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

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: "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.

As I said: Obama is much more polished and thinks before he speaks; Trump says what is on his mind at that moment. I'll judge a Presidency based on accomplishment rather than emotion. We're less than 2 years into this one.

There's a very good chance that the Trump Presidency will be a complete and utter failure that ends in disgrace; but there's a chance some good may come of it. If that is "defending Trump" then guilty as charged.  

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a very good chance that the Trump Presidency will be a complete and utter failure that ends in disgrace; but there's a chance some good may come of it. If that is "defending Trump" then guilty as charged.  

No.  That is not "defending Trump".

Claiming that anyone who criticizes Trump is mentally ill is "defending Trump".

But you are still "guilty as charged".

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  That is not "defending Trump".

Claiming that anyone who criticizes Trump is mentally ill is "defending Trump".

But you are still "guilty as charged".

Nah, I don't claim anyone who criticizes Trump is deranged; only those that are obsessed by it.

[hollodero]

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

I reconsidered, regarding the current dialogue. I'm disappointed in me too now. This is just some personal bickering I certainly didn't mean to encourage.

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: Obama is much more polished and thinks before he speaks; Trump says what is on his mind at that moment. I'll judge a Presidency based on accomplishment rather than emotion. We're less than 2 years into this one.

There's a very good chance that the Trump Presidency will be a complete and utter failure that ends in disgrace; but there's a chance some good may come of it. If that is "defending Trump" then guilty as charged.  

Hmm. Still little recognition of what's on Trump's mind, or not. The content as well as the delivery.

Would you say that judging Trump ill-suited for the presidency because he made fun of a disabled person and doesn't understand how the government works and uses his office to punish critics is judging on "emotion" rather than accomplishment?  Could we judge presidents according to ethical standards--as we did the very accomplished Nixon--or is that what you are rendering as "emotion"?

You get the "Trump defender" tag not because you think there is a chance "some good" will come of his presidency, but because you tend to run interference for him when his outrageous behavior draws criticism.  Your critique for the critics of Trump's bad behavior, not Trump's behavior. If you didn't vote for him and really don't approve of his behavior, why would you do that?

[Dill]

(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.  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.  

Not sure about that.  Again, Obama is not just violating a norm because "Trump did it so now it's ok."

I think part of the reaction to Trump could well be a re-valuation of civility and return to those unwritten norms.  If a Democrat is elected in 2020 and performs reasonably well, I'll bet Bush II remains silent.  Obama too--if an "adult" Republican like Kasich or even Pence were elected.

Not everyone agrees that current situation requires this Obama-style violation, but I do. If Woodward is to be believed, we have a president wandering around the White House barging in on policy discussions to ramble on about Hillary Clinton, as fearful subordinates stroke his ego, pull documents from his desk to prevent their signing, and prevent him from going one-on-one with Mueller.  Over the last 19 months, he has steadily replaced people who reality check him. How can this get better? How will this person perform if we have a real national emergency, like a large scale terrorist attack in DC or New York, a Katrina-scale hurricane on US shores, or a shooting incident on the Korean DMZ? With the stroke of a pen he can scotch or misdirect emergency funds, bomb whom he wants with a phone call. Some still think, somehow, he can be controlled or the government just manages somehow, without direction from the top.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm. Still little recognition of what's on Trump's mind, or not. The content as well as the delivery.

Would you say that judging Trump ill-suited for the presidency because he made fun of a disabled person and doesn't understand how the government works and uses his office to punish critics is judging on "emotion" rather than accomplishment?  Could we judge presidents according to ethical standards--as we did the very accomplished Nixon--or is that what you are rendering as "emotion"?

You get the "Trump defender" tag not because you think there is a chance "some good" will come of his presidency, but because you tend to run interference for him when his outrageous behavior draws criticism.  Your critique for the critics of Trump's bad behavior, not Trump's behavior. If you didn't vote for him and really don't approve of his behavior, why would you do that?

First, because I once took an oath.

Secondly, it is to point out that fallacy employed by those that constantly criticize Trump by engaging in the same tactics he employs. The Left hates that Trump hates so they reciprocate with guess what.....Hate.

As to being ill-fitted for POTUS, I will and have said many of his actions are below the Office, but all I can do is cast my vote and make the most of the situation. If I want to try to illustrate the hate espoused by some; so be it. There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine? I was equally aloof while Obama was in Command; although, I disagreed with a great many of his choices. I can only think of about 5-6 time I overtly criticized him in his 8 years. Some do that with Trump in one day and vilified O'Riely, Limbaugh, and others for questioning Obama. Life's too short to be filled with such venom.

For instance this very thread has turned from who opined the NYT article to excusing Obama for conduct that is beneath the office simply because Trump is beneath the office.

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First, because I once took an oath.

Secondly, it is to point out that fallacy employed by those that constantly criticize Trump by engaging in the same tactics he employs. The Left hates that Trump hates so they reciprocate with guess what.....Hate.

As to being ill-fitted for POTUS, I will and have said many of his actions are below the Office, but all I can do is cast my vote and make the most of the situation. If I want to try to illustrate the hate espoused by some; so be it. There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine? I was equally aloof while Obama was in Command; although, I disagreed with a great many of his choices. I can only think of about 5-6 time I overtly criticized him in his 8 years. Some do that with Trump in one day and vilified O'Riely, Limbaugh, and others for questioning Obama. Life's too short to be filled with such venom.

For instance this very thread has turned from who opined the NYT article to excusing Obama for conduct that is beneath the office simply because Trump is beneath the office.

1.  The whole "People who hate Nazi'/slaveowners/pedophiles are just as bad as the Nazis/slaveowners/pedophiles" logic is ridiculous, but it is one of the favorite arguments of Nazis, slave owners, and pedophiles.

2.  You have never been "aloof".  In thread after thread you have dug in your heels and gotten into very heated debates based on your deeply held conservative beliefs.  Everyone here has seen this.  Claiming you are "aloof" is a joke.  How many people around here get suspended for being too "aloof"?

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to being ill-fitted for POTUS, I will and have said many of his actions are below the Office, but all I can do is cast my vote and make the most of the situation. If I want to try to illustrate the hate espoused by some; so be it. There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine?

Is that a serious question?

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The whole "People who hate Nazi'/slaveowners/pedophiles are just as bad as the Nazis/slaveowners/pedophiles" logic is ridiculous, but it is one of the favorite arguments of Nazis, slave owners, and pedophiles.

2.  You have never been "aloof".  In thread after thread you have dug in your heels and gotten into very heated debates based on your deeply held conservative beliefs.  Everyone here has seen this.  Claiming you are "aloof" is a joke.  How many people around here get suspended for being too "aloof"?

1. No doubt the hater feels their motivation to hate is more justified than the motivation of those they hate.

2, Your point is noted. As to my suspension: The best reason I can come up with or anyone can explain to me is I started a thread asking what we could do to make PnR a more civil place.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 07:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Is that a serious question?

Sure it is. There are many that feel Trump is doing great things for the country. Does the fact that one thinks him uncivil carry more weight?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-11-2018, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The whole "People who hate Nazi'/slaveowners/pedophiles are just as bad as the Nazis/slaveowners/pedophiles" logic is ridiculous, but it is one of the favorite arguments of Nazis, slave owners, and pedophiles.

Lord knows I'm not thin skinned or care about personal attacks.  That being said, you really need to stop comparing people on this board that you disagree with to supporters of the Confederacy, Nazis, slave owners, etc.  It's patently obvious what you're doing and it's equally vile and childish on your part.  I'm sure you'll want to offer some mealy mouthed dissembling statement about how that's not what you're "really" doing, so please spare us having to read it.  Do us all a favor and cut this disgusting tactic from your repertoire because it's not cool and it's getting old.

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it is. There are many that feel Trump is doing great things for the country. Does the fact that one thinks him uncivil carry more weight?

I think so, I really do. I think your opinion that Trump is beneath the office carries more weight than the opinion of a Trump rally goer who believes in pizzagate or birtherism or Killary stories, Q, 9/11 conspiracies and whatnot. 
The person with less information and what this person "feels" carries less weight than your less ignorant opinion. Yours is more based on information, facts and things you saw, read and heard. Theirs is more based on Hannity and Breitbart, a fake news, don't believe anyone but me culture and hatred of everything liberal. I think you can't elevate ignorance like that, by declaring every opinion equally grave. That's what the voting booth is for.

You also simply can't use Trump supporters to declare your own view insignificant. He's beneath the office. That is your view as well as mine and I don't get why that isn't enough to stop spindoctoring around it. With that, I'm not even argueing whether Trump does good things for the country or not (I need to add that I don't just think he's beneath the office, but that his presidency also actually poses dangers).

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 07:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lord knows I'm not thin skinned or care about personal attacks.  That being said, you really need to stop comparing people on this board that you disagree with to supporters of the Confederacy, Nazis, slave owners, etc.  It's patently obvious what you're doing and it's equally vile and childish on your part.  I'm sure you'll want to offer some mealy mouthed dissembling statement about how that's not what you're "really" doing, so please spare us having to read it.  Do us all a favor and cut this disgusting tactic from your repertoire because it's not cool and it's getting old.

I second that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2018, 08:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think so, I really do. I think your opinion that Trump is beneath the office carries more weight than the opinion of a Trump rally goer who believes in pizzagate or birtherism or Killary stories, Q, 9/11 conspiracies and whatnot. 
The person with less information and what this person "feels" carries less weight than your less ignorant opinion. Yours is more based on information, facts and things you saw, read and heard. Theirs is more based on Hannity and Breitbart, a fake news, don't believe anyone but me culture and hatred of everything liberal. I think you can't elevate ignorance like that, by declaring every opinion equally grave. That's what the voting booth is for.

You also simply can't use Trump supporters to declare your own view insignificant. He's beneath the office. That is your view as well as mine and I don't get why that isn't enough to stop spindoctoring around it. With that, I'm not even argueing whether Trump does good things for the country or not (I need to add that I don't just think he's beneath the office, but that his presidency also actually poses dangers).

It kind of goes back to the beneath the office thing. I think what Obama did (criticizing his successor at a political rally) is beneath the office. Yet in this very thread we have folks stating why it is justified that he do so. I think when Trump tweets petty stuff it is beneath the office; yet there are people that suggest he is justified in doing so.

[hollodero]

(09-11-2018, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It kind of goes back to the beneath the office thing. I think what Obama did (criticizing his successor at a political rally) is beneath the office. Yet in this very thread we have folks stating why it is justified that he do so.

Me being among them, so I get the point.

(09-11-2018, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think when Trump tweets petty stuff it is beneath the office; yet there are people that suggest he is justified in doing so.

But Obama worries (or maybe not, I'm not up to declaring him Mr. perfect). Trump just tweet-lies. And insults and misleads and smears investigators and institutions and parrots FOX etc. etc. - thing is, does things that are way, way lower beneath the office. Of course not just on twitter.
And that's exactly what I mean by spindoctoring around it. In this case, it's creating an equivalence between those two instances, as if "acting beneath the office" were an absolute value that both Obama and Trump violated equally and hence both are equally guilty.

Or can you honestly say that what Obama did here in dishonor of the office is equal to everything Trump did up to this point in dishonor of the office?

-- Also, what some people suggest (in this case that Trump is justified in his asinine tweets) doesn't mean much. There are folks that think Trump is justified in anything. And that many people believe that doesn't mean it is or should be or that no one could say.

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First, because I once took an oath.

Secondly, it is to point out that fallacy employed by those that constantly criticize Trump by engaging in the same tactics he employs. The Left hates that Trump hates so they reciprocate with guess what.....Hate.

As to being ill-fitted for POTUS, I will and have said many of his actions are below the Office, but all I can do is cast my vote and make the most of the situation. If I want to try to illustrate the hate espoused by some; so be it. There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine? I was equally aloof while Obama was in Command; although, I disagreed with a great many of his choices. I can only think of about 5-6 time I overtly criticized him in his 8 years. Some do that with Trump in one day and vilified O'Riely, Limbaugh, and others for questioning Obama. Life's too short to be filled with such venom.

For instance this very thread has turned from who opined the NYT article to excusing Obama for conduct that is beneath the office simply because Trump is beneath the office.

You are not a serving officer. What "oath" could prevent you from exercising your civic responsibility to hold government officials accountable to their electorate?

A few comments.

1. You are not pointing out any "fallacy." To demonstrate a fallacy you have to show how the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises, that the logical relations it presents are invalid.  People offer very specific reasons for concern about Trump's suitability for office that go far beyond his incivility. Those are premises from which certain negative consequences could reasonably be expected to follow. Rather than demonstrate why those premises are false or negative consequences should not follow from them, you simply ignore these specifics and assert broad generalities about "hate," "choices," and "tactics."  And suddenly, the specific and unprecedented nature of Trump's misdeeds disappears as "both sides" are just hating and using the same tactics--as if Obama were daily tweeting out nasty comments about womens looks and calling the press "enemy of the people"; as if George Bush too had publicly insulted and threatended his cabinet members; and as if John McCain had a history of using the legal system to harass critics and required a "fixer" to clean up his messes; as if Hillary Clinton had marched Trump accusers into the presidential debates. 

2. You are not "illustrating" hate when you ignore the quality and quantity of evidence arguing against Trump's fitness for office. You are exemplifying denial. You disagreed with some of Obama's choices and others disagree with some of Trump's--like his decision to take Putin's word over his own intelligence services and to spill classified intel to Russian diplomats in an unsecured Oval Office.  So if people criticize Trump 5-6 times in a day, the only reason can be "venom," not that his chaotic White House actually produces 5-6 cringeworthy news items per day because of Trump's "choices" while Obama's did not. To repeat--you simply disconnect critique from evidence, then find no difference between criticism of Obama and criticism of Trump--except Trump gets more. 

3. "There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine?"  Do you have any interest at all in examining the ground of these pro-Trump feelings or opinions, or is the fact of their existence enough in itself to balance the argument he is unfit?   Why shouldn't ungrounded "opinions" be less valued than grounded, or is it unfair to suppose some better than others because they are formed with more care for logic and evidence?

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It kind of goes back to the beneath the office thing. I think what Obama did (criticizing his successor at a political rally) is beneath the office. Yet in this very thread we have folks stating why it is justified that he do so. I think when Trump tweets petty stuff it is beneath the office; yet there are people that suggest he is justified in doing so.

More points:

1. People aren't just criticizing Trump because of the many things he has done which are beneath the office--way beneath it.  Or because he is uncivil. The problem is that he is ignorant of government, world politics, and unstable and angry, easily manipulated. Angry, irresponsible tweets are not just rude. They show the commander in chief is unfocused, unable to prioritize, easily diverted from larger responsibilities, and gets his news from questionable sources. This has consequences for national security, the potential to undo years of diplomatic accomplishment.

Rather than say "but some feel Trump is a good president,"  why not explain why, in your view, Trump's most concerning actions will not likely have serious consequences.  E.g., Trump is on record saying he doesn't think we need troops in Korea. He wants to bring them home. His generals and secretaries of state and intel directors appear unable to convince him that "we are there to prevent WW III."  Do you think their concern about his inability/unwillingness to understand their explanations is invalid?  Tack onto that the impulsive summit with Kim, the insistence that the nuke problem was solved after that, and evidence of current intel that NK's nuclear program is proceeding apace while the previous work of sanctions is largely undone.  If generals and intel directors and state department officials worry about Trump's behavior, shouldn't I worry too? 

2. We are not supposed to make noise in the library. But if there is a fire, even a librarian can be excused for breaking this norm and yelling "fire."  The difference between people who think Obama actions are not "beneath the office," and those who think they make him no different than Trump, is that the former think Trump poses a danger, given the immense power and protection accorded him, and his inability to control himself or learn from mistakes. The latter don't see a danger.  No fire.

Since I think Trump poses a real danger, I am more than suggesting Obama was right to step up address the impending constitutional crisis.

[ballsofsteel]

Is money laundering against the law?

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 01:58 AM)Dill Wrote: More points:

1. People aren't just criticizing Trump because of the many things he has done which are beneath the office--way beneath it.  Or because he is uncivil. The problem is that he is ignorant of government, world politics, and unstable and angry, easily manipulated. Angry, irresponsible tweets are not just rude. They show the commander in chief is unfocused, unable to prioritize, easily diverted from larger responsibilities, and gets his news from questionable sources. This has consequences for national security, the potential to undo years of diplomatic accomplishment.

Rather than say "but some feel Trump is a good president,"  why not explain why, in your view, Trump's most concerning actions will not likely have serious consequences.  E.g., Trump is on record saying he doesn't think we need troops in Korea. He wants to bring them home. His generals and secretaries of state and intel directors appear unable to convince him that "we are there to prevent WW III."  Do you think their concern about his inability/unwillingness to understand their explanations is invalid?  Tack onto that the impulsive summit with Kim, the insistence that the nuke problem was solved after that, and evidence of current intel that NK's nuclear program is proceeding apace while the previous work of sanctions is largely undone.  If generals and intel directors and state department officials worry about Trump's behavior, shouldn't I worry too? 

2. We are not supposed to make noise in the library. But if there is a fire, even a librarian can be excused for breaking this norm and yelling "fire."  The difference between people who think Obama actions are not "beneath the office," and those who think they make him no different than Trump, is that the former think Trump poses a danger, given the immense power and protection accorded him, and his inability to control himself or learn from mistakes. The latter don't see a danger.  No fire.

Since I think Trump poses a real danger, I am more than suggesting Obama was right to step up address the impending constitutional crisis.

3 words give me solace that the Trump administration is not dangerous.

Checks and Balances