US Presidential Candidates

I am glad that Trump is pissing off Republicans in Congress. I am glad that Democrats may well see impeaching him as politically detrimental to their aspirations. I am glad Trump is picking fights with our partisan media. This ego driven, bombastic and openly confrontational style of politics invites darn near everyone to be at least mildly antagonistic towards him. Perhaps, each side of the isle can leverage his ego driven antagonism to get things done. If Congress enacts things that does not work, let Trump take the full blame for the policy. If the policy works, allow him the lion's share of credit but take some as well. Perhaps, perhaps this bombastic President will finally get Congress to once again take up their responsibilities as one of three co-equal branches of the US federal government.

His admitted populism makes him neither Republican nor Democrat, really. Both sides can work with him and against him as the circumstances warrant. That Trump won as neither a true Republican or Democrat should be the biggest political boon for Congress as a whole, yet our representatives appear to be blind to the possibilities.

Perhaps I am wrong and all I am focusing on is the lamentation of children and spoiled adults who did not get their way. Let's see how the elected officials in Congress respond to Trumps initiatives.

biochem wrote:

ksandgren wrote:According to British bookmakers the odds are better than even that he won't last four years - leaving by impeachment or resignation to avoid impeachment, and that doesn't even consider the likelihood of assassination of His Pompossity.

Wishful thinking.

I agree, but only because:

1. The GOP will never impeach a Republican president no matter *what* he does.
2. Trump will never resign because it would be embarrassing. His ego would not permit it.


(unless of course he gets so fed up with actually having to work that he finds some ridiculously twisted explanation for how he's walking away as some kind of noble gesture or something)

Congress is learning out to manage him. The keys are:

1. Take him seriously not literally

That sounds an awful lot like a politically correct spin on "Don't believe a fucking word that comes out of his mouth".

2. Ask Ivanka, Jared or Kellyanne or someone else he trusts to talk to him

And that sounds an awful lot like advice for dealing with a tin pot dictator you're afraid will scream "off with his head" if you upset him because he's too unhinged to just be spoken to like an adult so you tiptoe around and ask someone in his family who he won't immediately turn on in a childish tantrum to talk to him instead.

3. Recognize the fact that his management preference is to hire good people and let them run things which means that congress can work directly with the cabinet.

Have you *seen* his picks for cabinet? It would be all well and good to talk about him preferring to delegate to "good people" if he had:

a) Any understanding of what the responsibilities of the jobs he's trying to fill actually are so he had any basis for even evaluating what a good person to fill them would be. (he does not, he doesn't even know what his own job responsibilities are)
b) Any ability to distinguish "skilled" from "tells me how great and smart I am" or alternatively "is rich and therefore obviously talented". (he does not)

4. Recognize that he will sign most of Congress's wish list if they let him take the credit
5. Realize that although he's not a conservative, he'll be on their side if they treat him with respect. He craves respect and the Democrats are making this one easy by acting like deranged lunatics

Let us again refer back to "ways to deal with unhinged authoritarian leader 101".

And by "acting like deranged lunatics" you mean paying attention to the things that come out of the new president's mouth, as opposed to burying their head in the sand and pretending everything is fine while saying things like "take him seriously, not literally"?


Deranged lunatics would, oh, declare a presidential candidate was running a child sex ring out of the non existent basement of a pizza shop and actually believe it because it said so on all their right wing friends facebook pages.

Deranged lunatics would declare the president of the United States had a secret plan to invade Texas in operation Jade Helm. And was prepping for this invasion through secret tunnels built under WalMarts... because it said so on all their right wing friends facebook pages.



Simply saying "the new president has made these various contemptible statements/ committed these various contemptible actions... and we're not going to just pretend it's ok" is not being a "deranged lunatic". It's being awake.

PeterZ wrote:I am glad that Trump is pissing off Republicans in Congress.

You realize that just pissing off Republicans isn;t a virtue in and of itself right?

If he was pissing them off by taking some principled stand on an issue they opposed, fine, great!

If he's pissing them off because he's just fucking incompetent and wanted to spend his first weekend yelling at the press and calling them a bunch of liars in front of the entire country for *accurately* reporting his inaugural attendance numbers like a tantrum throwing 6 year old... not so great.

I am glad that Democrats may well see impeaching him as politically detrimental to their aspirations. I am glad Trump is picking fights with our partisan media.

Again, just picking fights is not a virtue in itself.

He just sent the white House press secretary out to make a flat out declaration in opposition to objective reality that was Baghdad Bob levels of delusional and to yell at the press for not accepting it as truth.... after doing the same thing himself and flat out calling them the most dishonest liars on earth personally at the CIA in front of the freaking memorial wall because.... I repeat... they reported something that was UNARGUABLY TRUE.

The leader of the nation throwing a tantrum and making public announcements calling the media a bunch of liars for reporting something the is flat out true is a Big. Fucking. Problem Peter.

We don't need repeats of an authoritarian leader starting things off by ranting about the lugenpress in reaction to them telling the plain damn truth.

Gcomeau,

I agree with much of what you say. I also would still prefer this President over Clinton. She lied in much the same way about Bengazi as apparently Trump is attempting to now. Politicians are liars, news flash!

No, pissing off the Republicans is not by itself a virtue. Quite the opposite. My point is that if it takes someone with this lack of virtue to get Congress to take their responsibilities seriously, that's a plus. If he pisses both sides enough that Congress begins to act like a co-equal branch of government rather than a rubber stamp for the President, again not virtuous but still beneficial to the US as a whole.

If you guys on the left are correct, the benefits of strong branches of government jealously guarding their prerogatives will be far out weighed by the faults of this President. I believe that will not be the case. That a hated President will force Congress (both sides of the isle) to begin acting like they have a backbone.

PeterZ wrote:Gcomeau,

I agree with much of what you say. I also would still prefer this President over Clinton. She lied in much the same way about Bengazi as apparently Trump is attempting to now.

Oh ffs... no... she... did... not.

There have been like 10 freaking investigations on that and they all found the same thing! What the hell?

No, pissing off the Republicans is not by itself a virtue. Quite the opposite. My point is that if it takes someone with this lack of virtue to get Congress to take their responsibilities seriously, that's a plus. If he pisses both sides enough that Congress begins to act like a co-equal branch of government rather than a rubber stamp for the President, again not virtuous but still beneficial to the US as a whole.

If you guys on the left are correct, the benefits of strong branches of government jealously guarding their prerogatives will be far out weighed by the faults of this President. I believe that will not be the case. That a hated President will force Congress (both sides of the isle) to begin acting like they have a backbone.

If only... I will however grant one potential positive coming out of it. The press is showing some signs of actually waking up. That positive however is far outweighed by the negative of the leader of the country with a following of millions who will believe any lie he tells telling them all that the press lies about everything don't trust them they're the most dishonest people on the face of the earth. Because now even if the press does start doing their job better he's creating a huge class of people in the country that will just be immune to reports of reality anyway so it won't matter.


That kind of unsubstantiated undermining of people's faith in the basic institutions of a free society is beyond dangerous... and a free press is a bedrock requirement of that kind of society.


It is one thing to level legitimate criticisms at the press, they've earned plenty.


This is very VERY different than that however.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Gcomeau,

I agree with much of what you say. I also would still prefer this President over Clinton. She lied in much the same way about Bengazi as apparently Trump is attempting to now.

Oh ffs... no... she... did... not.

There have been like 10 freaking investigations on that and they all found the same thing! What the hell?

PeterZ wrote:The attacks were caused by a YouTube video was a pure lie. She propagated that BS, much like Trump is trying to assert alternative facts.

PeterZ wrote:No, pissing off the Republicans is not by itself a virtue. Quite the opposite. My point is that if it takes someone with this lack of virtue to get Congress to take their responsibilities seriously, that's a plus. If he pisses both sides enough that Congress begins to act like a co-equal branch of government rather than a rubber stamp for the President, again not virtuous but still beneficial to the US as a whole.

If you guys on the left are correct, the benefits of strong branches of government jealously guarding their prerogatives will be far out weighed by the faults of this President. I believe that will not be the case. That a hated President will force Congress (both sides of the isle) to begin acting like they have a backbone.

gcomeau wrote:If only... I will however grant one potential positive coming out of it. The press is showing some signs of actually waking up. That positive however is far outweighed by the negative of the leader of the country with a following of millions who will believe any lie he tells telling them all that the press lies about everything don't trust them they're the most dishonest people on the face of the earth. Because now even if the press does start doing their job better he's creating a huge class of people in the country that will just be immune to reports of reality anyway so it won't matter.


That kind of unsubstantiated undermining of people's faith in the basic institutions of a free society is beyond dangerous... and a free press is a bedrock requirement of that kind of society.


It is one thing to level legitimate criticisms at the press, they've earned plenty.


This is very VERY different than that however.

I hope the media points out every lie Trump attempts to propagate and I hope he challenges all their failures and bias. There is nothing wrong with an adversarial relationship between those in power and the media. There is also nothing wrong with having a public that is skeptical of ANYTHING the media or those in power have to say.

If Congress needs to use their spine again, the American public needs to develop a healthy bit of skepticism. The only way to incent both in our politics is to have an obvious lack of virtue in the Presidency. We were going to get that lack regardless of who won the election. This way, both the media AND all the branches of government are challenged.

Not virtuous, no, but the lack will develop needed skills in the electorate, the media and in government.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Oh ffs... no... she... did... not.

There have been like 10 freaking investigations on that and they all found the same thing! What the hell?

The attacks were caused by a YouTube video was a pure lie. She propagated that BS, much like Trump is trying to assert alternative facts.

This has been addressed over and over and over and over and over....


This was the timeline of events.

1. Video comes out.
2. Outbursts of demonstrations and rioting *all over* the middle east. That *were* caused by the video.
3. WHILE that was going on there was also rioting in Libya and an attack on the embassy in Benghai.
4. The initial tentative assessment FROM THE CIA was that Benghazi was yet another of those anti video outburts.
5. Clinton simply relayed the initial intelligence assessment. In the meantime the investigation was ongoing.
6. When intel updated their findings to say that actually it looked like Benghazi was a more organized attack that used the video outbursts as cover and an opportunity to strike in the wider chaos, she relayed that update. This all happened within the first handful of days, which is pretty damn reasonable for reaching final conclusions about something like this.


There. Was. No. Lying. An initially incomplete intelligence assessment that gets updated within a few days is not a lie.

I hope the media points out every lie Trump attempts to propagate and I hope he challenges all their failures and bias. There is nothing wrong with an adversarial relationship between those in power and the media.

No, there isn't... if it's an honest difference of opinion or a conflict over reporting priorities or whatever.

There is a LOT wrong with an adversarial relationship between those in power and the media when it consists of those in power launching public attacks on the media and calling out reporters and organization by name for reporting the plain as freaking day truth for no other reason than that dear leader doesn't like said truth and doesn't want it broadcast because it bruises his ego.

There is also nothing wrong with having a public that is skeptical of ANYTHING the media or those in power have to say.

But there is a gaping chasm of difference between skepticism and unthinking reactionary rejection. The former is healthy, the latter is a cancer.

And Trump is going all out to cultivate the latter, not the former. He doesn't want people not believing what the media is saying because it's untrue. He wants then not believing what the media is saying period because it's the media and not him, and he doesn't want anyone who might call him on his bullshit to have any credibility with his fan base.


He didn't go out there and say "this is where the media reporting was inaccurate and here's the evidence to prove it." He went out and just called them liars and dishonest people who shouldn't be listened to full stop.

Gcomeau,

Sorry, I just don't agree with your narrative on the Bengazi timetable. The Administration knew this was not caused by a You Tube video from the beginning. Arguing that some lame videographer with a two bit video about Mohammed that no one in the middle east saw is just ridiculous. Interviews at the time indicate as much.

That you believe this rubbish and I don't is just one of the issues that continue to divide us. Its the reason that since we won't agree anyway, then display the disagreement openly as we are doing now. Let the broader disagreement between the Administration and the media be open. If the consensus is that the media are being biased pricks by ignoring the presence of the MLK bust, let the media suffer. If Trump and his team are trying to lie, let him suffer the consensus view by the general public.

Each of us may believe as we will and act accordingly. Lefties may be free to protest and behave like spoiled children dressed as vajayjays, the rest of us will get on with life. If they make solid points in a well reasoned fashion, there will be those that agree. The same will be true for Trump supporters or simply those willing to let Trump have a chance. If they wish to persuade others, then they need to be well reasoned as well.

Bottom line is that there is very little difference in the Women's march and Trump. Both present their concerns in a manner that is viewed by most as over the top to make their point or to establish a base position in an ongoing negotiation. They overstate their case with exuberant abandon. Each side has to accept that the other side is aggressively overstating their case to make a point. Each side must also understand that their own side's overstatement rarely persuades opponents or encourages those on the fence.

PeterZ wrote:Gcomeau,

Sorry, I just don't agree with your narrative on the Bengazi timetable. The Administration knew this was not caused by a You Tube video from the beginning.

Based on what evidence are you making this claim? because the declassified intial CIA intelligence briefs don't say that.

Arguing that some lame videographer with a two bit video about Mohammed that no one in the middle east saw is just ridiculous. Interviews at the time indicate as much.

At the time what was known is the video had come out and protests had erupted all across the middle east and other Muslim countries and that remains a fact.

Tell me why it's ridiculous for them to have initially suspected that Benghazi was the same thing as what was going on EVERYWHERE ELSE at the same time. Or are you denying ANY of the worldwide demonstrations against the video that broke out existed? Hopefully not, because that would be right up there with "Trump's inauguration was the most watched inauguration EVER! Period!"

That you believe this rubbish and I don't is just one of the issues that continue to divide us. Its the reason that since we won't agree anyway, then display the disagreement openly as we are doing now. Let the broader disagreement between the Administration and the media be open. If the consensus is that the media are being biased pricks by ignoring the presence of the MLK bust, let the media suffer.

Oh ffs... it was ONE pool reporter whose view was blocked and thought it had been removed, and who immediately issued a freaking retraction when someone pointed out it was just behind something blocking his view.

If Trump and his team are trying to lie, let him suffer the consensus view by the general public.

You really don't get it do you? Trump is trying to create a climate in which lies have no consequences because his supporters reject any media report contrary to what Trump says for no other reason that the media is reporting it and it doesn't agree with what Trump said.

That. Is. Dangerous.

Each of us may believe as we will and act accordingly. Lefties may be free to protest and behave like spoiled children dressed as vajayjays,

And I find it telling that your problem is with the people who are concerned about the leader of their nation bragging about committing sexual assault with multiple independent reports of sexual misconduct more than the fact that the leader of the country bragged about committing sexual assault.

"Spoiled children" indeed...

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:If Trump and his team are trying to lie, let him suffer the consensus view by the general public

You really don't get it do you? Trump is trying to create a climate in which lies have no consequences because his supporters reject any media report contrary to what Trump says for no other reason that the media is reporting it and it doesn't agree with what Trump said.

That. Is. Dangerous.

You really don't get it do you? The media colors its reporting to a degree that it is basically rhetorical lying. That's the view of many in the US. Trump is simply calling them out on it. He's not trying to create such an environment, it already exists. he is simply using what media he can to bypass the bias.

PeterZ wrote:Each of us may believe as we will and act accordingly. Lefties may be free to protest and behave like spoiled children dressed as vajayjays,

And I find it telling that your problem is with the people who are concerned about the leader of their nation bragging about committing sexual assault with multiple independent reports of sexual misconduct more than the fact that the leader of the country bragged about committing sexual assault.

"Spoiled children" indeed...

Is this new? Hello Bill Clinton. Those on the left ignored him but are now seriously offended by locker room talk? Bragged about sexual assault that was all talk... as opposed to actual sexual assault. Saying disgusting things versus doing despicable things.

We can go on forever. Bottom line is that he is dreadfully imperfect and is still immeasurably better than Hillary. Enough people believed that to elect him and reject Hillary.

Spoiled children indeed! I don't recall the TEA Party being nearly as destructive or hateful and they were equally incensed 8 years ago.