business and suspect it doesn't work for [insert favorite synonym for excrement here] in government.

He's mentally past his prime and just doesn't understand the complexities of the job his in. I don't think him a moron but it's clear that he isn't thinking things through.
I think he's been surrounded by too many yes-men the last two decades that has made him believe his own BS about his 'gut instinct' over facts and figures.
Private business work models don't do well in government agencies. Hiring and firing aren't the same, the goals aren't supposed to be a profit (except the IRS and USPS), and saying outlandish things has real repercussions instead of just steadying stockholders or supporting 'the brand.'

We in the US have always assumed that good generals or businessmen must do well in government and most of the time that's just not true. MacNamara assumed he knew more then the generals and essentially got us into Vietnam while trying to get us out of it.
Businessmen have a much simpler goal in just making a profit or raising stock prices.

[rory_20_uk]

Most businesses most of the time undergo limited scrutiny. And most do not stand up to intense scrutiny. Be that Amazon's tax evasion, Facebook and Google's use of data or Apple's tax "approach". The one constant is that they are amoral and do whatever they can to help themselves - if massive, well resourced and profitable companies either lack the will or the want to follow all the rules it is hardly surprising that others equally do not.

So in swaggers Donnie and takes the view since he now is the government and hence much more powerful he can much more easily bully smaller entities - which now is almost everyone, break even more laws - since he writes them and is perplexed that his subordinates - which is everyone - do not act like the cowed minions at private companies who can generally be silenced quite easily and seem to think they follow some sort of set of laws which Donnie didn't agree with. Like Judge Dread, Donnie's take on it is "I AM the Law!!!"

To almost everyone else it is patently obvious that the USA has a system of checks and balances that is almost designed to create gridlock, so fearful were the founding fathers of becoming another UK / France where the sovereign power has, well, power. Not to Donald who so clearly wants to be a Dictator like all the cool countries - Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, North Korea. And three out of the four were very recently democracies, so why can't his democracy get in line and let him enjoy his latest toy?