So... who wrote the NYT op-ed?

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: For those that forgot or never experienced what civility looks like:

Would you go as far as to call Obama un-civil, or as uncivil as Trump?

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: For those that forgot or never experienced what civility looks like:

https://youtu.be/JdqqG2Di2Vo

So why is it okay for Bush to be critical of Trump, but not Obama?

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 08:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: Would you go as far as to call Obama un-civil, or as uncivil as Trump?

You still don't get it.  Trump could murder someone and Bfine would squeal if Obama criticized him for it.

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 10:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You still don't get it.  Trump could murder someone and Bfine would squeal if Obama criticized him for it.

...ok, I don't mind that interjection, for that post is kind of funny.

In all seriousness, that was my question, minus the obvious exaggeration. One sure can mention a break of certain norms (which I consider acceptable at times) by Obama, that's fair enough. But one can not even start to use that to now equate Obama's behaviour to Trump's behaviour. There are huge areas of grey in between.
I learned that the conservative view often tends to break things down to a black and white (please, that's not meant racially, just a phrase). I don't mean to call that a wrong approach. Like most simplifications it's just a model, used deliberately or not, that fails at times to reflect reality. "Trump did wrong, Obama did wrong, Bush did good" is just too simple a truth.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2018, 06:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: But doesn't a norm require some kind of surrounding normality? I don't think norms are meant to be principles to be upheld no matter what. How bad do things need to be that a former president can speak up without objections? There has to be a certain point somewhere, a certain amount of malpractice that makes speaking up ok, right.

I see what you're saying here, but I disagree. Norms need to be upheld because they function as supports to the system. A democratic society is a constant work in progress. I think of it like a wall or structure being built. As the building is going on, there is often a support structure in place to keep things upright until it can stand on its own. Norms are those supports. Some become codified and become a part of the wall itself, but others just stay in place, holding it upright. Since this structure is never completed, those supports are always needed. Over the past three or four decades we have been kicking out those supports, and it's a concerning situation.

(09-10-2018, 06:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: If Obama feels that point is reached, I think he should do or say about it whatever he sees fit. And as I said: I feel when this much grim insider information about a presidency is available and there's a legit reason to believe those are not all faked and forged, then maybe there's a certain danger looming or it's at least not unreasonable to see it that way. And then maybe the phrase "bad things happen if good people do nothing because norms forbid it" applies and it might be a former president's duty to not rest in silence.

I think what the more appropriate situation would be is that the left pushes forward a good figure for a leader, not necessarily a candidate for 2020, but a good unifying voice, and Obama passes the torch to them. Lets them say the things. Like I said, there are a number of reasons for ex-presidents to stay out of things, but I think propping up the next leader of the party would be a way to maintain influence without a direct hand in things.

(09-10-2018, 09:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Why are you all so sensitive over Trump's "not having tact" or "not acting presidential" , or so-called "bad behavior"?
What has he hurt other than your feelings?

It's all about demonizing Republicans.
The vitriol for Trump is the same as it was for Romney, the same as it was for McCain...except with Trump you found yourselves a reason...the way he talks hurts your feelings.

I dislike these things because I have respect for the office of POTUS and respect for our country. As to the second part, you're wrong. Not much else to say about that.

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see what you're saying here, but I disagree.

Same here :) I get your point. Especially when a presient breaks norm after norm, you don't want to react to that development by starting to break norms as well. I see the building staggering. I just don't think a staggering building is stabilized by not reacting to the situation. Which, in short, is: Times changed.

Obama breaks a norm out of concern for national security. That is how I see it, that's what I believe I can reasonably assume. This isn't about the ACA or some policy, it's about the demise of the presidency and the threat that poses. I feel, at some point there are bigger responsibilities that can appear for ex-presidents, even if they weren't previously defined. Now if concerns like those are valid, I dare not say. I just see an ex-president worried not about policy, but about democracy and all the things that held it together.

Isn't it a moral imperative to break a norm if one sees a threat like that? When there's more and more obviously good reason to?

(09-11-2018, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what the more appropriate situation would be is that the left pushes forward a good figure for a leader, not necessarily a candidate for 2020, but a good unifying voice

OK. I agree. But they don't. That's not Obama's fault, he did disappear alright, wrote his book and upheld all the norms. Now he's filling a void that should have been filled by now. But whom should he pass any torch to? He can't just crown someone.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-11-2018, 12:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Same here :) I get your point. Especially when a presient breaks norm after norm, you don't want to react to that development by starting to break norms as well. I see the building staggering. I just don't think a staggering building is stabilized by not reacting to the situation. Which, in short, is: Times changed.

Obama breaks a norm out of concern for national security. That is how I see it, that's what I believe I can reasonably assume. This isn't about the ACA or some policy, it's about the demise of the presidency and the threat that poses. I feel, at some point there are bigger responsibilities that can appear for ex-presidents, even if they weren't previously defined. Now if concerns like those are valid, I dare not say. I just see an ex-president worried not about policy, but about democracy and all the things that held it together.

Isn't it a moral imperative to break a norm if one sees a threat like that? When there's more and more obviously good reason to?



OK. I agree. But they don't. That's not Obama's fault, he did disappear alright, wrote his book and upheld all the norms. Now he's filling a void that should have been filled by now. But whom should he pass any torch to? He can't just crown someone.

I think he is saying there are plenty of people, like a whole lot, who are reacting.  It's not necessary for this particular individual to react.  He could start promoting other people who are reacting.  I mean this norm is going to be blown up in a few years, but now he's got precedent.  

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 12:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think he is saying there are plenty of people, like a whole lot, who are reacting.  It's not necessary for this particular individual to react.  

Maybe it is though. For better or worse, he is unique, and his breaking a norm (I honestly have to admit I don't see it as one of the most fundamental ones) sends an unique message of urgency. 

Especially if one does not feel that urgency is justified, I get that Obama gets critizised. But I get why he might feel it is necessary to react for him in particular. He can't just whisper his unique experience into Kamala Harris' ear.

[Belsnickel]

(09-11-2018, 12:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Isn't it a moral imperative to break a norm if one sees a threat like that? When there's more and more obviously good reason to?

Only if there is no other recourse AND if the benefits outweigh the costs. At least from my moral viewpoint.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 08:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: Would you go as far as to call Obama un-civil, or as uncivil as Trump?

No, I do not believe Obama; nor any POTUS in our recent history, to be as overtly uncivil as Trump. He is very polished and politically correct. Unfortunately many place delivery over content. They both want to push their agendas.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 10:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You still don't get it.  Trump could murder someone and Bfine would squeal if Obama criticized him for it.

So Fredlike. I am disappointed tat Hollo entertained it.

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Fredlike. I am disappointed tat Hollo entertained it.

It helped make my own former point overly clear, I added minus the exaggeration. In the bigger picture, I do agree with you and you know that. The things thrown around at you and some others are not constructive and also to me, those interruptions get annoying at times. Maybe I should mention that still more often, but then again, maybe some things can be ignored further along. It's not like things change any way.

I  found it a funny satirical hyperbole of my stance still. Under that aspect, I considered it as helpful in a way. And whether I entertain it or not plays no role anyway. Interjections like those show as much disrespect for me as they do for you. I'm just the Roman adapting to Rome here.

(09-11-2018, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, I do not believe Obama; nor any POTUS in our recent history, to be as overtly uncivil as Trump. He is very polished and politically correct. Unfortunately many place delivery over content. They both want to push their agendas.

Both things play its part, being civil is still important. Also, I choose Obama over Trump content-wise as well, not regarding any agenda or policies. This is a matter of the demise of the presidency and the dangers coming with it. When it comes to honoring the office, I choose Obama over Trump any day, in any aspect really.
As to pushing agendas, I still believe Obama's actions are not agenda-driven, but worry-driven. Why wouldn't you?

[Rotobeast]

Rand Paul. He came out with the lie detector bit to cover.


Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Fredlike. I am disappointed tat Hollo entertained it.

I was just paraphrasing your boy.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” 




And you keep proving him right.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was just paraphrasing your boy.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” 




And you keep proving him right.

Not sure how that prompted you to put my name in your mouth. I could point out that I didn't even vote for him, but why bother.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-11-2018, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was just paraphrasing your boy.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” 




And you keep proving him right.

Well, to be fair, so could Obama. 

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I could point out that I didn't even vote for him, but why bother.

Why bother indeed.  Everyone here has seen how strongly you support him.  For a while half of your posts did nothing but accuse people who criticized Trump of suffering from a mental illness.

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, I do not believe Obama; nor any POTUS in our recent history, to be as overtly uncivil as Trump. He is very polished and politically correct. Unfortunately many place delivery over content. They both want to push their agendas.

"Pushing agendas" is what presidents are elected to do, what they are supposed to do.

The fact that both Trump and Obama push agendas doesn't make their agendas or the manner of pushing equivalent.

And "delivery" is not so strictly separable from content. Trump contradicts himself and his own cabinet, often lying and distorting or flipping statistics/information along the way. (Remember his claim that McCain got out of the Hanoi Hilton through his father's connections.) He calls the free press "enemies of the people" and refuses serious interviews and refuses serious questions. 

You cannot maintain this this does not affect the content of policy--just like Obama only less polite.  This "delivery" is authoritarian, autocratic, symptomatic of Trump's inability to understand the requirements of governance. It is a concern in itself.

[Dill]

(09-10-2018, 09:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Why are you all so sensitive over Trump's "not having tact" or "not acting presidential" , or so-called "bad behavior"?
What has he hurt other than your feelings?

It's all about demonizing Republicans.
The vitriol for Trump is the same as it was for Romney, the same as it was for McCain...except with Trump you found yourselves a reason...the way he talks hurts your feelings.

Well to make a long story short--governing a modern, liberal democracy requires tact. That flows in part from understand the investment and role of various stakeholders in government, including the people. And yes, it "hurts my feelings" when a president shows contempt for rule of law and risks national security with his PR antics.

Curious you think the "vitriol" was the same for McCain and Romney. It certainly was not. 

If I hear someone claim that laws against domestic abuse are simply about demonizing men, I have to assume the claimant just doesn't see the abuse, or if he does, sees nothing really wrong with it.  "Husbands and wives always fight. So What?"  Same for people who don't see Trump's mulitple violations of civility and public decency (not to mention his failure to understand, much less articulate, policy), or they do see them but don't such behavior as deal-breaking.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why bother indeed.  Everyone here has seen how strongly you support him.  For a while half of your posts did nothing but accuse people who criticized Trump of suffering from a mental illness.

I think when you say everybody; you're really talking about 2 people (if we're to believe they are actually 2 people). I'll bet everybody can guess who those 2 people are.