So, Trump. What now?

Discuss all non Star Trek related topics here.
User avatar
slawton
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby slawton » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:03 pm

Like a character in the "Twilight Zone", I find myself wondering "Is this really happening?" going on a year into this episode known as the Trump presidency. We've elected a narcissist sociopath/psychopath to lead us - a foolish/stupid one at that. The sage advice "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" will never be taken by Trump, so look ahead for more idiotic Tweets (really the insights into his thought processes in addition to his off-the-cuff/non-scripted speeches/commentary, which typically require immediate rollbacks and apologies) because he believes he's so smart and that everybody wants to hear what he's got to say (cue visualization of the old R.F Hutton commercials or pharaoh's "let it be written, let it be done").

You can truly understand him when you realize everything is about his enormously yuuuge, but incredibly fragile ego - everything revolves around him. He must spend all his time addressing this - constantly boasting of his "biggest", "best", etc. whatever -- and others "bad", "sad", "worst", "disaster", etc. to boost him up by comparison. He is simultaneously jealous of others and believes everyone is jealous of him. Failures are always blamed on others and success is always because of him/only he could do it -- always greatly exaggerated. Victories are relived/repeated over and over again at every opportunity - even if it is was grossly out of context (how about that Boy Scouts speech!). He does this not only to convince others but mostly to reassure himself of his warped view of reality (won't let facts get in his way), which he really believes to be true (unfortunately because of this he can't learn from his many mistakes but will be destined to always repeat them). Likewise, he is compelled to attack/invalidate his critics/dissenters (media, celebrities, democrats, business leaders, some republican standouts) to diminish anything that would challenge his perceived stature - he would fire them if he can. Conversely, he is drawn to opportunities that inflate/support this ego (campaign rallies, showy international events, etc.) where he must magnify things like crowd size, etc. He also wants to be the center of attention, always in the news, in some grandiose fashion. So, if he gets his way, these are places where he will chose to spend his time.

His administration is focused/overwhelmed entirely with damage control from Trump's own doing (provably false statements, controversial opinions, highly suspect behaviors, etc.), sabotaging anything that could be meaningfully accomplished (and somehow trying to make Trump look good). Despite his boasts, Trump's leadership, business and negotiating skills are sub-par at best (see Trump Casinos, University, Airlines, Magazine, Steaks, Vodka, The Game, GoTrump.com, numerous bankruptcies, 3500+ lawsuits, etc.) and highly inadequate for the task at hand. Combine this with his pathological narcissism and he is woefully incompetent. Trump believes he is always right and rules do not apply to him (seems audacious at first but is really more like mania - he's entitled and special and will not suffer consequences for his actions). So, he is surrounded by unqualified "yes" men who cannot admit "the emperor has no clothes" (look at his ludicrous June cabinet meeting praising Trump). Failure of his underlings to do these things will get the chopping block (with associated blame, displaying no loyalty to his supporters - classic sociopathic/psychopathic behavior). Hard to believe, but Washington has become even more dysfunctional -- really worries me when the next big crisis hits (and they always do), hopefully not one of Trump's own making ("Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?").
groot.jpg
groot.jpg (11.15 KiB) Viewed 208 times

Trump's main agenda has been to try an undo what our "black" president has done and to claim some big success. It's clear that we are not getting some great healthcare policy anytime soon, probably never. The great tax revision looks like a deficit ballooning giveaway to the already rich (who else does the estate tax and AMT repeal help? do we really need to expand the wealth gap even more?) and any arguable tax cuts (if any) the middle class or poor get will be more than offset through reduced government services/benefits to these groups. The wall Mexico will pay for? The great trade deals for the USA? More jobs? Higher pay? Make America Great Again? Dream on! America First -- it's really been and will always be Trump First! We are being set up to be screwed over more than ever, pile on more massive debts we can't afford, businesses being able to rip you off/destroy the environment with less/no recourse (all with even higher record-breaking profits which will somehow trickle down to the rest of yes -- that has been going so well).

Let's look at the massive conflict of interest -- Trump and his family are currently financially benefitting from his office in direct contradiction to the Constitution's Emoluments Clause! Other issues including revealing highly classified information to the Russians, election interference, destruction of court ordered documents, charity self-dealing, tax evasion, illegal stock-for-debt-swap, links to mob/mafia, conspiracy against US, money laundering, etc. convince me that Trump is undoubtedly a foolish con-man criminal bully that uses money, power & lawyers to avoid jail. He will not continue getting away with these things -- I believe Robert Meuller is a highly competent & thorough government agent that will get plenty of evidence but is working very carefully and methodically for an ironclad case to avoid any legal trickery by Trump's lawyers and protect against corruptive influence. Chaos, distraction and blaming others will not prevent the writing on the wall. Trump will either resign to avoid prosecution (as predicted by the "Art of the Deal" ghostwriter), prolong with legal misdirection/attempt to redirect proceedings to his appointed judges (who personally owe Trump "favors"), accelerate impeachment by attempting to fire Mueller, even bigger distraction (he really wants to go to war in Korea) or horrendously destructive impeachment proceedings with great political turmoil where republicans must finally admit they can no longer support this unpopular (even more so when an overdue economic setback arrives) public disgrace.

If you expect him to change - he can't. If you expect him to do his job, he really never could and will never be able to, even when his first-and-only job of preserving his ego permits it. Expect him to continue to say knee-jerk/ignorant things, focus on boosting his ego, attend high-profile public events at taxpayer expense, take credit for anything positive / blame or attack others for things that go wrong, exaggerate / bald-faced lie, false claims/accusations, stir up dissent/controversy, more firings/scandals and continue to reveal his true colors. The best way to predict the future is to look at the past.

The sooner things hit rock-bottom, the sooner the only place to go is up...
I'm a doctor, not a modeler ...

User avatar
trekriffic
Can-Do Captain (CW)
Can-Do Captain (CW)
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby trekriffic » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:31 pm

I can see no flaw in your assessment of his profound incompetence and overall unfitness for the most important job in the world. Anyone who says, "Believe me!", over and over again is someone you know should not be believed.
Trump's motto seems to be: "If at first you don't deceive... LIE, LIE AGAIN!"
"You broke your little ships."

My albums on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29607470@N08/sets/

WarpNein
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:58 am

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby WarpNein » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:00 am

Oh guys. It's going to be a long way to 2020 at this rate.

I'm curious though. If conservatives were screaming about President Clinton II's many misdeeds with this much fervor, would you all be as dismissive and indifferent as I am now?

User avatar
slawton
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby slawton » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:50 pm

WarpNein wrote:If conservatives were screaming about President Clinton II's many misdeeds with this much fervor, would you all be as dismissive and indifferent as I am now?


I'm not sure if you are referring to Bill or Hillary. I was no fan Bill's (I voted for Bush Sr. then Perot) or Hillary. Bill's most heinous behavior was more personal (Lewinski) than professional. Trump is Bill on steroids - sexually assaulting women versus consensual and pathological lying (over 1500 times and counting during his short presidency) versus lying to prevent public/private embarrassment (unfortunately many presidents have had indiscretions, just not as published). Hillary's email server was definitely poor judgment and should result in revocation of her security clearance/access to classified information, but was more negligence/failure to commit due diligence. Trump's direct voluntary disclosure of classified information to a oppositional foreign power (Russia) was undoubtedly a federal crime and far worse. Was this in the best interest of the US/America First? Also, Bill & Hillary are irrelevant at this time -- focusing on them is a deflection/distraction for highly relevant issues with Trump. There is little value going down that road, only hopes that people will overlook/diminish Trump's misdeeds.

It's hard for me to be indifferent -- the most frightening aspect is that Trump has serious mental problems that prevent him from acting rationally. Significantly, Trump's believes that he does not need to follow rules and repeatedly demonstrates his preference to flagrantly disregard them. The highest risk I see is an unprovoked attack on North Korea (to confirm his ego-based image that he is the biggest, strongest man). China has already announced it will come to the defense of North Korea should a foreign aggressor attack them. So, in addition to severe casualties in Seoul, South Korea, and potential nuclear missile attack from North Korea to the mainland US, we could have a much bigger war with China and potentially Russia. Worst case would be MAD (mutually assured destruction)/Armageddon. I don't think this would happen (a non-nuclear war instead) and I recognize our military strength is greater than our opponents and we would win a standard war, but it would be long and costly and require a commitment/sacrifice we as a nation have not made in many years. I don't think our "instant gratification"/spoiled citizens are prepared for such a scenario nor would they back an unwanted/unpopular war. Also, we are vulnerable to unconventional attacks (cyber warfare, etc.) that could be highly disruptive to a modern society. I'm definitely for Congress revoking the President's power to initiate a nuclear attack or otherwise without a declaration of war as protection against this madness (which has only been conceived/need discussion based on the erratic, ignorant and foolish behavior of Trump). Was this necessary with Bill or would it have come up with Hillary? Do we have to rewrite how the government works just to address the bizarre, foolish and abnormal behavior of Trump? The world is seeing Trump as more of a madman than Kim Jong-un! This is just one of the many unnecessary risks that Trump creates. He is setting the US back further-and-further with bad ideas and wasting valuable/expensive resources addressing nonsense.

I thought Bush Jr. was dumb, but Trump is far more stupid combined with delusional. He is a train-wreck that anyone with open eyes should see coming. In addition, he has no morals, ethics, conscience, etc. Every day he is in office, the government gets more blatantly corrupt and abusive. It is disappointing to see that we have no leadership preventing this (many are hoping to benefit their own agendas than promote the greater good). I applaud those that speak out and oppose this crazy tyrant-in-the-making and see Mueller as the most orderly/likely way to resolve this insanity. Best to just rip off the bandage now!

I have first-hand experience - a girlfriend of mine was bipolar and possibly Borderline Personality Disorder. You can get sucked into the delusional world if you are not careful. Things don't go/end well. If these disorders are not under control, then that person becomes toxic and it is best to have them out of you life - as far away as possible. We do not need a toxic president - only bad things can come of this.
I'm a doctor, not a modeler ...

WarpNein
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:58 am

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby WarpNein » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:01 am

All right, I'll play. AST is usually a retreat from this sort of thing.

slawton wrote:I'm not sure if you are referring to Bill or Hillary. I was no fan Bill's (I voted for Bush Sr. then Perot) or Hillary. Bill's most heinous behavior was more personal (Lewinski) than professional. Trump is Bill on steroids - sexually assaulting women versus consensual


And the evidence for this is their claims well after the fact? You are aware Trump was absolutely correct in stating that many women will let men with money and power do whatever they want? I simply do not believe women who come forward much later and at politically convenient times. Of course, for that to be a consistent principle, I would have to be against the court of public opinion as much for Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein as I am for Donald Trump and Roy Moore. While I must confess I enjoy seeing Hollywood burn, consumed by the very beast it helped rear, even people I hate deserve to be tried in courts of law, not shunned by mobs wielding the digital and professional equivalents of pitchforks.

There's a good deal of dubious science behind the so-called "rape culture." One such bad idea is that people are so traumatized by sexual assault it causes "tonic immobility" and impairs their memory, an idea championed by Rebecca Campbell whose research underlies many of these campus tribunals. Simply put, inconsistencies in claimant's accounts can simply be handwaved away as "trauma," which essentially vitiates the idea of exculpatory evidence and allows people to wield rape and sexual assault allegations as political weapons. I will not play this game.

slawton wrote:and pathological lying (over 1500 times and counting during his short presidency) versus lying to prevent public/private embarrassment (unfortunately many presidents have had indiscretions, just not as published).


That's a curiously specific figure, which leads me to believe someone has compiled a list somewhere. Can you provide a link?

slawton wrote:Hillary's email server was definitely poor judgment and should result in revocation of her security clearance/access to classified information, but was more negligence/failure to commit due diligence. Trump's direct voluntary disclosure of classified information to a oppositional foreign power (Russia) was undoubtedly a federal crime and far worse.


In whose august opinion was it "undoubtedly" a federal crime, because in the eyes of the law it undoubtedly wasn't.

http://time.com/4780593/president-trump ... lassified/

The executive order in question:

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-11652.htm

And even the notoriously left-wing politifact had to grudgingly accept this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ything-an/

I love the two caveats, since one admits that the president is the ultimate arbiter of classification and the other has nothing to do with the point. It's just a last-minute attack line. Whether it was "sensible" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether it is legal. It unambiguously is, which means your statement is without merit.

slawton wrote:Was this in the best interest of the US/America First? Also, Bill & Hillary are irrelevant at this time -- focusing on them is a deflection/distraction for highly relevant issues with Trump. There is little value going down that road, only hopes that people will overlook/diminish Trump's misdeeds.


Oh, I disagree. It's eminently valuable for relieving the morally superior of their horses.

slawton wrote:It's hard for me to be indifferent -- the most frightening aspect is that Trump has serious mental problems that prevent him from acting rationally.


Does he indeed? And I'd be cautious of that word "rational." Far too often it is simply a buzzword people use to define whatever they happen to believe irrespective of any formal process of reasoning. It is an all too common tendency, especially among Trump's political opponents, to regard their own beliefs and positions as self-evidently true, which leads right into the dehumanizing and dangerous idea that those who disagree must do so for reasons of mental or moral instability. This is why I find all this plaintive media bleating about "coming together" to be so much drivel, since it invariably means everyone else has to give up their beliefs and values and unite around whatever the left wants to do.

slawton wrote:Significantly, Trump's believes that he does not need to follow rules and repeatedly demonstrates his preference to flagrantly disregard them.


What rules are these exactly? Please provide examples. Are these rules of law, or of tradition and decorum? Because violating the latter is a pretty poor foundation on which to build a criminal complaint. And are you absolutely sure no Democrat has ever done the same thing? Because the record on that is absolutely terrible.

slawton wrote:The highest risk I see is an unprovoked attack on North Korea (to confirm his ego-based image that he is the biggest, strongest man). China has already announced it will come to the defense of North Korea should a foreign aggressor attack them. So, in addition to severe casualties in Seoul, South Korea, and potential nuclear missile attack from North Korea to the mainland US, we could have a much bigger war with China and potentially Russia. Worst case would be MAD (mutually assured destruction)/Armageddon. I don't think this would happen (a non-nuclear war instead) and I recognize our military strength is greater than our opponents and we would win a standard war, but it would be long and costly and require a commitment/sacrifice we as a nation have not made in many years.


I'm glad to hear you don't stay up at night worrying about nuclear Armageddon. I don't either. China can announce whatever it wants. It's just saber-rattling. The only rationale they have for defending North Korea is forestalling an influx of starving, irradiated refugees across their borders. They'll give up the rabid dog before getting into a shooting war with their largest trading partner. Brinksmanship is an exhilarating game. But, and you'll probably be horrified to hear this, what you just said is the very reason I wouldn't be opposed to a war.

slawton wrote:I don't think our "instant gratification"/spoiled citizens are prepared for such a scenario nor would they back an unwanted/unpopular war.


This is why the prospect of war doesn't concern me. Our citizenry both here and elsewhere in the west is decadent and spoiled, our sense of national unity impaired, most any sense of shared sacrifice to a greater ideal decayed. This is how civilizations fall. It happened in Rome, and its happening here. But the fall need not be inevitable. My generation, the Millennials, is the worst group of people ever to walk the earth, simultaneously the most pampered, privileged, coddled brats in all of human history and the weakest, most pathetic milquetoasts in all of human history. I'm perfectly comfortable with reintroducing the draft to toughen up these sniveling snotnoses. Alternatively, being subjected to that kind of authority might also disabuse them of the notion that surrendering their autonomy and privacy to insidious (and might I add, left-wing) megacorporations like Google even remotely resembles a good idea.

slawton wrote:Also, we are vulnerable to unconventional attacks (cyber warfare, etc.) that could be highly disruptive to a modern society. I'm definitely for Congress revoking the President's power to initiate a nuclear attack or otherwise without a declaration of war as protection against this madness (which has only been conceived/need discussion based on the erratic, ignorant and foolish behavior of Trump). Was this necessary with Bill or would it have come up with Hillary? Do we have to rewrite how the government works just to address the bizarre, foolish and abnormal behavior of Trump?


You keep suggesting the idea that Trump's behavior is somehow outside the scope of what is considered normal for a president or politician. I've yet to see any evidence of this. What is the madness? And wanting to rewrite how the government works when you don't get your way is pretty standard operating procedure. Every time a party loses it's time to throw out the electoral college. Whenever SCOTUS hands down a polarizing decision it's time to reevaluate Article 6.

slawton wrote:The world is seeing Trump as more of a madman than Kim Jong-un! This is just one of the many unnecessary risks that Trump creates. He is setting the US back further-and-further with bad ideas and wasting valuable/expensive resources addressing nonsense.


Is it now? You have the ear of the entire world? Sure, mainstream center-left and left parties in Western democracies recoil from Trump, but what could possibly compel me to care what Guy Verhofstadt or Jeremy Corbyn
think?

slawton wrote:I thought Bush Jr. was dumb, but Trump is far more stupid combined with delusional. He is a train-wreck that anyone with open eyes should see coming. In addition, he has no morals, ethics, conscience, etc. Every day he is in office, the government gets more blatantly corrupt and abusive.


I guess I should get my eyes checked, because I've yet to see any evidence of the government's increasing corruption. So far all I see is unsubstantiated innuendo of the sort I could get from Steven Colbert if I particularly wanted an audiovisual emetic. I can appreciate if people fear for family members who depend on programs that might be cut back or eliminated, but that hardly means the government is corrupt. A Supreme Court handing down decisions one disagrees with likewise would not make the government corrupt.

slawton wrote:It is disappointing to see that we have no leadership preventing this (many are hoping to benefit their own agendas than promote the greater good). I applaud those that speak out and oppose this crazy tyrant-in-the-making and see Mueller as the most orderly/likely way to resolve this insanity. Best to just rip off the bandage now!


Preventing what? What is the corruption? What is the insanity? And "tyrant-in-the-making?" And of course, the hope that Any Day Now Mueller will lead Trump out of the White House in handcuffs is risible. Mueller's inquiry appears to be pointed at general FARA violations by lobbyists. Manafort's been indicted for things going back well before Trump's campaign. And the charge of "conspiracy against the United States" is a general charge tacked on for prosecutorial expedience. Most prosecutors file a lot of charges anticipating that many if not most get dismissed at trial, so they can get defendants to plea down or flip on someone else. And Democrats can file articles of impeachment all they want (and they have). It isn't going to happen. In fact, turning the 2018 midterms into a campaign to impeach Trump is a great way to blow them. Usually the party of out power makes gains in midterms, and Democrats are energized even if that energy is largely feverish hysteria. Making them into a referendum on Trump is a great way to turn out his base and counteract all that energy. Besides, we're a year out, you've got an uphill battle in the Senate, and you'd need a full two-thirds of it to successfully impeach. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

slawton wrote:You can get sucked into the delusional world if you are not careful.


I toyed with many assholish phrases as responses to this, but I'm trying not to poison the discourse. Suffice to say being resolutely anti-Trump has its fair share of pitfalls in this regard.

User avatar
Tesral
Velutinous Vice Admiral
Velutinous Vice Admiral
Posts: 2769
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Location: Dearborn, Mi -- at my desk.
Contact:

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby Tesral » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:27 am

A pox on both their houses.

I'm only anti Trump because the dude is crazy as a loon. Andy Jackson is dancing in Hell 'cause he isn't the craziest President anymore.

For no political reason I believe the man is dangerous to the country. The last year has simply proven it.
Garry AKA --Phoenix-- Rising above the Flames.
"I saw it done on Voyager" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.

SKO
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:38 am

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby SKO » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:56 pm

WarpNein wrote:All right, I'll play. AST is usually a retreat from this sort of thing.

slawton wrote:I'm not sure if you are referring to Bill or Hillary. I was no fan Bill's (I voted for Bush Sr. then Perot) or Hillary. Bill's most heinous behavior was more personal (Lewinski) than professional. Trump is Bill on steroids - sexually assaulting women versus consensual


And the evidence for this is their claims well after the fact? You are aware Trump was absolutely correct in stating that many women will let men with money and power do whatever they want? I simply do not believe women who come forward much later and at politically convenient times. Of course, for that to be a consistent principle, I would have to be against the court of public opinion as much for Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein as I am for Donald Trump and Roy Moore. While I must confess I enjoy seeing Hollywood burn, consumed by the very beast it helped rear, even people I hate deserve to be tried in courts of law, not shunned by mobs wielding the digital and professional equivalents of pitchforks.

There's a good deal of dubious science behind the so-called "rape culture." One such bad idea is that people are so traumatized by sexual assault it causes "tonic immobility" and impairs their memory, an idea championed by Rebecca Campbell whose research underlies many of these campus tribunals. Simply put, inconsistencies in claimant's accounts can simply be handwaved away as "trauma," which essentially vitiates the idea of exculpatory evidence and allows people to wield rape and sexual assault allegations as political weapons. I will not play this game.

slawton wrote:and pathological lying (over 1500 times and counting during his short presidency) versus lying to prevent public/private embarrassment (unfortunately many presidents have had indiscretions, just not as published).


That's a curiously specific figure, which leads me to believe someone has compiled a list somewhere. Can you provide a link?

slawton wrote:Hillary's email server was definitely poor judgment and should result in revocation of her security clearance/access to classified information, but was more negligence/failure to commit due diligence. Trump's direct voluntary disclosure of classified information to a oppositional foreign power (Russia) was undoubtedly a federal crime and far worse.


In whose august opinion was it "undoubtedly" a federal crime, because in the eyes of the law it undoubtedly wasn't.

http://time.com/4780593/president-trump ... lassified/

The executive order in question:

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-11652.htm

And even the notoriously left-wing politifact had to grudgingly accept this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ything-an/

I love the two caveats, since one admits that the president is the ultimate arbiter of classification and the other has nothing to do with the point. It's just a last-minute attack line. Whether it was "sensible" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether it is legal. It unambiguously is, which means your statement is without merit.

slawton wrote:Was this in the best interest of the US/America First? Also, Bill & Hillary are irrelevant at this time -- focusing on them is a deflection/distraction for highly relevant issues with Trump. There is little value going down that road, only hopes that people will overlook/diminish Trump's misdeeds.


Oh, I disagree. It's eminently valuable for relieving the morally superior of their horses.

slawton wrote:It's hard for me to be indifferent -- the most frightening aspect is that Trump has serious mental problems that prevent him from acting rationally.


Does he indeed? And I'd be cautious of that word "rational." Far too often it is simply a buzzword people use to define whatever they happen to believe irrespective of any formal process of reasoning. It is an all too common tendency, especially among Trump's political opponents, to regard their own beliefs and positions as self-evidently true, which leads right into the dehumanizing and dangerous idea that those who disagree must do so for reasons of mental or moral instability. This is why I find all this plaintive media bleating about "coming together" to be so much drivel, since it invariably means everyone else has to give up their beliefs and values and unite around whatever the left wants to do.

slawton wrote:Significantly, Trump's believes that he does not need to follow rules and repeatedly demonstrates his preference to flagrantly disregard them.


What rules are these exactly? Please provide examples. Are these rules of law, or of tradition and decorum? Because violating the latter is a pretty poor foundation on which to build a criminal complaint. And are you absolutely sure no Democrat has ever done the same thing? Because the record on that is absolutely terrible.

slawton wrote:The highest risk I see is an unprovoked attack on North Korea (to confirm his ego-based image that he is the biggest, strongest man). China has already announced it will come to the defense of North Korea should a foreign aggressor attack them. So, in addition to severe casualties in Seoul, South Korea, and potential nuclear missile attack from North Korea to the mainland US, we could have a much bigger war with China and potentially Russia. Worst case would be MAD (mutually assured destruction)/Armageddon. I don't think this would happen (a non-nuclear war instead) and I recognize our military strength is greater than our opponents and we would win a standard war, but it would be long and costly and require a commitment/sacrifice we as a nation have not made in many years.


I'm glad to hear you don't stay up at night worrying about nuclear Armageddon. I don't either. China can announce whatever it wants. It's just saber-rattling. The only rationale they have for defending North Korea is forestalling an influx of starving, irradiated refugees across their borders. They'll give up the rabid dog before getting into a shooting war with their largest trading partner. Brinksmanship is an exhilarating game. But, and you'll probably be horrified to hear this, what you just said is the very reason I wouldn't be opposed to a war.

slawton wrote:I don't think our "instant gratification"/spoiled citizens are prepared for such a scenario nor would they back an unwanted/unpopular war.


This is why the prospect of war doesn't concern me. Our citizenry both here and elsewhere in the west is decadent and spoiled, our sense of national unity impaired, most any sense of shared sacrifice to a greater ideal decayed. This is how civilizations fall. It happened in Rome, and its happening here. But the fall need not be inevitable. My generation, the Millennials, is the worst group of people ever to walk the earth, simultaneously the most pampered, privileged, coddled brats in all of human history and the weakest, most pathetic milquetoasts in all of human history. I'm perfectly comfortable with reintroducing the draft to toughen up these sniveling snotnoses. Alternatively, being subjected to that kind of authority might also disabuse them of the notion that surrendering their autonomy and privacy to insidious (and might I add, left-wing) megacorporations like Google even remotely resembles a good idea.

slawton wrote:Also, we are vulnerable to unconventional attacks (cyber warfare, etc.) that could be highly disruptive to a modern society. I'm definitely for Congress revoking the President's power to initiate a nuclear attack or otherwise without a declaration of war as protection against this madness (which has only been conceived/need discussion based on the erratic, ignorant and foolish behavior of Trump). Was this necessary with Bill or would it have come up with Hillary? Do we have to rewrite how the government works just to address the bizarre, foolish and abnormal behavior of Trump?


You keep suggesting the idea that Trump's behavior is somehow outside the scope of what is considered normal for a president or politician. I've yet to see any evidence of this. What is the madness? And wanting to rewrite how the government works when you don't get your way is pretty standard operating procedure. Every time a party loses it's time to throw out the electoral college. Whenever SCOTUS hands down a polarizing decision it's time to reevaluate Article 6.

slawton wrote:The world is seeing Trump as more of a madman than Kim Jong-un! This is just one of the many unnecessary risks that Trump creates. He is setting the US back further-and-further with bad ideas and wasting valuable/expensive resources addressing nonsense.


Is it now? You have the ear of the entire world? Sure, mainstream center-left and left parties in Western democracies recoil from Trump, but what could possibly compel me to care what Guy Verhofstadt or Jeremy Corbyn
think?

slawton wrote:I thought Bush Jr. was dumb, but Trump is far more stupid combined with delusional. He is a train-wreck that anyone with open eyes should see coming. In addition, he has no morals, ethics, conscience, etc. Every day he is in office, the government gets more blatantly corrupt and abusive.


I guess I should get my eyes checked, because I've yet to see any evidence of the government's increasing corruption. So far all I see is unsubstantiated innuendo of the sort I could get from Steven Colbert if I particularly wanted an audiovisual emetic. I can appreciate if people fear for family members who depend on programs that might be cut back or eliminated, but that hardly means the government is corrupt. A Supreme Court handing down decisions one disagrees with likewise would not make the government corrupt.

slawton wrote:It is disappointing to see that we have no leadership preventing this (many are hoping to benefit their own agendas than promote the greater good). I applaud those that speak out and oppose this crazy tyrant-in-the-making and see Mueller as the most orderly/likely way to resolve this insanity. Best to just rip off the bandage now!


Preventing what? What is the corruption? What is the insanity? And "tyrant-in-the-making?" And of course, the hope that Any Day Now Mueller will lead Trump out of the White House in handcuffs is risible. Mueller's inquiry appears to be pointed at general FARA violations by lobbyists. Manafort's been indicted for things going back well before Trump's campaign. And the charge of "conspiracy against the United States" is a general charge tacked on for prosecutorial expedience. Most prosecutors file a lot of charges anticipating that many if not most get dismissed at trial, so they can get defendants to plea down or flip on someone else. And Democrats can file articles of impeachment all they want (and they have). It isn't going to happen. In fact, turning the 2018 midterms into a campaign to impeach Trump is a great way to blow them. Usually the party of out power makes gains in midterms, and Democrats are energized even if that energy is largely feverish hysteria. Making them into a referendum on Trump is a great way to turn out his base and counteract all that energy. Besides, we're a year out, you've got an uphill battle in the Senate, and you'd need a full two-thirds of it to successfully impeach. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

slawton wrote:You can get sucked into the delusional world if you are not careful.


I toyed with many assholish phrases as responses to this, but I'm trying not to poison the discourse. Suffice to say being resolutely anti-Trump has its fair share of pitfalls in this regard.


I'm not going to go through and attempt to match you word for word here and I would like to agree that AST should remain separate from these kinds of partisan squabbles.

However, I will say only that there is nothing suspicious about victims of trauma coming forward at the moment their abuser is on the precipice of gaining immense power and they feel it is the last possible opportunity to prevent them from gaining even more wealth and status to use against their victims.

As for Trump's statement that "when you are rich, they let you do it," considering that followed up the "I just kiss them, I don't even wait" line I think it should be clear it still wasn't consensual. It also ignores his accusers, separate of him admitting on tape his own preference for sexual assault, he's also been accused of it 19 times by other people. Lack of resistance to a wealthy and powerful individual is not the same as consent and should not be treated as such.

As for Trump's illegalities, well, there were the numerous attempts at Muslim bans that have failed in the court system, his continued daily defiance of the emoluments clause by refusing to divest himself of his golf courses/business/hotels/assets and the fact that by frequenting these establishments on the government dime he is using federal/taxpayer funds to enrich his own estate, a clear conflict of interest. If your response is "you had best prove that no democrat also did these things," that's not really a defense. I'm no Democrat nor bound by tribalism to make excuses for past democrats, the simple fact is your man currently holds the job, therefore he will be held responsible for his actions within it and if that leads to an overall house-cleaning of the corrupt of either party I fully welcome it.

Finally, in closing I am also a millennial, a group that came of age in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, has seen wages that adjusting for inflation are below 1980 standards, that works, on average, 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, has seen home prices rise and home ownership decline, astronomical increases in tuition, etc and yet despite all of that has also been on the forefront of fights for expanding civil rights for LGBTQ+ and has overwhelming voted against, marched against, and opposed the xenophobia and bigotry that has characterized Trump's campaign and first year of leadership. As for whether we are entitled and need a draft, well, the longest war in American history began when I was 13 years old. My generation has almost exclusively fought it. My best friend from high school is currently on his sixth tour to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Also the idea that a megacorporation like Google is left-wing in anything but PR moves to ensure they don't offend their customer base is hysterical, and considering Trump's congress voted to allow companies to sell customer's browsing histories and is also opposed to net neutrality it is equally hysterical that you think the left is the one with the problem of "surrendering their privacy and autonomy" to corporations.

I don't intend to rebut or continue this debate lest I, in your words, "poison the discourse," I just tend to be of the opinion that attacking rape victims, denying rape culture, and insulting an entire generation as "sniveling snotnoses" would count as poisoning the discourse. I'm sure you will take my lack of response as some kind of rhetorical victory, that's fine.

Tailgunner
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:18 pm

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby Tailgunner » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:40 pm

WarpNein wrote:
You keep suggesting the idea that Trump's behavior is somehow outside the scope of what is considered normal for a president or politician. I've yet to see any evidence of this.


WarpNein wrote: guess I should get my eyes checked, because I've yet to see any evidence of the government's increasing corruption.


Image

WarpNein
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Lemme At Em Lieutenant
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:58 am

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby WarpNein » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:38 am

SKO wrote:I'm not going to go through and attempt to match you word for word here and I would like to agree that AST should remain separate from these kinds of partisan squabbles.

However, I will say only that there is nothing suspicious about victims of trauma coming forward at the moment their abuser is on the precipice of gaining immense power and they feel it is the last possible opportunity to prevent them from gaining even more wealth and status to use against their victims.


That's a charitable interpretation of their motives. I simply don't share it.

SKO wrote:As for Trump's illegalities, well, there were the numerous attempts at Muslim bans that have failed in the court system


"Muslin ban" was always a stretch, given majority-Muslim and de jure Muslim countries that were never included in it e.g. Saudi Arabia. But Trump expanded the ban in EO 13780 to include North Korea and Venezuela, which was enough for SCOTUS to vacate one of the complaints. Also, the president is within his power to issue Executive Orders. To characterize that as an illegal act is disingenuous. The content of an EO may be may be ruled unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it's original issuance was criminal any more than the authoring of a law ruled unconstitutional can be called criminal. We're not rounding up the authors of vacated gay-marriage bans post Obergefell.

SKO wrote:his continued daily defiance of the emoluments clause by refusing to divest himself of his golf courses/business/hotels/assets and the fact that by frequenting these establishments on the government dime he is using federal/taxpayer funds to enrich his own estate, a clear conflict of interest.


The Emoluments Clause(s)

Article !, Section 9, Paragraph 8:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7:

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased {sic} nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

"King, Prince, or Foreign State" on one hand, "the United States, or any of them" on the other. There's precious little case law regarding either clause, but you seem to be suggesting they are a blanket ban on the president making any money beyond his allotted salary while in office. The text just doesn't support that. The operative terms all refer to governments or government figures. Trump making money from private individuals buying his goods and services no more violates the clauses than any other president collecting royalties from, say, a bestseller. Also, the idea that Trump is enriching his empire with taxpayer dollars by spending his own salary there is dubious at best, if indeed he pays anything at all to stay at properties he owns. By definition, his salary becomes his property once it's disbursed to him, the same way (much as I may hate it) a welfare check becomes the property of its recipient. It's not my tax dollars any longer.

Here's a pretty good overview. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 77fb00324a

SKO wrote:If your response is "you had best prove that no democrat also did these things," that's not really a defense. I'm no Democrat nor bound by tribalism to make excuses for past democrats, the simple fact is your man currently holds the job, therefore he will be held responsible for his actions within it and if that leads to an overall house-cleaning of the corrupt of either party I fully welcome it.


The idea that anyone isn't bound by tribalism I regard as fundamentally flawed, but if you're up for a wholesale cleansing of both parties I can get behind that. But I have little doubt that once a Democrat retakes the White House, in 2020 or 2024, all of this fervent demand for constitutional adherence will evaporate like a morning mist. And the media, as we saw with Donna Brazile's revelations, will dutifully dismiss any claims of impropriety as conspiracy theory unless or until one of the insiders actually admits to it.

SKO wrote:Finally, in closing I am also a millennial, a group that came of age in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, has seen wages that adjusting for inflation are below 1980 standards, that works, on average, 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, has seen home prices rise and home ownership decline, astronomical increases in tuition, etc and yet despite all of that has also been on the forefront of fights for expanding civil rights for LGBTQ+ and has overwhelming voted against, marched against, and opposed the xenophobia and bigotry that has characterized Trump's campaign and first year of leadership.


"Phobia" implies an irrational fear, the way some recoil from a spider that in reality poses no threat. There are fears that are perfectly founded on appraisals of risk. As far as our economic situation, we were sold a false bill of goods, or assumed one at any rate. Why must every successive generation have it better than its forbears? There's nothing in nature or law to suggest this. But we bought it, the same way so many Millennials bought into the general liberal idea of being on "the right side of history." Hell I bought into it in 2008 and 2012. There is no right side of history, nor should there be any expectation that "progress" will produce an inexorable upward march of productivity or prosperity. Many of us are going to have it worse than our parents. Granted the causes may have been beyond our control, but that doesn't absolve us of trying to make something with what's been dealt us, our success relative to previous generations notwithstanding.

SKO wrote:As for whether we are entitled and need a draft, well, the longest war in American history began when I was 13 years old. My generation has almost exclusively fought it. My best friend from high school is currently on his sixth tour to either Afghanistan or Iraq.


I thank him for it, but it doesn't take away from what I said. According to Pew, Millennials are less likely than any previous generation to serve, even as we grew up in the longest war in our history (I was 15 when we invaded Afghanistan).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ndparents/

SKO wrote:Also the idea that a megacorporation like Google is left-wing in anything but PR moves to ensure they don't offend their customer base is hysterical, and considering Trump's congress voted to allow companies to sell customer's browsing histories and is also opposed to net neutrality it is equally hysterical that you think the left is the one with the problem of "surrendering their privacy and autonomy" to corporations.


Google is left-wing in far more than just PR. But net neutrality is dying on the altar of "hate speech," as service providers now discriminate on the basis of content. The internet needs to be regulated like a public utility. You can't turn out the lights because a homeowner hoists the stars and bars. The same must be true of the internet. We valued net neutrality when we trusted the domain hosts more than the government. As astonishing as it sounds to hear myself say it, I now trust the government in this respect more than the tech companies.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/cloudfl ... slope.html

SKO wrote:I don't intend to rebut or continue this debate lest I, in your words, "poison the discourse," I just tend to be of the opinion that attacking rape victims, denying rape culture, and insulting an entire generation as "sniveling snotnoses" would count as poisoning the discourse. I'm sure you will take my lack of response as some kind of rhetorical victory, that's fine.


I thought that rather tongue in cheek, but admittedly sarcasm doesn't translate online. Conversations about Trump are poisoned from the get go.

Tailgunner wrote:........


Shoo.

User avatar
slawton
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: So, Trump. What now?

Postby slawton » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:02 pm

DJT has been in the public spotlight (really his main goal) for many years, long before politics. Based on these observations I formed an opinion about him (sleazy shyster) -- that I don't respect nor like him, but I could (and did!) change the channel. As a political figure, he seemed to me to be a real joke - I did not take him seriously. I figured he would fail miserably (like many of his eye-rolling business ventures).

Somehow his childish, unorthodox, unrestrained tomfoolery worked to his benefit and gained support of a loyal (and in my opinion foolish) group. I believed the other legitimate candidates watered down the more reasonable (looking for a qualified & presidential candidate) voters amongst themselves, which allowed a minority to choose the Republican candidate. Listening to him at the debates confirmed my opinion that he was not suited for the role of President. I thought he would lose "bigly" in the general election (since the more reasonable voters would not be watered down over a multitude of candidates). I was wrong, so I thought "what do these people see that I am missing?" I went into this with an open mind/fresh eyes, hoping for the best -- after all he was destined to be our POTUS. I started off drinking the Kool-Aid, being supportive of the goals, buying their arguments, then giving him the benefit of the doubt, I tried desperately to see thing from there "sales" tactics -- but in the end, event-after-event, it has become abundantly clear that his election was a mistake - DJT is not and never will be a good POTUS.

It is human nature to reinforce one's own beliefs by readily accepting supporting evidence (viewing FOX News, CNN, etc. as legitimate source of information) and being skeptical of opposing evidence. Its why politics can be so taboo/controversial (not at the dinner table, etc.). It is usually very difficult to can change someone's mind once its made up. Arguments are not really to convince the other party I am right/you are wrong. It is best to agree to disagree but allow both to say their piece/be heard. I've noticed DJT supporters tend pick and chose what to believe (if it supports their current world view) and vehemently defend it against "fake news", even when there's demonstrably provable facts to refute it. Is it more likely that DJT non-consensually sexually assaulted/"peeping-Tom"ed women (as DJT himself bragged about), consistent with what numerous women say he did (aggressive/unwanted groping, entering dressing room, etc.) or would you prefer to believe something else (false accusations, get $$ out of it, publicity, etc.)? Is he some brilliant, unpredictable genius or an erratic nut case?

Whether its 5.5 times day/1500+ times (as some "counter" article reported) or not doesn't really change the fact that DJT lies very frequently. I am not aware of another public figure who does more falsehoods. His lying/misleading (or the euphemism "creative hyperbole") is viewed by some as exaggerations and/or brilliant political/negotiating tactics. The reality is that what he says must be highly suspect and should be verified before believing - he has no credibility. It spirals from there. DJT can't be trusted, period. He has no empathy for you or anyone else - and will turn on you as soon as the praising stops. It's classic pathological narcissism -- this, this & other articles spell out some traits (which does not take much imagination for me to see that these apply to DJT). We must stop making excuses or minimizing his bad behavior (such as disclosure of classified information to those lacking the necessary clearance and without a "need-to-know")- denial will not make it go away or stop.

WarpNein, I don't expect to change your opinion, but I invite you to investigate narcissist behaviors and determine for yourself if it fits and whether you should worry about any of the pitfalls. I have for the most part spoken about Trump or Trump-related topics. I've heard tendencies in how you speak (left/right, conservatives, liberals) imply an us/them mentality and antagonistic approach which usually makes me more skeptical about what you are saying based on where you are coming from.

While I think of Trump as a bad person, I reluctantly (not because of the subject, but rather because I can then consider myself in the same group as DJT) agree with him on some topics, like respecting the National Anthem (kneeling before/after or some other method on support for BLM is fine), simplifying/reducing taxes (I'd rather eliminate waste and fix programs not worth the cost-for-benefit rather than balloon the deficit and blatant handouts to the wealthy), reducing medical expenses (really need to address the healthcare/pharmacy/insurance industry price gouging - we pay far too much for far too little), repatriation of $$ from foreign corporate headquarter tax avoidance, help increase American business competitiveness, help American workers (wages & jobs), stop wasting money on foreign countries (dictators, human rights violators, doesn't benefit USA), etc. He is just ineffective, although he will claim overwhelming success.

Mostly, as a person, it bothers me that he feels the "strong should exploit the weak" where-as I believe the "strong should protect the weak".
I'm a doctor, not a modeler ...


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests