|
Post by Christine on Aug 16, 2018 19:13:06 GMT -5
Certainly Trump is nowhere near the things you've listed. Not even close. I think these visions of Trump being so awful have been built up over the months by people agonizing over his win. That's a line right out of Fox News - "they're just exaggerating because they lost the election." Sure, there is exaggeration by some Dems but the point you never seem to address is that Republicans have eschewed Trump. Do you think they're crying that Hillary lost? "You anti-Trumpers." See, the whole idea of anti-Trumpers puts the the onus outside of Trump. It's some sort of "unfair" group who are just a bunch of meanie mcmeanies. But the thing is, there are rational, conservative people with legitimate criticisms of his words and actions, with legitimate concerns about his fitness, his temperament, his capability to do anything outside of tweeting narcissistic, unhinged insults at the press, his former employees, and, most recently ex-intelligence officers. It seems very clear that this is what Trump spends his time and mental energy on. All the policies you like are not because of Trump; they're because of a Republican Congress and a president who has neither the intellect nor the attention span to spend more than thirty seconds on a subject unless it's "is this good for me?" and "can we spin it so I'll get praise for it?" This whole spiel (and you're far from the first person I've heard it from) is like a mishmash of blind religious fervor and battered wife syndrome. And I do not think you would vote for a moderate Dem over Trump the teen molester. I think you'd disbelieve that Trump molested teens and vote for him because all the haters were lying or exaggerating. Look, we already have it on record that Trump said this: So I guess you believe Trump was telling the truth about his goodness in not, I guess, groping or raping the girls he walked in on while they were dressing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 19:32:23 GMT -5
Eating paper is more rational than those tweets. I mean, yeah, especially if he spilled his taco bowl on the paper. Waste not, want not.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 16, 2018 19:38:01 GMT -5
Eating paper is more rational than those tweets. I mean, yeah, especially if he spilled his taco bowl on the paper. Waste not, want not. He should not be allowed to enjoy taco bowls until all the immigrant children are returned to their parents ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 19:46:14 GMT -5
Now I really want a taco bowl. That might be lunch tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 20:43:46 GMT -5
Oh, he's been a busy boy with the cray-cray this last two hours!
That's just the last two hours, mind you. I guess he's getting in some evening "Executive Time."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 22:08:58 GMT -5
OMG, he's having quite a night. More:
He. Is. Batshit.
ETA:
If I were running a company and one of my employees tweeted like this? I'd fire him--I wouldn't want his crazy associated with my company. That's kinda how I feel about having him associated with my country, come to think of it.
ETA:
If he were my child, I'd be looking to get him some mental help. My husband? Divorce. My friend? Yeah, no. This is crazytown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 7:24:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 17, 2018 7:53:22 GMT -5
But yeah, I would vote for a truly moderate Dem over Trump the teen molestor. (You do realize the chance of both of those things occuring are practically nil.) I do find this statement interesting. I mean, the second proposition actually wouldn't shock me - I could easily believe Trump creeped on an underaged girl at some point in his life. I'm not saying he did - I have no evidence for that - just that it doesn't seem out of character for him, and it's only your partisan blinders that make you think it is. (I am sure you'd have no trouble believing it if someone said Bill Clinton did such a thing.) But what I'm really curious about is that you think the chances of a "truly moderate Dem" are "practically nil." I mean, what the hell would a truly moderate Dem look like to you, if not a single serving Democrat today fits that criteria?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 17, 2018 8:50:28 GMT -5
Every one of our presidents in the last 50 years or so has had failings, because we all do. I don't think there's one of them where you can't point to something that showed an imperfection of some kind in their character, because that is true for every human ever born. But most of them, taking policy disagreements, etc., aside, were overall decent men who, yes, were driven in part by ambition, but also by a genuine desire to do well by their country. Some had the kind of character flaws that alas, seem to go hand in hand with ambition and power -- Clinton, Kennedy, and to a much greater extent, Nixon. But they were within the realm of people I've known in my personal and professional life. Yes, even Nixon. Trump is right off the edge -- nowhere in the same room. If I knew someone in real life like him, I'd stay as far away as I could. I wouldn't represent him for any amount of money -- I literally mean that: if he offered me a billion dollars, I would not represent him, nor would I work for him. And I felt that way about him long before he ever ran for President or became a Republican. I think he's vile and morally reprehensible. Evil is in fact not too strong a word: Yes. Yes, I think he fits that definition. I feel that way more strongly since he became president, but that's because he's had more opportunity to display himself, and it's harder to get away from him. When he was just the jackass calling for the death sentence for 5 exonerated young black men or engaging in shady business dealings in NYC or ranting on reality TV, I shuddered, but his evil impact was limited. Now he is the most powerful man on earth. I cannot ignore him. When I said once before that I had felt this way about Trump for decades, including when he was a Democrat, you, c.e., accused me of bias. (It's in a thread here somewhere.) Um. That's not bias. That's the opposite of bias. I base my judgment of him not on his political party (ffs, I like and admire a good many conservatives and Republicans, and have praised and/or defended them on this forum), but on his behavior and actions over the very long term. As far as I can see, Trump has no principles whatsoever. He has no gentle, kindly, compassionate, or selfless impulses. He is wholly selfish. He is petty, vindictive, cruel, self-centered, and mendacious. I am serious -- he could implement every policy of my wildest dreams, and I would not put such a man in high office. His flaws are not the flaws that all too often go with power. His are the flaws of the charlatan, the grifter, the con man, the mob boss, the unhinged narcissist. I can't disagree with any of this.* And I think it's important to note that Trump has no apparent ideology; he's no Republican, no Democrat, no conservative, no liberal. He's whatever suits him in the moment. * Okay, I can disagree with at least one thing, though it's somewhat inconsequential: there is, I think, some evidence--mostly circumstantial and/or unverified--to indicate that Kennedy's "flaws" are far worse than those of Clinton and Nixon, though they were the kind of flaws that didn't impact his governance, to be sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 9:16:55 GMT -5
I agree with this, as well. He has no principles, no guiding philosophy, other than Trump First. He is constrained by no loyalties, no sense of duty, no conscience. He wants attention, money, fame, cheers, vengeance on those who would thwart or criticize him, and is, at best, heedless of anything else.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 17, 2018 11:34:01 GMT -5
But yeah, I would vote for a truly moderate Dem over Trump the teen molester. (You do realize the chance of both of those things occuring are practically nil.) I do find this statement interesting. I mean, the second proposition actually wouldn't shock me - I could easily believe Trump creeped on an underaged girl at some point in his life. I'm not saying he did - I have no evidence for that - just that it doesn't seem out of character for him, and it's only your partisan blinders that make you think it is. (I am sure you'd have no trouble believing it if someone said Bill Clinton did such a thing.) But what I'm really curious about is that you think the chances of a "truly moderate Dem" are "practically nil." I mean, what the hell would a truly moderate Dem look like to you, if not a single serving Democrat today fits that criteria? EDITED to correct sp of molester which has been bugging me I'm heading off to work soon so won't be around to reply much if at all today, but I'll take a quick stab at this: Joe Lieberman? All kidding aside, let's quickly look at a list of potential nominees whose names have been bandied around in the press recently as possibly running for the Democratic nomination and see if any are truly moderate: Elizabeth Warren -- um....nope, not a moderate Bernie Sanders -- nope Kamala Harris -- nope Kirsten Gillibrand -- not any more (see Cory Booker) Cory Booker -- more moderate views than some of the above, but is he moderate? Well, no, he's been moving further left like Gillibrand. Progressive Punch gives him a very good progressive score - progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate Terry McAuliffe -- nope Joe Biden -- yes but would he run? I don't think so Mitch Landrieu -- yes but I don't think he's a realistic candidate So there you go. I truly believe the combination of Trump being proven to be a teen molester PLUS a truly moderate Democratic nominee for POTUS is really a stretch. Last comments this morning:So for everyone above who is dismayed that I could vote for Trump last election and even consider voting for him again, I ask you to consider all of the Democrats who didn't vote for Hilary Clinton in the last election (the only Dem that could realistically win), and instead stood on their own moral principles and voted for Sanders etc. And now look where the country and our foreign policy and our courts are headed. (good for me, bad for them) But hey, at least they didn't compromise their principles! Sometimes pragmatism is really the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 17, 2018 12:01:21 GMT -5
I'm heading off to work soon so won't be around to reply much if at all today, but I'll take a quick stab at this: Joe Lieberman? All kidding aside, let's quickly look at a list of potential nominees whose names have been bandied around in the press recently as possibly running for the Democratic nomination and see if any are truly moderate: Elizabeth Warren -- um....nope, not a moderate Bernie Sanders -- nope Kamala Harris -- nope Kirsten Gillibrand -- not any more (see Cory Booker) Cory Booker -- more moderate views than some of the above, but is he moderate? Well, no, he's been moving further left like Gillibrand. Progressive Punch gives him a very good progressive score - progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate Terry McAuliffe -- nope Joe Biden -- yes but would he run? I don't think so Mitch Landrieu -- yes but I don't think he's a realistic candidate So there you go. I truly believe the combination of Trump being proven to be a teen molester PLUS a truly moderate Democratic nominee for POTUS is really a stretch. I didn't say "moderate" in the sense of being more or less exactly in the middle between liberal and conservative. Most Democrats and most Republicans would fail that test, because generally politicians will skew significantly to one side or the other. Obviously, most Democrats are more liberal than not. But we were specifically talking about "moderate Democrats," which I take to mean someone who is generally liberal but not a "leftist" (to the degree that that term has not been distorted beyond recognition by conservatives). I.e., not a radical, not a socialist, not a rabid SJW, not a race-baiting ideologue. Of the people you listed above, I think only Bernie Sanders could fairly be called a "leftist" and even he is pretty moderate as socialists go. All the others, yes, are decidedly liberal, but to call them immoderate is to redefine "left" and "right" such that anyone to the left of Joe Biden is a wild-eyed radical. That's just absurd. Tell me, was Obama a moderate Democrat? Was Bill Clinton? Well, that argument always gets dredged up by both sides. You'd rather have Trump than Clinton. Most Democrats who thought Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate would rather have her than Trump. I daresay come 2020, there will be an awful lot of Democrats who are not enthused about whoever the Democratic candidate is but will vote for him or her anyway because Trump is worse, and Republicans who hate Trump will vote for him anyway, and would still vote for him even if he were a proven child molester, as would you, because that's less bad than seeing a Democrat in the White House. You don't vote on principles, celaw. You vote because of utterly unshakeable tribal loyalty. I don't think Trump could do anything short of changing parties that would lose your vote.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 17, 2018 12:22:49 GMT -5
I think celawson has said that Trump would lose her vote were he to have molested kids. But whoever said (Cass, I think?!) that the more likely scenario is that any evidence of him being a child molester would be ignored, disputed, or downplayed. I mean, he's already admitted to going into beauty pageant dressing rooms and perving on the girls, so clearly that's not enough. I suspect most of his supporters would cry "Fake news!" and "Conspiracy!" were evidence (even videos) found of him being a molester. Look, he's admitted sexual assault and that didn't prevent them voting for him, and now they are even more invested in him, and would (imo) be committed to supporting him no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 17, 2018 12:37:46 GMT -5
Amadan, you truly don’t think Elizabeth Warren could be called a leftist? Have you followed her at all for the last few years? Have you seen her Accountable Capitalism Act? I’m ...speechless.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 17, 2018 12:49:20 GMT -5
Aug 17, 2018 13:37:46 GMT -4 celawson said: Amadan, you truly don’t think Elizabeth Warren could be called a leftist? Have you followed her at all for the last few years? Have you seen her Accountable Capitalism Act? I’m ...speechless. Well, I guess we can parse the distinction between "liberal" and "leftist" here, because neither term really means much aside from what the person using it intends it to mean. If you are asking do I think Elizabeth Warren is a liberal, yes, she definitely is. Probably one of the most liberal of mainstream Democrats. But "leftist" in the sense of being a BLM/Hugo Chavez/Occupy Wall Street leftist? What is your dividing line? What makes someone an "extreme leftist" as opposed to a "moderate Democrat"? Was Hillary Clinton a moderate Democrat? And mark has it right. If it were somehow proven that Trump was a child molester, you probably wouldn't vote for him ( probably - I am actually not convinced that you still wouldn't if the alternative were, say, Elizabeth Warren), but I think the level of proof it would require to convince you that he was actually guilty would be far beyond what would be required in a courtroom.
|
|