Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 12:30:16 GMT -5
But yeah, that still doesn't justify what Trump is saying about him. He's POTUS. He shouldn't go spewing attacks, lies, etc., with every breath. It matters. The venomously attacking political opponents and/or making shit up out of whole cloth to get a rally crowd chanting -- it's fucking horrifying. Absolutely. The office of the President should hold a certain weight and gravity. Such things should be below the office. Trump acts more like he's a junior member of the House (where such rhetoric is common and often ignored) rather than POTUS. Yes. And while I feel Trump is unfit for ANY public office, I would find him infinitely less alarming if we were merely a junior member of the House. ETA: Even taking aside the dignity, weight, and gravity thing (and I fully agree with you that those things are very important in a POTUS), it is one of the President's roles, IMO, to unite the country, not divide it. The rhetoric really matters. Yeah, we've had a political divide before this, and yes, presidential campaigns get partisan, but sitting presidents represent the ENTIRE country and its institutions, not just their base. They don't say shit like, say, this: or this: (Zero evidence of "paid protesters", by the way. And lots of those protesters are sexual assault victims. Whatever you think of Kavanaugh, a POTUS attacking them like this is fucking horrendous.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 8, 2018 12:47:43 GMT -5
I'll just take this time to point out that Blumenthal is a lying sack of shit. Not that Trump should be attacking him. But he is a lying sack of shit. Yep. It was funny seeing Blumenthal play the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus card during the hearings, given his own issues with truth. But Trump's hardly in a superior position in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 8, 2018 13:00:36 GMT -5
I am not quite where Cass is. I've been trying to point out to you, celaw, how people like Cass and your husband see things, because my SO is similar (she is swearing to bake a cake to celebrate when Trump dies). I am not there, I do not have the same mindset (though I do think Trump is a dumpster fire of a president), but I also think you're completely oblivious. So the disconnect here, IMO, is that you and my husband and NT think one guy, Trump, is the danger.
Trump all by himself wouldn't be a danger. If Congress, including Congressional Republicans, would stand up to him, those checks and balances you keep talking about would be doing their job. If Trump had people in his inner circle who'd actually tell him "No, Mr. President, you can't do that" (or at least, "Mr. President, that's a really bad idea") and he'd listen to them, he would be less worrisome. Sure, he'd still be a narcissistic blowhard and an idiot, but he'd just be an embarrassment and the damage he might do would be as limited as you insist.
The problem is that the GOP has decided that winning and keeping power is the only thing that matters, ever. They will go along with everything Trump does, and will never consider hindering him in any significant way, as long as the GOP maintains control. A few Republicans will bravely speak out at convenient moments and make vaguely Trump-opposing noises, but when it comes time to voting, they're going to vote to give him anything he asks for as long as he's "winning."
His base has decided that making liberals cry is a worthy goal in itself, so it really didn't matter who Trump appointed - as long as liberals didn't like it, they were behind him 100%.
Yes, there are supposed to be checks and balances. Obama did not have 100% support from the Democratic Congress at all times. Clinton certainly didn't. And both of them were actually willing to let their advisors advise them. Do you honestly believe there is anyone in Trump's Oval Office who can tell him "No" and be heard? (And not be gone at the next press conference?)
The danger is not one guy, the danger is one guy that no one is willing to say no to.
That is why people keep comparing Trump to Hitler, because that is pretty much how Hitler came to power. No one took him seriously at first. Then when he got into office, they figured he could be reined in. But no one was actually willing to do it, as long as they were winning, and then they wound up with... well, Hitler.
Again, I am not saying Trump is Hitler, or that he will become Hitler. But I personally now place the probability at a low but non-zero number that Trump really could bring us to the place that a lot of his more hysterical opponents think he's already taking us. You and I may both think it's a little alarmist, but if your husband is one of the folks who places that probability higher.... maybe insisting that "checks and balances" will prevent that from ever happening is not reassuring to him?
Ya know, I hate SJWs with a fiery passion. Christine and NT have jumped on me about that, because they think I spend too much time harping on SJWs and not enough time harping on real threats... like Trump. And there's some truth to that. I find SJWs annoying. They get on my last nerve. I know we're not supposed to mention the Board That Shall Not Be Named, but when I got banned from there, it was basically because the SJWs there had turned me from someone who used to be pretty SJW-sympathetic to someone who was actively hostile to them, and then they confirmed my worst expectations about them by kicking me off because I expressed non-SJW opinions too often. (Yeah, the official reason is that I was "trolling." I wasn't, and I can point to the exact post that got me banned.)
All of this is to say, I fucking hate the lefties you're talking about, and I'm still telling you, they are an annoyance, but they are not going to end the Republic or turn us into a Marxist dystopia. Yeah, universities are becoming distressingly closed to dissenting views and gosh, it sure sucks that bakers can't refuse to bake a gay wedding cake. I mean, personally I think a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, okay? But is that really the first step down the road to outlawing Christianity? I mean, come the fuck on. The California law to require "gender equality" on company boards? Stupid, and it will probably be struck down. But it's not actually going to kill America.
What you are talking about is just the generations-old conflict between conservative and liberal values. You're rattling off all your conservative buzzwords (limited government, individual liberty, etc.) as if your particular conception of them is the one true way they were ever meant to be protected by law, that liberals don't want those things at all, or the way they want them is an existential threat to the Constitution.
You may not like universal healthcare, but it is not fundamentally unconstitutional, nor would passing a universal healthcare bill mean an end to the Republic. It might have all the bad economic effects you believe it would, it might not, but what you fear, basically, is a change in laws that would economically disadvantage you. What your husband fears, I am guessing, is a literal fascist dictatorship. Those two fears are not equivalent, even if the probabilities of your respective worst-case scenarios are also not equivalent.
Okay, let's be honest here, celaw - if the FBI had found a dozen witnesses who said "Yeah, we actually saw Kavanaugh raping women," Trump would still have pushed his nomination through and the GOP would still have confirmed him. They'd have attacked the credibility and political motivations of all the witnesses, they'd have talked about the statute of limitations and how getting trashed back in the 80s when he was just a lad and date rape was kind of a rite of passage was an unfair thing to hold against him after 4 decades of an exemplary adult life and work.
There is no universe in which Republicans were ever going to back down here. As long as they had the votes, they were going to ram Kavanaugh through because it meant liberal tears and pro-life vote on the Supreme Court. Period, end of.
It was not about "protecting America," it was not about high-minded concerns for the integrity of the process and the court, it was all about getting a man they expect to rule the way they want onto the court, and rubbing Democrats' noses in it.
That's honesty for you, and you know this to be true, you just like the "We can't have mob rule!" narrative better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 13:00:55 GMT -5
I'll just take this time to point out that Blumenthal is a lying sack of shit. Not that Trump should be attacking him. But he is a lying sack of shit. Yep. It was funny seeing Blumenthal play the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus card during the hearings, given his own issues with truth. But Trump's hardly in a superior position in that regard. (a) Trump's not in a superior position in that regard (b) even if he were, it wouldn't excuse his telling lies (c) he's the fucking president and should be above this shit. (d) Trump is in fact a far worse liar than Blumenthal -- he basically lies about fucking everything. So, yeah. Blumenthal bad, but Trump in another galaxy of bad, in a role that requires him to be infinitely better. If Congress, including Congressional Republicans, would stand up to him, those checks and balances you keep talking about would be doing their job. If Trump had people in his inner circle who'd actually tell him "No, Mr. President, you can't do that" (or at least, "Mr. President, that's a really bad idea") and he'd listen to them, he would be less worrisome. Sure, he'd still be a narcissistic blowhard and an idiot, but he'd just be an embarrassment and the damage he might do would be as limited as you insist. The problem is that the GOP has decided that winning and keeping power is the only thing that matters, ever. They will go along with everything Trump does, and will never consider hindering him in any significant way, as long as the GOP maintains control. A few Republicans will bravely speak out at convenient moments and make vaguely Trump-opposing noises, but when it comes time to voting, they're going to vote to give him anything he asks for as long as he's "winning." His base has decided that making liberals cry is a worthy goal in itself, so it really didn't matter who Trump appointed - as long as liberals didn't like it, they were behind him 100%. Yes, there are supposed to be checks and balances. Obama did not have 100% support from the Democratic Congress at all times. Clinton certainly didn't. And both of them were actually willing to let their advisors advise them. Do you honestly believe there is anyone in Trump's Oval Office who can tell him "No" and be heard? (And not be gone at the next press conference?) The danger is not one guy, the danger is one guy that no one is willing to say no to. That is why people keep comparing Trump to Hitler, because that is pretty much how Hitler came to power. No one took him seriously at first. Then when he got into office, they figured he could be reined in. But no one was actually willing to do it, as long as they were winning, and then they wound up with... well, Hitler. Again, I am not saying Trump is Hitler, or that he will become Hitler. But I personally now place the probability at a low but non-zero number that Trump really could bring us to the place that a lot of his more hysterical opponents think he's already taking us. You and I may both think it's a little alarmist, but if your husband is one of the folks who places that probability higher.... maybe insisting that "checks and balances" will prevent that from ever happening is not reassuring to him? You may not like universal healthcare, but it is not fundamentally unconstitutional, nor would passing a universal healthcare bill mean an end to the Republic. It might have all the bad economic effects you believe it would, it might not, but what you fear, basically, is a change in laws that would economically disadvantage you. What your husband fears, I am guessing, is a literal fascist dictatorship. Those two fears are not equivalent, even if the probabilities of your respective worst-case scenarios are also not equivalent. ..... Okay, let's be honest here, celaw - if the FBI had found a dozen witnesses who said "Yeah, we actually saw Kavanaugh raping women," Trump would still have pushed his nomination through and the GOP would still have confirmed him. They'd have attacked the credibility and political motivations of all the witnesses, they'd have talked about the statute of limitations and how getting trashed back in the 80s when he was just a lad and date rape was kind of a rite of passage was an unfair thing to hold against him after 4 decades of an exemplary adult life and work. There is no universe in which Republicans were ever going to back down here. As long as they had the votes, they were going to ram Kavanaugh through because it meant liberal tears and pro-life vote on the Supreme Court. Period, end of. It was not about "protecting America," it was not about high-minded concerns for the integrity of the process and the court, it was all about getting a man they expect to rule the way they want onto the court, and rubbing Democrats' noses in it. That's honesty for you, and you know this to be true, you just like the "We can't have mob rule!" narrative better. [internal quotes and some text omitted by me in the above quote]
Yes to all of the above.
ETA:
And that's why I -- in common with a lot of NeverTrump conservatives, by the way -- am advocating voting a straight blue ticket in the upcoming midterms, pretty much no matter what. We need a Congress that will in fact act as a check on Trump's worst impulses. We can't stop him from being a blustering, embarrassing asshole, but perhaps c.e.'s husband and I would sleep easier if we thought there was something of a check on him.
(Well, I also think we need to get the nuclear codes out of his grasp...and I'd like him not to be able to singlehandedly make a decision to attack...)
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 8, 2018 14:07:01 GMT -5
Lots of good stuff to comment on, but I only have time for a quick post because I take huge issue with something Christine said a few pages back: Um....I defy you to find one conservative Republican who wears Birkenstocks. They do not exist. My husband drove a Prius for 11 years - the first batch that were produced, then he leased a Chevy Spark (almost got paid to do that, considering the rebates and such), and finally, after working his butt off for decades as an FP, he did buy a Tesla. I was driving my VW Beetle at the time and thought the Tesla was excessive. But hey, he works a lot and I don't so I'm glad he loves his car. And he really loves it. OH MY GOD, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO CRY: While I was typing the above, he walked into our family room where I'm on my laptop (he's just back from a trip to see his parents in Arizona since his step-mom isn't doing well health-wise) and told he went to a used book sale with his dad, and then he handed me a book he bought for me ----- Things That Matter. by Charles Krauthammer. He said, "I thought you'd like this." Seriously, you guys, you don't even know what that means to me, I'm so touched I'm tearing up. He's out running the dog now, but wow...I'm just...blown away.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 8, 2018 14:12:41 GMT -5
(a) Trump's not in a superior position in that regard (b) even if he were, it wouldn't excuse his telling lies (c) he's the fucking president and should be above this shit. (d) Trump is in fact a far worse liar than Blumenthal -- he basically lies about fucking everything. So, yeah. Blumenthal bad, but Trump in another galaxy of bad, in a role that requires him to be infinitely better. You realize that (a) is what I said, right? You're responding to me like I said the opposite. As to the last, I don't think Trump is required to be "infinitely better" at all. The fact that Trump has little regard for truth was a known reality before the election. And it's one of the reasons I didn't--and would never--vote for him. But I feel the same way about all elected officials. People should--in my view--have better standards when it comes to honesty for all of them, all the way down to local politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 14:13:30 GMT -5
I've always had the feeling that I'd really like your husband, c.e., from a number of things you've said about him over the years. He sounds like good people.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 8, 2018 14:14:33 GMT -5
Um....I defy you to find one conservative Republican who wears Birkenstocks. They do not exist. I wear Birkenstocks, though I guess I'm only a conservative, not a Republican...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 8, 2018 14:19:12 GMT -5
I've always had the feeling that I'd really like your husband, c.e., from a number of things you've said about him over the years. He sounds like good people. Thank you, Cass. You and he have extremely similar politics. I bet you'd get along just fine. And he loves Scotch! (I don't) On second thought, maybe I'd best keep you two away from each other.
Robo in Birks? I didn't expect that at all, LOL - But see? That's my theory and I'm sticking by it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 14:20:59 GMT -5
Um....I defy you to find one conservative Republican who wears Birkenstocks. They do not exist. I wear Birkenstocks, though I guess I'm only a conservative, not a Republican... Pfft. You just like ugly sandals. Seriously, Birkenstocks are very comfortable. I used to own a pair. At some point I replaced them with Tevas as a comfy knock-around sandal to wear when I'm not trying to be fashionable. Tevas (at least the pair I have) can also be worn in wet weather/conditions and for watery sports, and if, like mine, they have an ankle strap, they stay on better if you want to use them for light hiking and such. ETA: Tevas are just as ugly as Birkenstocks, IMO. I just find them more versatile. And while I have nicer, sleeker sandals to wear when I'm doing my city things, it's a good thing to have some sandals that will stand up to more rugged circumstances and that you can walk for a hundred miles in if you need to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 15:14:51 GMT -5
He's out running the dog now, but wow...I'm just...blown away. Wait...does he also run?! My god. You've married...me.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 8, 2018 16:17:46 GMT -5
He's out running the dog now, but wow...I'm just...blown away. Wait...does he also run?! My god. You've married...me. This is actually true. He loves to work out and loves to run. And he used to write beautiful poetry, though it’s been years. He prefers nonfiction to fiction, how about you?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 8, 2018 16:52:06 GMT -5
Well, it's all true of me, except a) I don't love to run, I feel I have to (I like working out, though), and b) I don't know if my poetry qualified as beautiful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 17:20:00 GMT -5
Wait...does he also run?! My god. You've married...me. This is actually true. He loves to work out and loves to run. And he used to write beautiful poetry, though it’s been years. He prefers nonfiction to fiction, how about you? I don't think I have a preference between nonfiction and fiction. I was an English lit major undergrad, so my love affair with fiction goes back a long way, but I'm very fond of history, biographies, and political books. This year I've been reading gobs of political books, but I've been alternating it with literary fiction and mystery novels. Well, it's all true of me, except a) I don't love to run, I feel I have to (I like working out, though), and b) I don't know if my poetry qualified as beautiful. GAAH! You are not me!
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 8, 2018 17:22:24 GMT -5
I find some biblical logic is needed when dealing with extreme politics within family: Love the sinner, hate the sin. I love my older sister dearly. We had many great times and memories shared growing up. But she also took out and ran up over $100k in credit cards in my mom's name, basically stole and spent mom's estate while she was dying of cancer then claimed it was spent on medical costs, and a lot of other shady stuff usually involving finances. I love my sister dearly....but I damn sure keep her at arm's length. I kinda feel it works the same when family has extremely divergent political views. Yes, this, and I must clarify my earlier post when I said I had to avoid some family members so I didn't end up outright hating them. I seriously doubt I could ever actually hate them. But - and this is because of extreme political views - I do hate those views because they are, imo, detestable, I hate that some of my family hold them, and it is extremely distressful. It grieves me. And I don't want to feel that way, especially since there's nothing I can do about it (though on occasion I find myself trying anyway). So I take breaks. I avoid, I don't shun. I lie about why I can't make such and such a gathering, or whatever, to keep the peace.
|
|