|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2018 0:18:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 11, 2018 18:11:42 GMT -5
I...
Do we really need a book to tell us that Trump ate a piece of paper? I have no reason to doubt it, but then I have no reason to accept it, either.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 14, 2018 12:38:36 GMT -5
This entire Omarosa thing is just so crazy. I remember the Apprentice when she was on it, years ago. She was mean and volatile and unhinged. Why would Trump ever hire her? She is definitely trying hard to build a "Trump has dementia" narrative.
Here's Cohen on the paper thing:
But really, who knows who and what to believe anymore?
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 14, 2018 17:54:26 GMT -5
She was mean and volatile and unhinged. Why would Trump ever hire her? Because Trump is mean and volatile and unhinged?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 18:12:56 GMT -5
It's just possible -- stay with me here -- that Trump does not in fact hire "the best people."
I don't know whether Trump ate the paper or not, but even if he did, I doubt it's the most bizarre thing he's ever done.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 14, 2018 18:26:40 GMT -5
Well now, "mean, volatile, and unhinged." That's your verdict, c.e., and I may not disagree with you.
However, the president has bragged about committing sexual assault, mocked a disabled reporter, said there are some good nazis, called for his supporters to commit violence, and now called Omarosa a "dog." (Dinner in five minutes, I don't have time to list the rest of the crazy shit he's done.) So will you now concede that "mean, volatile, and unhinged" also describes your president? Or are we still making excuses for his behavior while happily labeling those who oppose him?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 14, 2018 18:54:06 GMT -5
Well now, "mean, volatile, and unhinged." That's your verdict, c.e., and I may not disagree with you. However, the president has bragged about committing sexual assault, mocked a disabled reporter, said there are some good nazis, called for his supporters to commit violence, and now called Omarosa a "dog." (Dinner in five minutes, I don't have time to list the rest of the crazy shit he's done.) So will you now concede that "mean, volatile, and unhinged" also describes your president? Or are we still making excuses for his behavior while happily labeling those who oppose him? I have criticized Trump's behavior in the past, mark. I've said on this board I wish he could be more presidential, and that I hate his Tweets. Yes, his behavior in many instances makes me cringe. I don't think I've continually made excuses for him. I did recently say I don't think he knew in detail what his no tolerance immigration policy was actually doing to kids. But that's because I like to believe the best of most people, and most people aren't purposely cruel to innocent children. But for the most part, I've said that I separate the man from his administration's policies, so I can still support him or his administration when they do things that I think are good policy, even if I don't particularly like the man or his behavior. That's not the same as excusing him. I concede he can be mean, volatile, and unhinged.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 14, 2018 20:30:04 GMT -5
Thank you for your honest answer. I know you've criticized him in general terms but I think a few of us feel like making you cringe and disliking his Tweets was a way to excuse or look past who he really is. So thank you for your reply, again.
But, and I hate to sound like a lawyer (!) or make this a gotcha moment but you have just acknowledged your support of a man who is/can be (is there a difference? I'd say not) "mean, volatile, and unhinged." You support an unhinged president. Think about that, please. How can you support someone you see as unhinged?!
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 15, 2018 7:34:45 GMT -5
Thank you for your honest answer. I know you've criticized him in general terms but I think a few of us feel like making you cringe and disliking his Tweets was a way to excuse or look past who he really is. So thank you for your reply, again. But, and I hate to sound like a lawyer (!) or make this a gotcha moment but you have just acknowledged your support of a man who is/can be (is there a difference? I'd say not) "mean, volatile, and unhinged." You support an unhinged president. Think about that, please. How can you support someone you see as unhinged?! But her emails!
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 8:49:58 GMT -5
Thank you for your honest answer. I know you've criticized him in general terms but I think a few of us feel like making you cringe and disliking his Tweets was a way to excuse or look past who he really is. So thank you for your reply, again. But, and I hate to sound like a lawyer (!) or make this a gotcha moment but you have just acknowledged your support of a man who is/can be (is there a difference? I'd say not) "mean, volatile, and unhinged." You support an unhinged president. Think about that, please. How can you support someone you see as unhinged?! But her emails! Fair enough. And don't forget Benghazi...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 9:17:04 GMT -5
I do rather wonder what c.e. would be saying if all of us supported a Democrat with economic policies WE thought were good, yet who did all of the stuff Trump and the Trump administration has done -- the unhinged rants, the constant whopping lies, the stream of hires and fires demonstrating corrupt or batshit conduct, the hiring of unqualified family members, the long history of grift and dubious Russian income combined with a refusal to release tax returns, the paying off of a stream of women just before the election, the cuddling up to dictators, the policies that caged children and deported war veterans brought here as children...I could go on for pages and pages.
I wonder very much whether, if we said "oh, but we like his tax policy so we support him," c.e. would say "oh, that makes sense! Cool!"
I think it's safe to say that nearly every politician has some weakness, some moral failing. But it is a matter of degree. I don't think any of our presidents, up to and including Nixon, come anywhere near Trump. "Unhinged" is an apt description, and yet that's only part of the issue with Trump.
No policies, ever, could convince me to put a human being with his character in the most important, powerful position on earth. I think most of us here feel that way -- hence, c.e., why your explanation continues to boggle us.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 9:22:09 GMT -5
I think allowing that someone can be mean, unhinged, etc., is not quite the same thing as absolutely labeling them as mean, unhinged, etc. To be sure, I think Trump is mean, is a narcissistic grifter who says a lot of the things he says just to get a rise out of people. And I wish he wasn't President.
But for those who support him, it's no great logic fail to argue that he can be X, but that they still support him because of Y, Z, etc. Bill Clinton--when he was President--could be a real sleezebag, and some might say that he simply is a sleezebag. But I still supported him, because I thought he was being effective as President and he was (for the most part) doing things I agreed with. Asking me the loaded question "how can I support a sleezebag" assumes that's all there is to Clinton.
And also, Trump's horribleness doesn't make Hillary Clinton any better, in my book. She was still a terrible candidate and I'm glad she's not President. It's too bad both major parties offered up such garbage.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 15, 2018 9:23:21 GMT -5
But to be serious for a moment - as someone who did not like Hillary (and does actually think the email issue was significant, if not to the degree that she should be "locked up") - celaw, if you vote for Trump, you are excusing him, so I'll be fascinated to see what you do in 2020.
Personally, I truly believe you are one of those people who Trump bragged would still vote for him if he shot someone. You'd say it's terrible he did that and you wish he weren't a murderer, but you'd still vote for him rather than vote for a Democrat. Maaaaaybe it would actually push you into not voting at all. But if the alternative were, say, Hillary winning, you'd vote for him. I literally do not think there is anything he could do that would convince you he's worse than a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 10:19:20 GMT -5
Rob, I think you're right in one sense because, as Cass said, no politician is going to be perfect, as humans they will have flaws in personality/character. So, for example, we look past Clinton's philandering and "sleaziness" because he's an effective president implementing policies we agree with.
But for me, not only is this a continuum where, at some point, personal character defects (such as being unhinged?!) mean an individual should lose all support. I mean, it's not as if he's the only one who can implement policies that c.e. agrees with, so surely at some stage there's a tipping point, no? Additionally, I think we're well beyond personal sleaziness or philandering, we're seeing a man who's unstable, clearly racist, and demonstrably bad for foreign relations (among other faults). His personal behaviors and personality are now so outrageous I cannot fathom how people can still get behind him based on policy grounds.
Put another way, since any other republican president could advocate for whatever conservative policies Trump is in favor of, I fail to see a single other redeeming quality in the man, even when I try and view him through the lens of other republicans/conservatives.
(I just reread this and it's fairly nonsensical but since I typed it out, I'm posting it!)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 10:34:50 GMT -5
But for me, not only is this a continuum where, at some point, personal character defects (such as being unhinged?!) mean an individual should lose all support. Oh, I agree. I don't think Trump should be President as a matter of course, because he's unfit for the job, from the standpoint of temperament, alone.* The fact that he can also be mean and vindictive, and is--imo--completely untrustworthy, just represents icing on the cake. Nonetheless, many people don't think those defects are enough to tip the scales, mostly because they have bought into the "swamp" narrative (which is based strongly in reality imo, even if there's some stretching going on). * However, he is President. And right now, the only fix for that is the ballot box.
|
|