Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So to make sure I am clear and do not put words in your mouth: You do not give him credit for forming a coalition with our allies and retaliating against a country that had gassed its citizens? 

That is not what I said. What I said was that there was a valid fault in the action which can provide a valid rationale for the action to not have been a good one.

(07-05-2018, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I ask because your original post said point to something objective and you would give him credit. Seems you have changed "you" to "some people". 

I have changed nothing. You have yet to provide a policy decision that Trump has made that has objectively improved the country. My goalposts have remained firmly planted this entire time.

This entire exercise, which may admittedly be futile, is me attempting to illustrate that for almost everything an administration does there can be logical and rational reasons to oppose them. It isn't just based on emotion or "TDS." So much of how we view policy at this level is subjective. Yes, your view, even if subjective, should be grounded in some sort of evidence, but it is still subjective. The hyper-partisan behavior that exists in current society where people increasingly see the other side as inherently bad is only perpetuated by chalking up disagreements to things like "TDS."

I'm not saying that some people don't hate just to hate, just as some love just to love. You give me any group of supporters or opponents and I could easily show that many hold opinions rooted in personal rather than policy reasons. But immediately dismissing their opinions en masse because they may be insistent or passionate is just doing the exact thing you are claiming to be against.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 11:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is not what I said. What I said was that there was a valid fault in the action which can provide a valid rationale for the action to not have been a good one.


I have changed nothing. You have yet to provide a policy decision that Trump has made that has objectively improved the country. My goalposts have remained firmly planted this entire time.

This entire exercise, which may admittedly be futile, is me attempting to illustrate that for almost everything an administration does there can be logical and rational reasons to oppose them. It isn't just based on emotion or "TDS." So much of how we view policy at this level is subjective. Yes, your view, even if subjective, should be grounded in some sort of evidence, but it is still subjective. The hyper-partisan behavior that exists in current society where people increasingly see the other side as inherently bad is only perpetuated by chalking up disagreements to things like "TDS."

I'm not saying that some people don't hate just to hate, just as some love just to love. You give me any group of supporters or opponents and I could easily show that many hold opinions rooted in personal rather than policy reasons. But immediately dismissing their opinions en masse because they may be insistent or passionate is just doing the exact thing you are claiming to be against.

I'm going to try it one final time: Do you give President Trump credit for the coalition bombing of Syria?

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 11:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm going to try it one final time: Do you give President Trump credit for the coalition bombing of Syria?

I don't know why you say "one final time." This is the first time you have asked my opinion on the matter. All prior conversations about it have just been whether it is subjectively or objectively good or bad.

As to the matter itself, I have mixed feelings. I think that we needed to show Syria that their behavior won't be tolerated, and working with other countries to do it was necessary. Unilateral actions aren't good like that and just make us appear as a bully. However, I am concerned about the ability to take such an action. I side with Rand Paul and some others with regards to the overuse of the use of force authorization for the War on Terror. It was used by Bush, Obama, and now Trump to justify military actions that it was not intended to justify and I am of the opinion that the executive needs to be reined in with regards to that. So do I give him credit? I don't really assign him credit or blame for this one because I have a rather midland opinion.

[Dill]

(07-05-2018, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So to make sure I am clear and do not put words in your mouth: You do not give him credit for forming a coalition with our allies and retaliating against a country that had gassed its citizens? 

I ask because your original post said point to something objective and you would give him credit. Seems you have changed "you" to "some people". 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/15/macron-france-persuaded-trump-strike-syria/518960002/

[Bengalzona]

Apparently, some folks don't agree that Trump is "doing well":

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-approval-rating-991900

[*Nately120*]

(07-05-2018, 12:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Apparently, some folks don't agree that Trump is "doing well":

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-approval-rating-991900

Butthurt snowflakes.  Take them out of the equation and Trumps approval is more like 100.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So to make sure I am clear and do not put words in your mouth: You do not give him credit for forming a coalition with our allies and retaliating against a country that had gassed its citizens? 

I ask because your original post said point to something objective and you would give him credit. Seems you have changed "you" to "some people". 

(07-05-2018, 11:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm going to try it one final time: Do you give President Trump credit for the coalition bombing of Syria?

(07-05-2018, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know why you say "one final time." This is the first time you have asked my opinion on the matter. All prior conversations about it have just been whether it is subjectively or objectively good or bad.

As to the matter itself, I have mixed feelings. I think that we needed to show Syria that their behavior won't be tolerated, and working with other countries to do it was necessary. Unilateral actions aren't good like that and just make us appear as a bully. However, I am concerned about the ability to take such an action. I side with Rand Paul and some others with regards to the overuse of the use of force authorization for the War on Terror. It was used by Bush, Obama, and now Trump to justify military actions that it was not intended to justify and I am of the opinion that the executive needs to be reined in with regards to that. So do I give him credit? I don't really assign him credit or blame for this one because I have a rather midland opinion.

So that's a very long NO. I thought it was quite a simple question. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/15/macron-france-persuaded-trump-strike-syria/518960002/

Do you think that is more to Trump's credit or less?

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that's a very long NO. I thought it was quite a simple question. 

I took the first post to be seeking clarification on what I had said previously, not asking me my opinion.

And it's not a simple question. Most things with regards to policy aren't. Trying to view these as black and white oversimplifies them and perpetuates the hyper-partisanship.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 12:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Butthurt snowflakes.  Take them out of the equation and Trumps approval is more like 100.

Nah, most likely emotional folks that do not understand grounds for impeachment and think Maxine Waters is brilliant.

As to the poll: I'm sure President Hillary agrees with them. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 12:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Apparently, some folks don't agree that Trump is "doing well":

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-approval-rating-991900

I hate seeing that. Prior to Clinton, impeachments were really non-partisan. As we've become more polarized, the idea of impeachment has just become political rather than an important oversight tool of Congress. People calling for impeachment without having evidence of criminal acts are wrong.

[GMDino]

(07-05-2018, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I took the first post to be seeking clarification on what I had said previously, not asking me my opinion.

And it's not a simple question. Most things with regards to policy aren't. Trying to view these as black and white oversimplifies them and perpetuates the hyper-partisanship.

Bingo.

[*Nately120*]

(07-05-2018, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, most likely emotional folks that do not understand grounds for impeachment and think Maxine Waters is brilliant.

As to the poll: I'm sure President Hillary agrees with them. 

How could a country that elects Donald Trump to be the supreme representative be so emotional and unreasonable?  

[Dill]

(07-05-2018, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know why you say "one final time." This is the first time you have asked my opinion on the matter. All prior conversations about it have just been whether it is subjectively or objectively good or bad.

As to the matter itself, I have mixed feelings. I think that we needed to show Syria that their behavior won't be tolerated, and working with other countries to do it was necessary. Unilateral actions aren't good like that and just make us appear as a bully. However, I am concerned about the ability to take such an action. I side with Rand Paul and some others with regards to the overuse of the use of force authorization for the War on Terror. It was used by Bush, Obama, and now Trump to justify military actions that it was not intended to justify and I am of the opinion that the executive needs to be reined in with regards to that. So do I give him credit? I don't really assign him credit or blame for this one because I have a rather midland opinion.

The last Syria strike was not really unilateral, and if Macron is to be believed, then Trump was about to pull out of Syria before the strike. Macron and May appear to have lead from behind on this one.

Still Bfine's question is not really framed as a question to evaluate policy, a given military action, or "objectivity" as any social scientist would/should understand the term.  It is framed exclude all the usual measures of "good" policy, reducing a complex order to put the military jets of three countries in the air to a spontaneous individual act, like helping a neighbor fix a flat tire or calling the police to report a robbery. Can't you just say whether that was good or bad?

Since the point of the exercise is to frame the origin of Trump criticism as in the fault/bias of the critics, not in what Trump actually does, all of the quite reasonable qualifications and conditions to your judgment on the Syria strike just show that you, like others, "cannot give Trump credit."  Not even this one time.  See?  Bias! 

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hate seeing that. Prior to Clinton, impeachments were really non-partisan. As we've become more polarized, the idea of impeachment has just become political rather than an important oversight tool of Congress. People calling for impeachment without having evidence of criminal acts are wrong.

I don't know. It seems gross incompetence is a judgement that can be made bi-partisan.

[Dill]

(07-05-2018, 01:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't know. It seems gross incompetence is a judgement that can be made bi-partisan.

The bar is higher when the president's party controls both houses--but yes, possible. 

We a have president who may meet that standard.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 01:00 PM)Dill Wrote: The last Syria strike was not really unilateral, and if Macron is to be believed, then Trump was about to pull out of Syria before the strike. Macron and May appear to have lead from behind on this one.

Just to clarify, my comment about unilateral action was saying that the last Syria strike wasn't unilateral and that unilateral strikes are a bad thing. I worded that part poorly.

(07-05-2018, 01:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't know. It seems gross incompetence is a judgement that can be made bi-partisan.

But gross incompetence is not grounds for impeachment per the Constitution.

[Dill]

(07-05-2018, 12:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think that is more to Trump's credit or less?

Less, but only if you think a president should himself have a basic knowledge of the existing framework of sanctions, resolutions, and alliances which have led to US involvement in Syria, and a consistent vision of US policy for the Middle East, without which he can rarely be expected to act in US interests without outside help.   I should have put "help" in quotation marks, because he will get a lot of that at the summit with Putin.

There could be other standards for assigning "credit", though.

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But gross incompetence is not grounds for impeachment per the Constitution.

I thought Trump said we aren't using that anymore.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But gross incompetence is not grounds for impeachment per the Constitution.

I consider that a flaw.