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

[GMDino]

(09-12-2018, 10:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3 words give me solace that the Trump administration is not dangerous.

Checks and Balances

That's very pollyanna of you.

Too bad the party in charge of that seem to be more concerned with their own agenda than making sure Trump isn't out of his mind.


Why not have solace in the second amendment and organized militias too?  You have an equal chance at the current moment of either of those defending democracy in America.

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2018, 10:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3 words give me solace that the Trump administration is not dangerous.

Checks and Balances

This would give me more solace if our government was working as intended. This kind of brings this discussion back around to the original topic at hand. If what is described as happening in the op-ed and in Woodward's book is accurate, then those checks and balances aren't working. We have unelected bureaucrats checking the elected Executive instead of the other two branches of government, which aren't providing the oversight to the administration that they should be if the checks and balances are working as designed.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 10:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This would give me more solace if our government was working as intended. This kind of brings this discussion back around to the original topic at hand. If what is described as happening in the op-ed and in Woodward's book is accurate, then those checks and balances aren't working. We have unelected bureaucrats checking the elected Executive instead of the other two branches of government, which aren't providing the oversight to the administration that they should be if the checks and balances are working as designed.

I think they're working and even if it isn't s you suggest; why is that Trump's fault?

Do we still have Troops on the Korean Peninsula?

Is the Russian investigation still ongoing?

Has there been a law to fire every NFL player that refuses to stand?

Are families still separated at the border?

I could go on, but all the "dangerous" things Trump has spouted none have come to fruition. Unless, of course, one considers removal of net neutrality to be dangerous.

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2018, 10:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think they're working and even if it isn't s you suggest; why is that Trump's fault?

One of the threads that runs through my commentary on Trump is that I don't consider the current state of things his fault. I have criticisms of him, but I have consistently said that Trump is a result of what has been happening for decades, not the cause of our current troubles. Trump's ineptitude in office certainly enables the constitutional crisis I mention, but had the groundwork for this not been laid over the years we wouldn't have gotten to this point in the first place.

[GMDino]

(09-12-2018, 10:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think they're working and even if it isn't s you suggest; why is that Trump's fault?

Do we still have Troops on the Korean Peninsula?

Is the Russian investigation still ongoing?

Has there been a law to fire every NFL player that refuses to stand?

Are families still separated at the border?

I could go on, but all the "dangerous" things Trump has spouted none have come to fruition. Unless, of course, one considers removal of net neutrality to be dangerous.

It's not "Trump's fault" that congress isn't doing its job.  You don't have to jump to his defense every time you think he is being blamed for something.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2018, 10:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I could go on, but all the "dangerous" things Trump has spouted none have come to fruition. Unless, of course, one considers removal of net neutrality to be dangerous.

I consider weakening NATO dangerous, I consider trade wars dangerous, I consider an US losing more and more moral highground in this world dangerous.
I also consider sayings like "what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" dangerous, or calling the media the real enemy of the people (compared to Putin) dangerous. I consider presidential racial insensitivity (to put it mildly) dangerous, I consider a president who has open support by David Duke dangerous. I consider publicly attacking law enforcement in the strongest terms dangerous. I consider peddling conspiracy theories and being in line with Breitbart and Bannon ideology dangerous. I find presidential misinformation campaigns towards an uninformed base dangerous. I think being overly friendly towards Russia and (allegedly) let business interests drive foreign policy is dangerous.

Nothing on this list sounds dangerous to you?

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 10:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: I consider weakening NATO dangerous, I consider trade wars dangerous, I consider an US losing more and more moral highground in this world dangerous.
I also consider sayings like "what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" dangerous, or calling the media the real enemy of the people (compared to Putin) dangerous. I consider presidential racial insensitivity (to put it mildly) dangerous, I consider a president who has open support by David Duke dangerous. I consider publicly attacking law enforcement in the strongest terms dangerous. I consider peddling conspiracy theories and being in line with Breitbart and Bannon ideology dangerous. I find presidential misinformation campaigns towards an uninformed base dangerous. I think being overly friendly towards Russia and (allegedly) let business interests drive foreign policy is dangerous.

Nothing on this list sounds dangerous to you?

If we had a monarchy then perhaps; we don't.

Folks have about 2 more years to weather the "danger". What I consider more dangerous and have stated so for years is the legislative branch's inability to do its job. I find this to be much more dangerous than the current blowhard in the White House; yet, folks distract from that, by saying "did you see that tweet?"

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2018, 07:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. No doubt the hater feels their motivation to hate is more justified than the motivation of those they hate.

So what is wrong with that.

Aren't you part of the group that employs the "fallacy" of hating on Nazis, slaveowners, and pedophiles.  Because I sure haven't seen any posts by you saying "It is hypocritical to hate on pedophiles".

Seems it is only a "fallacy" when you are out on a limb defending your boy Donald.

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

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.

You make a valid point here. Hate is not a "tactic" and whether hate is a proper/improper response to someone's actions depends upon what those actions are. If Nazis hated Jews enough to kill millions, and Jews hate Nazis BECAUSE they killed millions, they are not simply employing a tactic, "just like" the Nazis. Certainly people hate Nazis. But people don't criticize Nazis because they hate them. They criticize Nazis for what they did or would do.  The point is appropriate when people argue that "hate" is the ground of Trump criticism, not Trump's actions. The locial analogy does not make Trump defenders "like Nazis."

To make your point effectively, you had to use examples of people whose actions everyone could legitimately agree to hate--so bad no one would dispute your examples or suggest that "hate" is the only reason people object to Nazis etc.  The point simply doesn't appear clearly in an example like "Bengals fans hatred for Steelers fans is no different from Steelers hatred of Bengals." 

I don't see why people cannot refer to Nazis and slave owners in political arguments, especially as a matter of education. The assumptions underpinning their beliefs are still with us and in various forms reappear in contemporary political arguments. But all readers cannot keep examples analytically separate from the topic at hand. So you have to go the extra mile NOT to imply that people who are NOT Nazis or slaveowners ARE Nazis or slaveowners or whatever. I don't think you meant to do that, but your final clause in the sentence above can be read that way.  And presto, you lose readers.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 10:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So what is wrong with that.

Aren't you part of the group that employs the "fallacy" of hating on Nazis, slaveowners, and pedophiles.  Because I sure haven't seen any posts by you saying "It is hypocritical to hate on pedophiles".

Seems it is only a "fallacy" when you are out on a limb defending your boy Donald.

I don't hate pedophiles; I hate pedophilia, ect..

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2018, 10:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If we had a monarchy then perhaps; we don't.

Folks have about 2 more years to weather the "danger". What I consider more dangerous and have stated so for years is the legislative branch's inability to do its job. I find this to be much more dangerous than the current blowhard in the White House; yet, folks distract from that, by saying "did you see that tweet?"

I agree, here, and something that I have been saying (or trying to say) with my commentary on this op-ed. Congress should be checking the worst of the impulses of the POTUS, not those appointed by him. The fact that those appointed by him take on that role, whether out of necessity or what they perceive as necessity, means that Congress is not doing its job. This is just one more failure on the part of our legislative branch and is born from the fear the majority has with regards to the voters. Because of the popularity of Trump within the GOP, which is very high, they are hesitant to push back against him in public. Since everything policy-wise they could do would be public, it leaves the bureaucrats to keep him in check.

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2018, 10:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't hate pedophiles; I hate pedophilia, ect..

(09-12-2018, 10:42 AM)Dill Wrote:  If Nazis hated Jews enough to kill millions, and Jews hate Nazis BECAUSE they killed millions, they are not simply employing a tactic, "just like" the Nazis. Certainly people hate Nazis. But people don't criticize Nazis because they hate them. They criticize Nazis for what they did or would do.  The point is appropriate when people argue that "hate" is the ground of Trump criticism, not Trump's actions. The locial analogy does not make Trump defenders "like Nazis."

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2018, 10:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3 words give me solace that the Trump administration is not dangerous.

Checks and Balances

Yet you want Kavanaugh to be confirmed for the SCOTUS, right?

And you want the Republicans to maintain control of congress also, right?

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 10:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet you want Kavanaugh to be confirmed for the SCOTUS, right?

And you want the Republicans to maintain control of congress also, right?

Yep. But hey, who knows what's going to happen in November. Isn't our democracy great?

[GMDino]

(09-12-2018, 10:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If we had a monarchy then perhaps; we don't.

Folks have about 2 more years to weather the "danger". What I consider more dangerous and have stated so for years is the legislative branch's inability to do its job. I find this to be much more dangerous than the current blowhard in the White House; yet, folks distract from that, by saying "did you see that tweet?"

Trump's damage will last a while after he leaves office.

His nominations to key agencies have probably set them back years either through what they accomplished in getting changed or the what previous changes they simply stopped enforcing.

Congress approving them is not checks and balances.

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2018, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. But hey, who knows what's going to happen in November. Isn't our democracy great?

No one knows.  


I just find it a little odd to claim that you are depending on checks and balances against Trump but at the same time saying you don't want any checks and balances on Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No one knows.  


I just find it a little odd to claim that you are depending on checks and balances against Trump but at the same time saying you don't want any checks and balances on Trump.

I assume that made more sense in your head. You do realize the GOP currently controls congress don't you?

[fredtoast]

(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.

When using an analogy the whole point is to use an extreme example that no one can disagree with.  

So I will keep using Nazi, slave owner, and pedophile in my analogies to point out flawed logic.  If you don't like it then just don't use flawed logic or else learn how to understand the difference between an analogy and a personal attack.

This happens all the time with the rubes in Jungle noise.  They complain about Marvin doing something and when I point out that some one like Bill Belichick does the same thing the point goes completely over their heads and they start mocking me for saying "Marvin is Bill Belichick".  They just don't get it.

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2018, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I assume that made more sense in your head. You do realize the GOP currently controls congress don't you?

Yes. And many Republican Congressional leaders are trying to end the Meuller investigation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2018, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. And many Republican Congressional leaders are trying to end the Meuller investigation.

Trying you say? hhmmm..seems like it's working.