Your argument is that opponents of Trump want only bad people to work for Trump so that he will lose and they will win. If there were no common values between Democrats and Republicans you might have a point. But, suppose the Trump administration were to face something along the lines of the Cuban missile crisis. That would seem to be a situation in which Democrats and Republicans would be in complete agreement about what constitutes a good outcome and what is a bad outcome. Presumably, both Democrats and Republicans would agree that preserving our Democratic institutions is a good thing and destroying them is bad. There are many other areas where Democrats and Republicans have common values. The problem I am increasingly worried about is that too many Republicans have forgotten our common values and are focused, instead, on the equivalent of who comes out ahead, Indiana or Purdue. We should be much more focused on protecting our common interests.
Trump is a cruel, cruel man
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
With respect, your vote for president in November would say that's a lie.
I didn't say most people were small and petulant.
There's no shame at all in a sports fan relishing in the plights of their rivals. I didn't even mean to suggest there was. You tell me tomorrow that all of UK's projected starters were declared academically ineligible, and I'll tell you there's going to be a lot of schadenfreude among fans of IU, Louisville, etc. So what? Nobody's hurt by that. It's part of what makes following sports -- and rivalries -- fun. I'd expect a Purdue fan to want bad things to happen to IU's program -- and that doesn't make them small.
Some of them -- certainly not all of them.
And, honestly, I don't so much think that it's that they want "bad" people to work for Trump, but that they want the administration to fall apart generally. I don't think people of this disposition are sitting around happy that there's a guy like Steve Bannon in the White House.
Not from my perspective it isn't. I'm sure it is from yours. But, given what I think is most important in electing people to public office, he was the better choice of the two available.
I am not happy that there is a guy like Steve Bannon in the White House. Prior to this election I would have imagined that you and I would've agreed that having Steve Bannon in any administration would be a bad thing. I would have thought that because I thought we would agree that Bannon is likely to undermine our political institutions as well as our standing in the world in ways I would have thought we both didn't like. But you seem to think that because I see Bannon as a cost you must see him as a benefit.
Let's return to the basketball analogy. Indiana and Iowa fans might disagree about whether they want Luke Recker playing for Iowa. But those fans should agree that they don't want Pierre Pierce playing for Iowa.
I don't think that. I said that I don't think people of this disposition are sitting around cheering Bannon's role -- not that I do think they are. So I think you missed the point.
I'm simply saying that my guess as to why some people are saying that good people (whoever they may consider good) should stay away from the Trump Administration, they feel no sympathy, etc. is because they want the Administration to unravel....and "good people" leaving it might hasten that happening.
It's as if they're saying "Hey Spicer (or Mattis, or whomever), if you want me to be nice to you.....quit serving Cheetolini. If you do, I'll allow you to return to my good graces."
You sir are DEAD WRONG because Trump resembles no MAN I have ever known. He is more of a spoiled brat, a greedy child, a temper tantrum throwing prepuberty teen but he cannot be classified as any sort of a man.
I agree that it is very often the case that fans want bad things to happen to their opponents. I disagree though and say that does make them small. The true spirit of competition is not that you win because the other side was unlucky but because you are good. The inability to discriminate between luck (or cheating) and virtue makes fans pathetic. Without a great and even lucky opponent it is impossible to demonstrate the highest virtue by triumphing anyway.
I've worked for/in both honorable and dishonorable situations. In the cases of the dishonorable, I didn't know ahead of time that was what I was getting into. I also didn't think so much of myself as to believe I could change things. So I got out the first chance I could. I couldn't make myself stay, even when it was advantageous to do so.
Not exactly. Anyone that works for Trump for anything longer than a short amount of time has to know who they are working for after that time.
And they have to know that they will be forced to defend things that cannot be defended, and that their role is never truly safe within his administration. And, post Trump, their political careers are all but over. For many, it would seem that doesn't matter. I think it's different with someone like Spicer, however.
So, I don't feel bad if they are slighted (as was the case with Spicer in the article). They should expect that type of thing.
I never insinuated they were bad people. By all accounts, Spicer is a good guy. I believe that. But he has greatly harmed his reputation. There's no way around that fact.
Most are weak people, perhaps. But not bad people. And I did say most- not all.
In other words, you shouldn't complain when you get burned- if you decide to continually play with fire. Trump cares about himself and his family- and that's about the extent of it. Everyone else is disposable according to his needs at any given moment. He's proven that over and over again.
Thats all I was trying to say.
And, I do greatly respect someone like Mad Dog, who appears to be putting country ahead of party. On the fence about Tillerson, but he maybe doing the same thing. However, I wouldn't think you'd see this type of article being written about them if they felt slighted.
Hope that clears up my thoughts. Apologize if I wasn't entirely clear before now.
Question for you. Given what we've seen so far, would you still vote for Trump?
And, a related question. What exactly did you value in your choice for president? What exactly was it that led you to the conclusion that Trump was a superior option to Clinton?
Just curious. After the chit show that we've witnessed so far, and the smoke growing thicker around financial entanglements and Russia, I'm curious if anyone here still thinks he is the better option.
And for the record, I was NOT a fan of Hillary. But at least she is competent. And, her investigation is already over. Trump's time in the barrel appears to be far from over
. I don't think anyone can deny that the growing investigations surrounding Trump are bad things for this country. Given that investigations beget investigations, and the guy leading the main investigation is probably ticked that his predecessor was fired (in a move that was all but telegraphed as a move to help make the Russian investigation go away). I'd bet just about anything that Trump will face obstruction of justice charges- at minimum. His charge is very broad, and this thing appears to be just getting started. Again, remember that when the Clinton investigation started, Monica Lewinsky was still in high school.
Didn't watergate teach anyone any lessons? It's not always the crime- it's the coverup. And even if there is no underlying crime (still TBD), the coverup will take him down. At least through the impeachment stage.
*** end rant ***. It's late.
Question for you. Given what we've seen so far, would you still vote for Trump?
And, a related question. What exactly did you value in your choice for president? What exactly was it that led you to the conclusion that Trump was a superior option to Clinton?
Just curious. After the chit show that we've witnessed so far, and the smoke growing thicker around financial entanglements and Russia, I'm curious if anyone here still thinks he is the better option.
And for the record, I was NOT a fan of Hillary. But at least she is competent. And, her investigation is already over. Trump's time in the barrel appears to be far from over
Given that investigations beget investigations, and the guy leading the main investigation is probably ticked that his predecessor was fired (in a move that was all but telegraphed as a move to help make the Russian investigation go away). I'd bet just about anything that Trump will face obstruction of justice charges- at minimum. His charge is very broad, and this thing appears to be just getting started. Again, remember that when the Clinton investigation started, Monica Lewinsky was still in high school.
Didn't watergate teach anyone any lessons? It's not always the crime- it's the coverup. And even if there is no underlying crime (still TBD), the coverup will take him down. At least through the impeachment stage.
*** end rant ***. It's late.
Yes, I'd still vote for Trump over Hillary -- through gritted teeth.
I share very little ground with the Democratic Party these days. To a point where I'd even vote for a clown like Trump, so long as it meant (among other things) that we'd get decent judges on the courts and wouldn't continue our march towards becoming more like the languishing Europe.
For instance, now we at least have a chance to avoid the economy-drag of the Paris accord. Things like that are the last thing we need as we try to jumpstart an economy that is desperately in need of a higher rate of growth.
And we've also got to derail the runaway federal fiscal train as it hurtles towards the cliff. Would Hillary Clinton have been any more willing than Obama was to do that? I seriously doubt it.
I don't necessarily have a big problem pulling the lever for somebody with a D next to his name. I did so in the governor's race last year. There weren't huge, glaring differences between me and Gregg -- and I'm not crazy about any party having virtually unchecked power as the Indiana GOP does now.
But it's becoming increasingly harder to do at the federal level -- because it's increasingly clear that they want to take the country in a very different direction than I want to see it go.
And that's OK -- it's what most of their voters want. I'm certainly not going to change their minds. That's how democratic elections are supposed to work. But I can't vote for that agenda.
I've largely stayed out of this, but you cannot be serious with this line of thinking. You've repeated it several times over the last couple of weeks.
What in our recent history tells you that ANY Republican gives two craps about the runaway federal deficit? Trumps OWN budget will balloon us out of control worse than anything we've had over the last 8 years. You simply cannot not take the quoted text seriously if you defend Trump and his budget. It's simply hypocrisy.
The left wants and will do ANYTHING to achieve failure of this President. They started their serious attack about 1 hour after is became apparent that he had defeated Clinton and has continued, unrelenting with the media and Democrat party and office holders attacking everything about Trump right down to a 10 year old son. You cannot name anything these people won't do to harm the nation by harming the office of and policies espoused by its President.
Feel free to describe ANY way that this, if true, is any different than the right's attack on the Kenyan Muslim Commie Barack HUSSEIN Obummer? I can't wait to see your list.
Trump is amoral. He has no moral sense of right or wrong. Trump makes decisions based on whether or not it benefits him personally. If that happens to be a decision that helps someone else, well, that is incidental. Same if that decision hurts someone else.
The other party is always going to attack the president. Were you under a rock the last eight years? With that said, Trump is largely screwing himself. Tell your boy to get off Twitter and stop acting like a buffoon.
But he's not doing any of the things that you claim he's doing in terms of shaking things up. The budget he proposed is a complete cluster. That's why people are at a loss as to what you were/are thinking.
I didn't call him those names. They do seem to be well practices as they slip from your typing fingers to the page, however.
Calls for impeachment - even before inauguration
Leaking from Democrat holdovers within the Executive function
Leaking from Democrat holdovers from within the intel function
Rushes by holdover bureaucrats - EPA for example - to enact regulations before the deadline of the EOs
Attempts to block Cabinet nominations with their media working left hand in left hand.
Reports made up entirely of fantasy by media and Democrats
Democrat/media attacks on Trump's family including a 10 year old child.
None of that was done by Republicans in Obama's beginning days. Of course, Obama had the same leftist media that anti-Trump has.
Oh, I didn't notice any college professors beating conservative rally attendees with a bike lock - among hundred of violent attacks by the left against conservatives
That's without looking anything up - but each item on the list describes dozens to hundreds of occurrences - not merely one timers. - except the bike lock. The left uses other weapons not just bike locks.
If you close enough attention, I never said this proposed budget is the cure for our budget woes. In fact, I said that it wasn't.
But what it could do -- even as an opening bid -- is derail the train. And that has to be the first step.
I'm far more interested in seeing something closer to Ryan's blueprint. But I don't think we can get from here to there in one step. First we have to disrupt the current, longstanding momentum.
A cluster is OK -- so long as it is a significant diversion from the current path.
If nothing else, it forces policymakers to consider alternate diversions.
It's the diversion that matters most right now. Because there is a whole lot of political and economic equity in the status quo -- but the status quo is unsustainable.
As I told Rockfish when he threw his suggestion out there: now we're getting somewhere. Rock's vision, too, would be a significant diversion from the current path.
Calls for impeachment, even before inauguration? Did you miss the birther movement? As to attempts to block cabinet nominations, below is a list of judicial nominee confirmation rates:
Here is another chart showing how often Democrats had to invoke cloture:
"Reports made up entirely of fantasy by media and Democrats" - well OF COURSE the Democrats didn't make crap up about Obama, get real. But the GOP and the GOP controlled media did. See the birther movement, see Muslim. That stuff was a mainstay on Fox et al. We now have that the Democrats killed a Democrat last summer, we used to have Hillary killed Vince Foster. We had Bill and Hillary as drug runners. Yep, you are right, I can't find Democrats making that stuff up about Democrats but there is a heck of a lot of Republicans making it up.
I don't know i have seen attacks on Baron, it is wrong to do so. Let me point out that in 1992 SNL once made fun of a 12 year old Chelsea Clinton's appearance.
I'm still laughing out loud that you regard a budget that would explode the deficit as a "first step" toward a balanced budget.
And still typing about it, I see.
The first step to getting on the right track is getting off the wrong track. And that's a very difficult thing to do.
That budget did nothing to get off the wrong track.
Seriously how is it possible for you to still believe that?
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
It didn't? So you're saying it's a business-as-usual budget proposal?
If not, then it very much gets us off the current track we're on -- which is headed towards a cliff.
He doesn't understand that point. It is much too direct, lacks nuance and cites no learned leftist.
Okay, Einstein. Why don't you explain how a budget that explodes the deficit is the first step toward a balanced budget.
No its WORSE than the status quo. It sends us closer to this cliff you keep talking about.
You literally aren't making any sense.
People will go to any length to justify and rationalize their biases and past decisions.
This is some of the dumbest logic I've seen in a while. You don't fix a problem with something worse. If you're in a steam powered train speeding toward a cliff, jumping off and getting in a high speed bullet train heading for the same cliff is certainly a different option, but it's not any better. It will just get you there faster.
Trump's budget proposal includes one really, really, really dumb mistake, and the posters defending it should probably know about it before they continue on that path.
The budget predicts a significant increase in economic growth, up to 3% annually (which itself is very optimistic), spurred by tax cuts. But then, when it adds up how much this growth will increase revenues, it uses the current tax rates, instead of the proposed lower ones. This mistake adds up to over $5 trillion over a decade.
There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of mistake. Either the administration was trying to be blatantly dishonest, or the people in charge of scoring the budget aren't qualified to balance a checkbook.
When the CBO gets their hands on this, some defenders are going to look very, very silly.
The budget predicts a significant increase in economic growth, up to 3% annually (which itself is very optimistic), spurred by tax cuts. But then, when it adds up how much this growth will increase revenues, it uses the current tax rates, instead of the proposed lower ones. This mistake adds up to over $5 trillion over a decade.
There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of mistake. Either the administration was trying to be blatantly dishonest, or the people in charge of scoring the budget aren't qualified to balance a checkbook.
When the CBO gets their hands on this, some defenders are going to look very, very silly.
Similar threads
