|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote: How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends? Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime.
|
United States42005 Posts
On October 01 2017 12:03 RealityIsKing wrote: ACA didn't get repealed yet because of that McCain guy who let the whole country down. Do you think McCain just hates America or is it possible that Hillary threatened him?
|
@Danglars
On October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening?
|
On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote: How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends? Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course).
But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place.
|
On October 01 2017 13:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 13:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Calling newspaper articles based on internal administration leaks fake news without providing counter evidence, well, at least I can see why some people would want believe that even though I think it's a very bad practice.
But can someone explain to me why he is now calling reporters on scene in Puerto Rico talking to people and visiting sites fake news as well? Is he now just going to call everything fake news that he doesn't like? Is that the new M.O.? Don't believe that guy standing in this destroyed village, I know much better here from the golf course, believe me? It just doesn't make any sense.
He manages to take someone that says 'these people here really need help' and turn it into 'fake news disrespecting the military and coastguard don't believe them' I see that you're one of those people that was still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. It's much easier just to stop doing that. Well not about Trump himself he's a lost cause for sure. I'm just extremely worried about people accepting everything Trump says. Why do 44000 people like this tweet? Why is he still supported by GOP congress? He's getting close to Alex Jones level of lying and deceit. But he's the POTUS. It should not be happening...
|
On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsShow nested quote +On October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice.
|
On October 01 2017 15:12 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote: How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends? Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course). But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place. Each branch has their checks and balances. The executive is under the legislative via removal, the executive post-constitution is now under the supreme court as well (the second not written into the constitution, invented afterwards). You really have got to read the federalist papers and antifederalist papers. The spectre of replacing one king for another sat high in voters' minds. They are very instructive in this regards, but rather long. I don't think you'd come out thinking the travel ban and rewriting Obamacare are similar. But yeah, your examples don't show a grasp of when partisans have a legitimate point for impeachment versus when they do not.
EDIT: Hell, i'd even forgotten the 65th also smack talked the Supreme Court for this duty with instructive reasoning.
|
On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning.
In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome?
|
On October 01 2017 15:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 13:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 01 2017 13:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Calling newspaper articles based on internal administration leaks fake news without providing counter evidence, well, at least I can see why some people would want believe that even though I think it's a very bad practice.
But can someone explain to me why he is now calling reporters on scene in Puerto Rico talking to people and visiting sites fake news as well? Is he now just going to call everything fake news that he doesn't like? Is that the new M.O.? Don't believe that guy standing in this destroyed village, I know much better here from the golf course, believe me? It just doesn't make any sense.
He manages to take someone that says 'these people here really need help' and turn it into 'fake news disrespecting the military and coastguard don't believe them' I see that you're one of those people that was still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. It's much easier just to stop doing that. Well not about Trump himself he's a lost cause for sure. I'm just extremely worried about people accepting everything Trump says. Why do 44000 people like this tweet? Why is he still supported by GOP congress? He's getting close to Alex Jones level of lying and deceit. But he's the POTUS. It should not be happening... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914216744385904640
1) Twitter bots exist.
2) GOP Congress are a combination of cowards and terrible people who support Trump 100% of the way. That and the US political system is garbage and doesn't allow for leader changes easily, like Westminster systems.
The extremely strong portions of the Trump base like Trump because he's a high ranking figure who doesn't even bother hiding behind dog whistles. So while he's not making moderates or liberals particularly happy, his evangelical and working class base that aren't too fussed about the economy are loving his pettiness.
These two demographics are the Republicans strongest demographics at this point and they don't want to rock the boat with 2018 elections coming up. Without the Florida panhandle turning out like they did during the 2016 election, Trump wouldn't have won Florida.
3) The Republican base aren't terribly consistent in their opinions. See: opinion polls on economy and Russia. Literally 180 degree turns in opinion after Trump was elected and put forward a Russia friendly (comparatively) foreign policy.
He's going to be president unless his base starts thinking he's a RINO cuck. That aren't going to happen with Fox News saying he's going a phenomenal job in Puerto Rico and we should stop bullying the man.
|
On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture.
|
On October 01 2017 15:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:12 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote: How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends? Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course). But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place. Each branch has their checks and balances. The executive is under the legislative via removal, the executive post-constitution is now under the supreme court as well (the second not written into the constitution, invented afterwards). You really have got to read the federalist papers and antifederalist papers. The spectre of replacing one king for another sat high in voters' minds. They are very instructive in this regards, but rather long. I don't think you'd come out thinking the travel ban and rewriting Obamacare are similar. But yeah, your examples don't show a grasp of when partisans have a legitimate point for impeachment versus when they do not. Of course they were concerned about replacing one king with another, and I don't doubt that reading those would be educational. Yes, judicial review was a later invention. But the idea that a President would be impeached for trying to do something by executive order that either violated the Bill of Rights or was not a power given to him in the first place is insane. Bills, EOs, and the like get challenged in court all the time, and nobody has ever thought that if they were found unconstitutional, that meant whoever wrote them should be impeached. Honestly, the Constitution did not seem very clear to me in the first place about what should happen if the legislative or executive tried to violate the Constitution, which is why judicial review was created in the first place. If you have a better idea of what the Constitutional remedy for something like that was, enlighten me – I haven't read the Constitution straight through since high school, maybe I forgot something.
I'm not going to get into the weeds on every single action people think Obama could have been impeached for, but thinking that DACA or the CSR payments are grounds for impeachment remains an excellent example of partisans requiring essentially zero proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to call for impeachment. If those are constitutional actions, he's allowed to do them, and if they're not, a court can rule accordingly. There's no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be found here.
Edit:
On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. How about this one: is there anything you can imagine Trump doing in the remainder of his presidency that would make you regret your choice? I would have assumed nuclear war with NK would clear that bar, but now I'm not certain.
|
On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. The point of the matter is this.
If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump triggering them because they ignored the poor white working class, then whatever, we could discuss that.
If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump's incompetence in basic administration and foreign policy because they ignored the poor white working class, then that is a different thing entirely.
Which of those more accurately reflects your opinion?
+ Show Spoiler +When I am asking you questions, that is me giving you the benefit of my doubt. I could instead *not* ask questions if you would prefer that, but I expect that you would not.
|
On October 01 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:23 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:12 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course). But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place. Each branch has their checks and balances. The executive is under the legislative via removal, the executive post-constitution is now under the supreme court as well (the second not written into the constitution, invented afterwards). You really have got to read the federalist papers and antifederalist papers. The spectre of replacing one king for another sat high in voters' minds. They are very instructive in this regards, but rather long. I don't think you'd come out thinking the travel ban and rewriting Obamacare are similar. But yeah, your examples don't show a grasp of when partisans have a legitimate point for impeachment versus when they do not. Of course they were concerned about replacing one king with another, and I don't doubt that reading those would be educational. Yes, judicial review was a later invention. But the idea that a President would be impeached for trying to do something by executive order that either violated the Bill of Rights or was not a power given to him in the first place is insane. Bills, EOs, and the like get challenged in court all the time, and nobody has ever thought that if they were found unconstitutional, that meant whoever wrote them should be impeached. Honestly, the Constitution did not seem very clear to me in the first place about what should happen if the legislative or executive tried to violate the Constitution, which is why judicial review was created in the first place. If you have a better idea of what the Constitutional remedy for something like that was, enlighten me – I haven't read the Constitution straight through since high school, maybe I forgot something. I'm not going to get into the weeds on every single action people think Obama could have been impeached for, but thinking that DACA or the CSR payments are grounds for impeachment remains an excellent example of partisans requiring essentially zero proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to call for impeachment. If those are constitutional actions, he's allowed to do them, and if they're not, a court can rule accordingly. There's no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be found here. No offense intended, but you absolutely should read the federalist papers. They had to sell this constitution to the states to ratify. It specifically argued that the courts were not a good place for impeachments, as well as detailing their role away from executive actions. Make you mind clear about what it does and does not say from it's writers/debaters arguing why they made the choices they did. You should also review the English use of impeachment to see more into how high crimes and misdemeanors included acting outside the limits on power and refusing to obey an act of Parliament.
It's also amusing how your two cited examples are not the ones I said particularly stand out. Stick to examples I bring up?
Edit: Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. How about this one: is there anything you can imagine Trump doing in the remainder of his presidency that would make you regret your choice? I would have assumed nuclear war with NK would clear that bar, but now I'm not certain. Just one last hypothetical!!! Sorry, ChristianS, your strange uncertainty notwithstanding, I really see no point going further into hypotheticals. I gave two examples for why they're unwelcome, which you didn't address. I responded to your post on micronesia, which you haven't given a response to.
|
On October 01 2017 15:53 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. The point of the matter is this. If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump triggering them because they ignored the poor white working class, then whatever, we could discuss that. If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump's incompetence in basic administration and foreign policy because they ignored the poor white working class, then that is a different thing entirely. Which of those more accurately reflects your opinion? + Show Spoiler +When I am asking you questions, that is me giving you the benefit of my doubt. I could instead *not* ask questions if you would prefer that, but I expect that you would not. This shows a remarkable lack of nuanced understanding at the original post, so I must repeat myself asking that you quote and respond substantially to my response to micronesia in light of what he said too. You can troll around recharacterizing this as "triggering" all you want. You give me substantial cause to just ignore you and move on. I intended no whining and reductionism that you want to bring in. Show me where I reduce it to all one at fault, none at fault.
|
On October 01 2017 16:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:53 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. The point of the matter is this. If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump triggering them because they ignored the poor white working class, then whatever, we could discuss that. If you are saying that the left wing of politics in the United States bears responsibility for Trump's incompetence in basic administration and foreign policy because they ignored the poor white working class, then that is a different thing entirely. Which of those more accurately reflects your opinion? + Show Spoiler +When I am asking you questions, that is me giving you the benefit of my doubt. I could instead *not* ask questions if you would prefer that, but I expect that you would not. This shows a remarkable lack of nuanced understanding at the original post, so I must repeat myself asking that you quote and respond substantially to my response to micronesia in light of what he said too. You can troll around recharacterizing this as "triggering" all you want. You give me substantial cause to just ignore you and move on. I intended no whining and reductionism that you want to bring in. Show me where I reduce it to all one at fault, none at fault. You've given me substantial cause to think you really, really don't want to answer this question, because you know what the answer you HAVE to give is, and you don't like it one bit.
To wit: The outcomes of the Trump presidency are the responsibility of those who voted for him, in the primary and the general. (And yes, if those outcomes turn out to be better than the alternative, then they have responsibility for that too.)
Did it happen in part because of things done by other people? Potentially. But the responsibility and culpability lies nowhere else. (In particular it is not reasonable to say that they are responsible for the good but not for the bad.)
edit: Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
edit 2: be aware that I really have absolutely no interest in any "but Hillary!" arguments in absentia, which is why I don't consider your conversation with micronesia pertinent.
|
On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote: It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. While you are right with the hurricanes, taking the # of them hitting THE US ONLY as a yardstick for measuring climate change is about as void of content as the thing you criticise. I've twice posted from the current IPCC report and yes, hurricanes appearance isn't likely linked to CC but a lot of shit happening around the world ist.
So don't try to come about as mildly scienctific when you just cherrypick your facts. + Show Spoiler [a post I made regarding hurricanes rec…] +On September 15 2017 01:54 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 00:17 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2017 19:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'll believe when I see it. For years, climate change activists have faced a wrenching dilemma: how to persuade people to care about a grave but seemingly far-off problem and win their support for policies that might pinch them immediately in utility bills and at the pump.
But that calculus may be changing at a time when climatic chaos feels like a daily event rather than an airy abstraction, and storms powered by warming ocean waters wreak havoc on the mainland United States. Americans have spent weeks riveted by television footage of wrecked neighborhoods, displaced families, flattened Caribbean islands and submerged cities from Houston to Jacksonville.
“The conversation is shifting,” said Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii. “Because even if you don’t believe liberals, even if you don’t believe scientists, you can believe your own eyes.”
Despite consensus among scientists, not everyone is convinced that terrifying weather means climate change is an urgent threat. There is virtually no prospect of large-scale federal action on the issue in the near future, and President Trump has made a top priority of unraveling the Obama administration’s environmental policies, including the Paris climate accord. Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, remain broadly skeptical of climate science and rely heavily on the electoral support of oil- and coal-producing states.
But an array of political leaders — including some members of Mr. Trump’s party, along with emboldened Democrats and environmental activists — see the underlying dynamics of climate politics bending, as drastic weather events throw up practical challenges for red and blue states alike. Mr. Schatz, one of the Democrats’ most assertive spokesmen on global warming, said there were already “pockets of opportunity” to work with Republicans on measures to reinforce coastlines and support solar- and wind-energy production, though not on more ambitious policies.
“We can get a fair amount of bipartisanship if we talk about severe weather and resiliency,” Mr. Schatz said. “For some people, it’s just about the phrase ‘climate change’ being too politically loaded.”
Most movement among Republicans has come from moderates and lawmakers from areas vulnerable to flooding, where seeming oblivious to extreme weather could be politically risky. There have been no notable cracks in Republican opposition to climate policy among party leaders, or even within the powerful Texas congressional delegation — a group battered by Hurricane Harvey but fiercely protective of the state’s oil economy.
For the most part, senior Republicans have avoided directly discussing climate in the aftermath of Harvey and Hurricane Irma, which pounded the Southeast this week. They have focused chiefly on scrambling to get government aid to stricken states. The Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, said debating climate now would be “very, very insensitive.”
But in Florida, where Irma left more than a dozen dead and millions without electricity, a handful of Republicans have been more outspoken. The Republican mayor of Miami, Tomás Regalado, urged Mr. Trump last week to reconsider his climate policies. Several Florida lawmakers founded a bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives, and the group’s Republican membership grew this year to two dozen.
The safe ground for Republicans, party strategists say, may be embracing proposals to mitigate certain effects of environmental change, while skirting debate about more drastic actions that experts see as essential.
That approach reached even the White House this week, with Thomas P. Bossert, Mr. Trump’s Homeland Security adviser, declaring that the administration takes “seriously the threat of climate change.” He added, somewhat vaguely, “Not the cause of it, but the things that we observe.”
Representative Scott Taylor of Virginia, a Republican whose district hugs the Atlantic Coast, said his constituents were growing more sensitive to the implications of climate change, including voters who lean to the right. Mr. Taylor, who is a member of the climate caucus, said he was still wary of hobbling fossil-fuel companies, but favors narrower measures to address dangerous environmental conditions. The Republican nominee for governor of Virginia this year, Ed Gillespie, has taken a similar tack, ignoring climate as an issue but releasing a plan on coastal flooding.
“We have to deal with issues like sea level rise and flooding and resiliency,” Mr. Taylor said, cautioning, “I don’t think we’re there, in a bipartisan way, for comprehensive action.”
Jay Faison, a wealthy Republican donor who has made clean energy a personal cause, said he found Republicans increasingly open to engaging around the edges of the climate issue. Mr. Faison said he had reason to believe there was “some appetite” among congressional leaders for backing resilient infrastructure and energy research.
“I’d like to see more, faster,” Mr. Faison said. “But we play the hand we’re dealt.”
Political polling has long found most voters sympathetic to policies that protect the environment, including the Paris agreement and rules proposed by the Obama administration to curb power-plant emissions. But Americans have also tended to rank climate low among their priorities, behind issues like health care and jobs.
Still, the trend toward taking climate change seriously has been unmistakable, and pollsters say it may intensify after a season of superstorms. In a Gallup poll this year, 45 percent of Americans said they worried about global warming a “great deal,” a sharp increase from the share in 2016 and the highest ever recorded in the poll. About 6 in 10 said they believed the consequences of global warming are already being felt.
But liberals and conservatives hold widely divergent views on climate, even within hard-hit states like Texas and Florida. And research conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that many who are concerned about climate change remain less convinced it will harm them directly.
Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has studied climate as a campaign issue, said that it was most relevant to voters as a “reference point” to judge a candidate’s worldview, and that voters tended to see those who reject climate science as extremists. Mr. Garin said catastrophic weather could make certain hard-line views less acceptable.
“The salience of climate change denialism grows at moments when the consequences of that are more abundantly clear,” Mr. Garin said, “such as when the country is hit by two exceptionally powerful storms, one right after the other.”
Is unclear whether climate will play a major part in the 2018 elections, when Democrats are defending a number of Senate seats in states that produce carbon fuel. Climate may feature more prominently in the 2020 elections, when a wider range of states will be contested and the environmental policies Mr. Trump has pursued through executive action — like withdrawing from the Paris agreement — will be more directly at issue.
But some Democratic candidates and political donors hope to punish conservative politicians before then. In Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat seeking re-election next year, quickly went on the offensive this week, accusing one potential Republican opponent, Gov. Rick Scott, of having ignored the mounting threat of climate change.
And advisers to Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor who has spent millions supporting Democrats, said his political committee might seek to link Republicans in Florida, Nevada and California to environmental catastrophes in those states, like the summer hurricanes and wildfires out west.
Mr. Steyer said in an interview that acknowledging the impact of devastating storms should not get Republicans off the hook for opposing efforts to address global warming over all. He predicted the “human tragedy” of climate change would be a permanent feature of politics. “This is not an isolated incident,” he said of Irma and Harvey. “It’s going to happen again, only worse.”
Mr. Regalado, the Miami mayor, said many of his Republican colleagues were wary of being “called crazy or liberals” if they talked about climate. But he said voters on the ground had grown sharply aware of the risks they face.
“I don’t think my statements are going to change the way the administration thinks or the governor thinks, but let me tell you, people are afraid,” Mr. Regalado said. “People are understanding there is a new normal now.” Source "and storms powered by warming ocean waters wreak havoc on the mainland United States" Crickets from the 'weather is not climate crowd.' There's been a paucity of deadly hurricanes in recent years, so you might as well say "and the recent end to a long drought highlights the perfidy of "extreme weather events from global warming" promoters. Is somebody paying them to discredit the science through journalistic malpractice? Your cold year is nothing, my twin hurricanes harkens to warming oceans. xD is correct in his assessment that conclusions from a single weather incident to climate cannot be drawn. There is a more than anyone here cares to read in the latest IPCC synthesis report on observable changes of Climate Change. + Show Spoiler [taken from the executive summary] +The evidence of climate change from observations of the atmosphere and surface has grown significantly during recent years. At the same time new improved ways of characterizing and quantifying uncertainty have highlighted the challenges that remain for developing long-term global and regional climate quality data records. Currently, the observations of the atmosphere and surface indicate the following changes: [...] Extreme Events It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950. There is only medium confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century mostly owing to lack of data or of studies in Africa and South America. However, it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. {2.6.1}
It is likely that since about 1950 the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased. Confidence is highest for North America and Europe where there have been likely increases in either the frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation with some seasonal and/or regional variation. It is very likely that there have been trends towards heavier precipitation events in central North America. {2.6.2.1}
Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, this masks important regional changes: the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950. {2.6.2.2}
Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic has increased since the 1970s. {2.6.3}
Confidence in large-scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is low owing to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). {2.6.4}
Because of insufficient studies and data quality issues confidence is also low for trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms. {2.6.2.4}
On October 01 2017 11:54 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 11:16 Plansix wrote: Who needs bullshit when there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the temperature of the earth is rising? So? It does not follow that armageddon follows it; in fact, historically, the climate right now (and projected) isn't outside the normal fluctuations in Earth's history. We've had periods in our history where temperatures rose more than 12 F in a few years and the biggest impact was on the mega-fauna (partially also because they were highly specialized). We've had periods where CO2 was much much higher and life continued (in fact, these periods tend to be some of the best for vegetation). Climate always changes - the Mediterranean is not that old, the Great Lakes formed 12,000 years ago, etc. You can say, yeah, but it'd be less worse if we weren't making things hotter, but the fact is, that the solutions to this question is worse than the status-quo in nearly all cases (economically, utilitarian cost: benefit, etc.). I wouldn't have as much of a problem in this area if it also didn't accompany 1:1 with ideological goals of radical environmentalists/socialists. If all the movement was trying to do is get rid of Oil subsidies, then sure, let's get that done, but that's not what it is about. It's about total lifestyle change, forced urbanization, etc. Anyways, I'm ready to be attacked by the "consensus". see above.
I will not discredit you asking these questions, but please put in the effort to research the answer before you berate people.
Also try reading this thread. Or this post
|
United States24579 Posts
On October 01 2017 14:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 06:43 micronesia wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote: The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. I don't have a problem, in principle, with folks voting for the reasons you gave. However, those voters shouldn't try to simultaneously justify the reasoning for wanting to vote against certain people like Hillary and take no responsibility for the bad actions of the person they chose to vote for. It's one or the other. Either people voted for Trump knowing he would do embarrassing/harmful things like what we've been discussing here, and decided that was worth it to send a message that the status quo must end, or they shouldn't have voted for him. I'll make an exception for those too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of their vote (whole separate problem), but the majority of voters, like I said before, should have known exactly what they were getting as most of the people who voted for Hillary did once the election was over. If you voted for the current president, you are in part responsible for his actions. That's of course always true to some extent, but it's especially true when the candidate did such a good job of telegraphing exactly what type of a person he was and how that would not change when he got into office. You're somewhat right and somewhat wrong. A primary process that ended in Trump should be mitigated by the opposing party's nomination, but this time they picked someone worse than Trump. That doesn't absolve a voter from having weighed the positive message Trump sent against all the buffoonery, incompetency, and twitter/speech behavior. You accepted the good with the bad in the vote, and should somewhat stand by it. If you've been reading the thread, maybe you got the perspective from the country standpoint and from a within-party standpoint: + Show Spoiler +On November 10 2016 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 01:11 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 01:08 ACrow wrote:On November 10 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 00:58 Logo wrote:3) Abortion rights aren't going anywhere. Gay rights aren't going anywhere. You've won on these issues. Even if Trump gets capped and Pence takes over, there's nothing that the president can do to unwind the progress that's been made. Virtually no judge that Trump may appoint will overturn the precedents that have been set. Judges are egotistical assholes, and they'd rather not tarnish their reputations (see John Roberts). And the American people don't have the appetite for a protracted cultural war on these issues right now. Trump didn't even run on those issues. There are bigger fish to fry. Which takes me to my last point.... This one seems incorrect (the abortion part)? There's already a bunch of states chipping away at abortion rights by imposing overly strict regulations on where abortions can be performed or allowing shady centers to operate that appear to be about family planning or offer abortions but then really hammer anti-abortion messages into you. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/01/14-states-have-passed-laws-making-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-already-this-year/ among others. Anyone can get an abortion in this country. Unless you're an advocate for late term abortions, the battle is being fought at the margins over convenience. This is a non-issue that is blown out of proportion by the left. That is so egotistical it is disgusting. "I'm male, so I'm not affected, so I don't care". Jerk. Keep your nose out of women's affairs and let them decide you control freak. Come on that's not what he said ... I truly wonder : is the vote Trump some kind of millenarism ? Did US citizens showed their desire for the end of the world ?I've had some tough discussion with students this morning. The media attacked their brains so much they actually thought Trump meant WW3. Like I've said for a long time (and you have said the same), what exactly did Trump supporters have to lose? What was their alternative? They've been maligned culturally for so long, that a populist revolt was inevitable. On November 09 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote: On my drive home (at long last) I was looking for what I could use as my personal description of what's happening here. Ultimately, I came up with "the fuck-you to Hillary and the establishment that I was not willing to risk my own skin to send."
Trump is now favored to win, and we are favored to see four very interesting years. If that is what happens, I really hope that at the very least the Democrats understand exactly why it is that this happened. Their attitude towards this was absolutely not acceptable. You seem to be echoing exactly what I was saying. I don't agree with those poster's decisions, but I don't see them trying to argue that they have no responsibility for Trump.
We have some very deep issues in this country that will extend beyond Puerto Rico and Trump's twitter feed that are absolutely core to civic peace and future harmony. I do have a lot of sympathy for people like you, micronesia, that don't grasp the ramifications of the culture wars, or the media-Clinton(Democratic) establishment, or the forgotten white/other working class. Obviously you're ranking the current trauma as eclipsing all these, and it's absolutely not the case. Clinton did a great job telegraphing why she was the worse choice. The existing division prevented a good recap of that fact, so oh well. He will probably continue to do badly in office. He will also prove how rotten the DC core and media are in their response, and that's a very valuable reminder to Americans. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether or not all of the buffoonery of the sitting POTUS and the incompetence of this administration is worse for the country than the alternatives in the most recent presidential election. That doesn't really support your claim that I am somewhat right and somewhat wrong, given what I was saying in my previous posts. Recall that I was just pointing out people who voted for Trump own that decision for the remainder of his presidency, regardless of how justified they felt in voting for him to disrupt the status quo.
The thing we actually disagree about will probably not be reconciled in this thread. The left does have a lot to learn about how we got here. The right has a lot to learn as well. I don't see voting for the current POTUS to be a reasonable way to solve either of those problems, and now the USA is the laughingstock of the whole world while at the same time terrifying the whole world that we might plunge it into God knows what because of some stupid reason like a mean comment on twitter. I'm not so cynical to think these 'culture wars,' problems with the media-Clinton(Democratic) establishment, or the forgotten working class couldn't be improved without bringing the entire world into it in a big and bad way.
|
All I know is that the world has no reason to trust the United States ever again when not a single politician with any degree of power is saying enough is enough to Trump's handling of Puerto Rico. In any other democracy the leader would have probably been tared and feather out of office by now. If the president has shown this little respect and care for his own citizens, just imagine his respect for treaties and countries that aren't rolling the red carpet for him.
We've got a situation where Trump's base is practically claiming the media is fake news, Puerto Rico is in awesome condition because Trump is amazing and the Mayor is a lying bitch backed by George Soros and the Democrats. Its completely terrifying that we're just letting this happen. God knows what Trump would do if California got wiped out by an earthquake or bushfire.
|
On October 01 2017 22:36 bigmetazltank wrote: All I know is that the world has no reason to trust the United States ever again when not a single politician with any degree of power is saying enough is enough to Trump's handling of Puerto Rico. In any other democracy the leader would have probably been tared and feather out of office by now. If the president has shown this little respect and care for his own citizens, just imagine his respect for treaties and countries that aren't rolling the red carpet for him.
We've got a situation where Trump's base is practically claiming the media is fake news, Puerto Rico is in awesome condition because Trump is amazing and the Mayor is a lying bitch backed by George Soros and the Democrats. Its completely terrifying that we're just letting this happen. God knows what Trump would do if California got wiped out by an earthquake or bushfire. California's are worth votes and has people representing them in congress, Puerto Rico does not.
Its utterly sad but its that simple.
|
|
|
|
|