Executive Waffling?

[Wayward Son]

It's only a matter of time D.W. before Antifa gets that far, meanwhile, can you point out to me the Democrat that's actually faced treason charges?

Fenring, when did this issue become one of the average American?    Jason was talking about Maxine Waters, Trump, Trump supporters, Sanders and the Red Hen restaurant.  These are not the average Americans (unless Trump has far more support than I understand he does  ).

I'm talking about politicians and political speech.  I'm talking about what these people say.  If the average American follows their lead, then they are part of it.  But for the most part, I don't think they do.  We are usually much more polite to each other than our celebrities, pundits and politicians.

"The nation" is not hitting us.  After all, we are part of "the nation" and perhaps the majority.  So we are not going to be hitting back "the nation."  They are not the ones attacking us.  It is the political factions that are targeting us and doing these things.  They are ones who will be hit back.

Don't extend this to "average Americans" or even "all Republicans."  Average Americans and Republicans are not the problem.  But Trump, Sanders, Waters and Trump's (rabid) supporters are not "average Americans."  They would like you to think so, and will tell everyone that any attack on them is an attack on you, but they're wrong.  Unless you stand four-square with them and defend their rude actions and horrific policies, there is nothing to "hit back" for.

Politics has become an attack sport.  Conservatives and Republicans are constantly attacking liberals and Democrats.  There is no reason to believe that "hitting back" or not will change that.  And while not hitting back is taking the high road, it also emboldens some, making them think that we are too scared, or that they have the moral right to attack and we don't.  So I see no reason that we have to restrain ourselves.

Insults, obviously.  Everything from being called a "snowflake" to a "traitor" (the latter being a hanging offense, BTW).

Lol that's totally outrageous!  Good thing they haven't called you a racist, sexist or homophobe, or even a Nazi!  At least we still have some civility in our discussions.  Sarcasm off.

So you believe that conservatives have the right to respond to such name calling, right?  Good.  That means we have the right to respond to your name calling, too.

(BTW, it helps if you're not acting like a racist, homophobe, or part of the Ayran Nation. )

It's only a matter of time D.W. before Antifa gets that far, meanwhile, can you point out to me the Democrat that's actually faced treason charges?

It's going to take some time before Antifa catches up with the body count of the White Supremacists, Seriati.  They have such a head start, and Antifa hasn't even gotten around to killing anyone yet...

And, no, no one has actually charged a Democrat with treason.  But first you have to call them that before you can charge them, right?

[D.W.]

Wayward has stated it better than I was going to.  My point was only that while some of those labels are hurtful, one is criminal, and carries one doozy of a penalty.

[Fenring]

I'm talking about politicians and political speech.  I'm talking about what these people say.  If the average American follows their lead, then they are part of it.  But for the most part, I don't think they do.  We are usually much more polite to each other than our celebrities, pundits and politicians.

"The nation" is not hitting us.  After all, we are part of "the nation" and perhaps the majority.  So we are not going to be hitting back "the nation."  They are not the ones attacking us.  It is the political factions that are targeting us and doing these things.  They are ones who will be hit back.

WS, I'm just trying to follow the conversation, not shift it around. I was responding to this exchange, beginning with:

Apart from the fact that buying into Trump's game makes him win (he plays it better than you because it's his natural habitat), it's also worth noting that the other 50% of the population or whatever it is, see the thing is, they can retaliate . You can hit them, and they can hit you back.

to which you replied:

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

The "them" in question was "the other 50% of the population", so I'm not sure why you're now saying your comments were restricted to only political pundits. True, jasonr's examples weren't about comments by average people, but the exchange I was replying to was.

And although you may agree (it seems) that it in fact isn't the case that 50% of the nation is "hitting you" I think a lot of people are acting as if that's exactly the case. I see posts all the time about "those racists and evil people" who voted for Trump, and they're not just talking about some small minority in Mississippi. It seems to have become the blanket assumption that all Trump supporters are like them. I remember a little while back - although this seems to have fizzled somewhat - when it was being argued by 'respectable' intellectuals that Trump won because all of his voters were poor and uneducated. This is the sort of "hitting" that I thought you were referring to, as coming from the right to the left, broadly speaking. Maybe it's happening and if so I'd like to hear, because again the majority of the people in my life are liberals. And I definitely do hear blanket smears coming from them. I'm truly not certain whether the reciprocal case is true of people in right-wing or conservative circles. I do hear conservatives bashing on liberal politicians pretty frequently, but at least in my experience not as much liberal people. Their ideas more so - yes.

[TheDrake]

And I definitely do hear blanket smears coming from them. I'm truly not certain whether the reciprocal case is true of people in right-wing or conservative circles. I do hear conservatives bashing on liberal politicians pretty frequently, but at least in my experience not as much liberal people. Their ideas more so - yes.

I'm not sure how representative, but you can see this starkly in the world of Breitbart comments.

Everyone who opposes Trumpism is a cuck, a libtard, a traitor. They deserve to be shot, sometimes with a specific type of ammunition. People who are against Trump are brownshirt terrorists who can't wait to throw the entire country into totalitarian rule and stamp out the last spark of what it means to be American.

I don't think sentiment is exclusive there. I visit it from time to time to understand what is driving the foam at the mouth segment of Trump supporters.

[D.W.]

There is a not so quiet segment of the left who believe that support of Trump must either come from ignorance or bigotry given an outlet.  (Unless you are someone directly profiting off these policies, which is not a large group.)  In their eyes, it is simply not possible to support him for other reasons.  They genuinely believe that Trump's policies work against these people who claim to support Trump.  They are either dupes, or the support is an excuse to vent their more destructive tendencies which makes any disadvantageous policies "worth it".

It's a ridiculously simplified and skewed way to view half the country, but it comes from, what they believe to be, logical reasoning.  And if you add in disgust at being judged by "the elite" or "intellectuals" on the left driving them further to the right, this just reinforces such people to put Trump supporters into the ignorant category.  When the right parrots Trump's cries of "fake news" or parrots anti-science stances, again, that perception is reinforced.  Which, Trump intends.

Trump is playing both of these groups quite effectively.  Both telling his supporters they shouldn't take such judgmental BS quietly, while at the same time, getting those supporters to spout off / repeat more things guaranteed to rile up the "elitist" left. 

Trump didn't just win because people were poor or uneducated.  But it seems pretty obvious that he leveraged this group by giving them targets to fear and to blame and gave them permission to see themselves as the victim and treated unjustly.  When you ARE poor, and don't have great opportunities, being told that is exactly what many want to hear.  However the "elitist", are disgusted with these people who are hurting rather than sympathetic.  Not that they are poor or didn't go to college, but because they allowed themselves to be leveraged to prop up a person who has zero interest in solving their problems. 

We here a lot of talk about tolerance and building bridges and civility.  To many, informing others when they believe those people got duped, is an act of outreach.  I do get how the exasperation in their voices can make it seem like an attack.  Sometimes, now, it is indeed an attack by those who's patience has passed their limit.  Silence however, allows people to believe they are correct.  Bubbles (on both sides) are meant to be burst.

[Gaoics79]

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

To be clear, I wasn't speaking in a general sense, but specifically in the context of the Red Hen incident, and Waters' approval and encouragement of Democrats to repeat this type of behaviour on a larger scale.

My only point was that if you escalate this kind of tactic, the other side is going to retaliate in kind. In a worst case scenario, you can end up with "Red" restaurants and "Blue" restaurants, which would be pretty unfortunate.

I've come to the conclusion that hate is pretty much an autonomic response in people. You hate someone and they're going to hate you back. It's basically a fundamental law of nature.

But my overarching point was that Trump's claim that Waters was the new "face" of the Democratic party was not just him spewing his usual garbage. He definitely has some good political instincts, because I'm pretty sure he's elated at her comments, and I'm quite sure he's right to be.

[Gaoics79]

I do get how the exasperation in their voices can make it seem like an attack.  Sometimes, now, it is indeed an attack by those who's patience has passed their limit.  Silence however, allows people to believe they are correct.  Bubbles (on both sides) are meant to be burst.

There is literally 0.0% chance of anyone "bursting" anyone's bubble.

You're never going to persuade anyone of anything by calling them idiots (effectively). What needs to be done is you need an alternative that they can choose without 1) Losing face and admitting to being idiots for voting for Trump and 2) That doesn't constitute surrender on key issues they care about.

Since the DNC shows no signs of even identifying the issues Trump's supporters care about beyond ugly caricatures and insults, I'm really not optimistic. And expecting it from Trump is a waste of time. The guy feeds on this toxic hate. It's his elixir.

What's needed is a true centrist type candidate, someone who is going to basically piss off fanatics on both sides, a Trump-like figure who can shrug off attacks from both extremes with impunity, but minus the toxic narcissism and self-aggrandizement. I fear this it is becoming increasingly impossible for such a candidate to emerge on either side.  The right is too busy enjoying its recent victories and visiting retribution on its enemies after decades in the wilderness (see latest news re: the Supreme Court and implications of that) and on the left side, the fanatics have basically a stranglehold on the levers of power, both within academia (where the political classes are molded) and among the political classes themselves.

It's f'd up.

[Seriati]

There is a not so quiet segment of the left who believe that support of Trump must either come from ignorance or bigotry given an outlet.

I'd say it's neither quiet nor small.  Both the left and the right suffer from intellectually stunted analysis that doesn't even understand why their own party takes a position, let alone the other side.

It's a ridiculously simplified and skewed way to view half the country, but it comes from, what they believe to be, logical reasoning.

It comes from emotional reasoning, not logical reasoning (though I concede many people don't understand that what they base their decision on isn't logic).  But you see it in the arguments that are made that focus on the character attack rather than the logic.  Heck, you even could see it in action in the Supreme Court case that came out yesterday upholding the travel ban.  The majority pretty much said, this is an order that would be upheld for any other President, ergo upheld.  The minority pretty much said, yes but it's Trump therefore it should be pitched.

When the right parrots Trump's cries of "fake news" or parrots anti-science stances, again, that perception is reinforced.  Which, Trump intends.

To me, failing to recognize that "trusted" news sources are biased is a much bigger failing than calling them fake news.  It's almost impossible to reconcile CNN/MSNBC and Fox as reporting on the same country.  And that's not primarily because of Fox's bias.

Trump didn't just win because people were poor or uneducated.

He didn't win at all because people were poor and uneducated.  That's far more the polity of the Democratic base than the Republican one.  The Dems are literally a mix of the poor and uneducated with the highly educated elites. 

But it seems pretty obvious that he leveraged this group by giving them targets to fear and to blame and gave them permission to see themselves as the victim and treated unjustly.

If that is a criticism, you're going to have to walk me through how that is not fundamentally the entire Democratic strategy behind identity politics.  That's literally the message of victimization that the Dems have played on for decades.  Is the "problem" that its "unfair" for the otherside to make a similar argument?

Not that they are poor or didn't go to college, but because they allowed themselves to be leveraged to prop up a person who has zero interest in solving their problems.

And that is truly an elitist view.  Consider the possibility that they are in fact smart enough to understand their own self interest and that is IN FACT why they voted for Trump.  They have literally been telling the political elite exactly what they want for decades and the "government" continues to fail to bring it to them, and in fact makes their lives worse.

Show me the average Joe's in this country that were clamoring for more regulations, or for higher taxes, or more political graft.  Show me the average people who were demanding that we open our borders and grant citizenship to anyone that shows up.  Show me the average people who were demanding that we close plants and factories in their home town so that a massive corporation could replace them with low cost foreign workers to make the elites more money.

The fact is, Trump is literally and actually delivering on what middle America has been claiming they want.  Isn't that how Democracy is supposed to work?  Not, as the left seems to think, to redirect the country on to a better path than the uninformed understand?

[D.W.]

What needs to be done is you need an alternative that they can choose without 1) Losing face and admitting to being idiots for voting for Trump and 2) That doesn't constitute surrender on key issues they care about.

#2 I can see happening.  It’s the “saving face” part that I’m totally lost on.  I don’t know how to achieve that.  I mean, I suppose at some point, they MIGHT go, “Gee, all that stuff Trump said he was going to do for ME, he never got around to.”  But far more realistically, they will believe that the reason he didn’t achieve this, was direct opposition and sabotage and possibly ‘deep state’ conspiracy that prevented him from doing so.  Trump certainly wants to promote that view.

Since the DNC shows no signs of even identifying the issues Trump's supporters care about beyond ugly caricatures and insults, I'm really not optimistic.

This is a tough one for me.  Because, honestly they DO identify and work to improve on those issues.  They just don’t pay it much lip service because, to them, it is obvious to everyone.  A flawed way of thinking obviously.  Those most likely to be helped by ‘far left’ agenda are probably Trump supporters.  Those least likely to ask for help are those who need it most.
 
I agree that neither side is likely to produce a centrist any time soon.  We’ll get a lot more of politicians claiming credit for the achievements of their predecessors and blaming all their failings on the opposition.

[D.W.]

Heck, you even could see it in action in the Supreme Court case that came out yesterday upholding the travel ban.  The majority pretty much said, this is an order that would be upheld for any other President, ergo upheld.  The minority pretty much said, yes but it's Trump therefore it should be pitched.

As much as I'd like to see the travel ban go away, I think the SC made the right call.  Even if Trump had to jump through hoops to make an unconstitutional impulse constitutional, he DID jump through those hoops.  It's within his power as a president and I think the judicial branch stepping on the executive branch in this way would be a bad move, and ones that opponents of the travel ban would eventually regret. 

To me, failing to recognize that "trusted" news sources are biased is a much bigger failing than calling them fake news.   

I differ with you here.  Recognizing bias seems to be a rare skill today and that is troubling.  Inability to realize when you are being lied to and inability to differentiate opinions vs facts?  That's terrifying.

That's literally the message of victimization that the Dems have played on for decades.  Is the "problem" that its "unfair" for the other side to make a similar argument?

I think it's a trap for either side to do so.  Identity politics on the left has been matched with identity politics and religious persecution politics on the right.  I could get into, "but it's not the same thing" arguments, but those are pointless.  Convincing someone that their grievances are less valid than those of someone else is probably a Jeopardy question for "What is pointless?"

Consider the possibility that they are in fact smart enough to understand their own self interest and that is IN FACT why they voted for Trump.

If they benefit substantially from the tax cuts, then it was in their own self interest.  If they were primarily interested in locking in some Supreme Court nominees, then it was in their own self interest.  If they benefit from a trade war and tariffs in the short term (because I don't expect anyone to in the long term), then it was in their own self interest.  If they run or work for a company that will grow because of the immigration policy or border security, then it was in their own self interest.  Were they only interested in preventing Hillary because they don't like her as a person, then it... well grants them momentary satisfaction.  Beyond that though?  I really do have a hard time considering that possibility.   Other than that, it may feel good to stick it to those elitist snobs; it may have felt good at the time to shake up the establishment;   but I don't think it was in their own self interest.

We'll have a higher national debt.  We'll be paying more for day to day goods.  Our average level of health care will go down and cost more, our education system will be more strained than it ever was, the opiode problem will likely continue out of control, our infrastructure jobs he promised don't seem to be materializing, and our allies in the world are getting sick of our (his) *censored*. 

Unless that self interest is a gamble that messing up the status quo so terribly that building new as opposed to patching holes is the best bet by someone else after he's gone, then I don't get it. 

[Seriati]

To me, failing to recognize that "trusted" news sources are biased is a much bigger failing than calling them fake news.   

I differ with you here.  Recognizing bias seems to be a rare skill today and that is troubling.  Inability to realize when you are being lied to and inability to differentiate opinions vs facts?  That's terrifying.

Failing to recognize facts versus opinions happens all the time, but reasonably intelligent persons can see the difference.

Failing to recognize bias in which facts appear is far more insidious.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying because of selective omissions and spin.  Too many stories are only presented in the worst (or best) possible light.  Even identical events are presented with completely different emphasis depending on party.

Consider the possibility that they are in fact smart enough to understand their own self interest and that is IN FACT why they voted for Trump.

If they benefit substantially from the tax cuts, then it was in their own self interest.

Something like 80% of people are paying less taxes.  Some of them, and some of the 20% are receiving increased compensation as a result of the tax cuts (seeing in in the local blue state professional market though they won't say that's whats going on).  Virtually every one in the country is benefiting from the repatriation of foreign held assets and the general favorable business climate.

If they were primarily interested in locking in some Supreme Court nominees, then it was in their own self interest.

True, whether they believed in Justices that would apply the law rather than invent it, or simply believed their teams judges are better, they came out ahead.

If they benefit from a trade war and tariffs in the short term (because I don't expect anyone to in the long term), then it was in their own self interest.

I actually think you have this backwards.  A trade war necessitates short term pain.  It can only be a long term benefit.  Lot's of people have seen the direct economic effects of not having a trade war - ie outsourcing of their jobs, massive financial benefits to the elite.

I mean last time I checked, anti-globalization protesters were not Republicans, nor where those behind the "other 99%" idea.

If they run or work for a company that will grow because of the immigration policy or border security, then it was in their own self interest.

If they work for an hourly wage enforcing our immigration laws is to their benefit.  If they pay taxes into the system that provides government benefits it was to their benefit.  If they believe they benefit from a rule of law free from corruption it was to their benefit.

Were they only interested in preventing Hillary because they don't like her as a person, then it... well grants them momentary satisfaction.

If that was their only goal they are a sad person.  Kind of like people whose biggest problem with Trump is they don't like him as a person.

Beyond that though?  I really do have a hard time considering that possibility.   Other than that, it may feel good to stick it to those elitist snobs; it may have felt good at the time to shake up the establishment;   but I don't think it was in their own self interest.

I agree, you don't believe it was in their self interest, but I put forward that you are a poorer judge of that than they are. 

I could just as easily conclude that you don't know what's in your own self interest, or you too would be a Trump supporter.

We'll have a higher national debt.

True.  Though there's no chance that it's more than it would have been under Hillary.

We'll be paying more for day to day goods.

And we'll have more money to do so.  My view is that the increase in the money is greater than the increase in the cost of goods.  Not to mention the knock on effect of spending all that extra money in the local market.

Our average level of health care will go down and cost more,...

That's literally what happened under ObamaCare.

...our education system will be more strained than it ever was,...

In what way?

...the opiode problem will likely continue out of control,...

Which is solvable, but few people like the solutions.

...our infrastructure jobs he promised don't seem to be materializing,...

Maybe they will maybe they won't, still early.  However, increase in manufacturing jobs (that the economists said was impossible).

...and our allies in the world are getting sick of our (his) *censored*

Probably true to some extent.  Not that we should care with the way they treat us. 

Unless that self interest is a gamble that messing up the status quo so terribly that building new as opposed to patching holes is the best bet by someone else after he's gone, then I don't get it.

It's not a gamble at all.  it's a literal acknowledgement that the status quo has been designed to benefit the elites and the political class not the common people.

[D.W.]

I could just as easily conclude that you don't know what's in your own self interest, or you too would be a Trump supporter.

And maybe you are correct.  I did recently get a raise.  The Trump tax break could be a factor.  So it's easy to argue, that if he were not president, and was not there to push the tax break I wouldn't have a raise.  There for being opposed to him to him is against my own self interest. 

When you boil things down to single issues the picture can look a lot different. 

My view is that the increase in the money is greater than the increase in the cost of goods.

I hope this ends up being the case.

It's not a gamble at all.  it's a literal acknowledgement that the status quo has been designed to benefit the elites and the political class not the common people.

Well on the latter we agree.  That Trump wasn't a gamble though?  That many can't envision 'worse' is possible, but things can get worse.  (I think they are getting worse.) 

On education, I've got no reason to believe Hillary or Democrat control would have improved things, but I do think leadership under DeVos is making things worse.

[Gaoics79]

#2 I can see happening.  It’s the “saving face” part that I’m totally lost on.  I don’t know how to achieve that. 

That would be the civility part of the equation. Obama in 2008 is a pretty good recent example. He had significant support from across the aisle (as far as modern elections go) because he campaigned as a centrist and a unifier. To the extent any modern politician can, he really did try to reach out at least rhetorically, even if his presidency didn't quite fulfill that promise.

I don't think we are ever going to see that again. The next dem candidate is pretty much going to campaign on the premise that Trump and everything he stood for (and by implication his supporters) is evil, stupid or both.

We are heading into a world where for group to win, all others must lose, and lose hard.

[D.W.]

Ever?  We got a lot of buzz-kills around here, myself among them, but that's dark. 

[rightleft22]

We are heading into a world where for group to win, all others must lose, and lose

I suspect the same. Hate and going negative is just so much easier way to go to get you to that win. 
The left will still pretend to have values and continue to work against themselves and so lose. I suspect many want to lose

The next decades belong to the populist - nationalist movements and we might as well accept it even though history tells us clearly how that ends.

[DJQuag]

America needs a third party

America needed an alternative to the system and we got it. Trump is the third party, that’s why Republicans and Democrats oppose him.

I'm sorry, but what?

Trump may have pissed off the Republican power holders, but can you name one policy or push for legislation that don't match in lockstep with traditional Republican ideals?

He is decidedly not a third party. He is about making himself look good, and making himself money. End of story.

If a blue wave commences in November, and the House and/or the Senate both turn Dem? Well, in that case, I can absolutely see him working with Democrats for what they want.

Because the man doesn't actually have ideals or values, other then him looking good. He said he would drain the swamp, but all he did was import the swamp dwellers who were willing to kiss his ass to forward their agenda.

He is *not* a third party candidate. The same way a President Sanders wouldn't have been just because some establishment or blue dog Dems fought against or bitched about him wouldn't be.

[Fenring]

I'm sorry, but what?

Trump may have pissed off the Republican power holders, but can you name one policy or push for legislation that don't match in lockstep with traditional Republican ideals?

You answer your own question here:

Because the man doesn't actually have ideals or values, other then him looking good. He said he would drain the swamp, but all he did was import the swamp dwellers who were willing to kiss his ass to forward their agenda.

He could count as a third party because he wasn't affiliated with the GOP nonsense the other candidates were and didn't have to accept donations from questionable sources to be able to run. It's about the money, not about the beliefs. As you note he doesn't have tangible beliefs, although he did have a clear campaign. His campaign may have been a GOP one insofar as it was appealing to their base, if you'll observe what he was campaigning on versus the issues his competitors (the party men) ran on, it's like night and day. This is easy to see. It's as close to a third party as you'll get while the media networks operate as they do. So long as one requires primetime exposure and an invitation to the debates in order to have a chance, candidates have to pretend to run with a party (like Bernie and Trump did) in order to get in the door, but you can blame that on the system rather than the candidates. Trump wasn't anything like regular GOP candidates.

[Fenring]

To be clear, I wasn't speaking in a general sense, but specifically in the context of the Red Hen incident, and Waters' approval and encouragement of Democrats to repeat this type of behaviour on a larger scale.

My only point was that if you escalate this kind of tactic, the other side is going to retaliate in kind. In a worst case scenario, you can end up with "Red" restaurants and "Blue" restaurants, which would be pretty unfortunate.

The reason I assumed the "other 50%" was a reference to the population at large is because partisan animosity would be no big deal if it was restricted to talking heads and TV spots. It's when it trickles down to everyday life that it becomes scary. Red Hen was no political rally, but rather was real life ordinary people taking a blue vs red stand. This is what will really generate animosity among other real life people. I separate this from the "not real life" politicians because they are actors playing people on TV. In private all of the mudslinging and animosity often vanishes and they're all buddies at the same country club behind closed doors. It's the hatred of real people towards other real people that is the true danger.

To get back to the previous point, I've never heard the "traitor" moniker coming out of ordinary people and directed towards liberals, but maybe it's a thing I just haven't come across in my personal experience. I have heard "libtard" and "snowflake", but again I don't think those are necessarily directed towards every single liberal but rather towards a specific species of liberal, just like "gun nut" is a moniker directed towards only a specific species of conservative. More often than that the moniker I hear in reference to liberals is "socialist" and that one is certainly meant to be general. And although that term is certainly not meant to be complimentary, it's not really in the same league as "racist" and "neo-Nazi" in terms of severity. So at the immediate moment I'm not sure if the real life animosity is reciprocal on an equivalent basis.

[DJQuag]

To be clear, I wasn't speaking in a general sense, but specifically in the context of the Red Hen incident, and Waters' approval and encouragement of Democrats to repeat this type of behaviour on a larger scale.

My only point was that if you escalate this kind of tactic, the other side is going to retaliate in kind. In a worst case scenario, you can end up with "Red" restaurants and "Blue" restaurants, which would be pretty unfortunate.

The reason I assumed the "other 50%" was a reference to the population at large is because partisan animosity would be no big deal if it was restricted to talking heads and TV spots. It's when it trickles down to everyday life that it becomes scary. Red Hen was no political rally, but rather was real life ordinary people taking a blue vs red stand. This is what will really generate animosity among other real life people. I separate this from the "not real life" politicians because they are actors playing people on TV. In private all of the mudslinging and animosity often vanishes and they're all buddies at the same country club behind closed doors. It's the hatred of real people towards other real people that is the true danger.

To get back to the previous point, I've never heard the "traitor" moniker coming out of ordinary people and directed towards liberals, but maybe it's a thing I just haven't come across in my personal experience. I have heard "libtard" and "snowflake", but again I don't think those are necessarily directed towards every single liberal but rather towards a specific species of liberal, just like "gun nut" is a moniker directed towards only a specific species of conservative. More often than that the moniker I hear in reference to liberals is "socialist" and that one is certainly meant to be general. And although that term is certainly not meant to be complimentary, it's not really in the same league as "racist" and "neo-Nazi" in terms of severity. So at the immediate moment I'm not sure if the real life animosity is reciprocal on an equivalent basis.

While you make a fair point, I have to say a couple of things.

First, while it has not been widely reported, Trump has a lot of question marks about where his money comes from. Campaign or personal, he's made a *lot* of money from Russian gangsters. He's been selling property to them at above market for a while.

Second, my response was mainly towards Crunch. He made it out like Trump was some popularist third party who won because he was brave enough to talk about how scary the Mexicans are. What I don't think Crunch understands is that Trump has no underlying principles. Clinton, Bush, Obama...plenty of people could talk about what they disliked about them, but they all had concrete values that they adhered to. Trump doesn't. It's all about what makes him look good, and what makes him money.

I fully guarantee that if a blue wave takes Congress in November, Trump will be all about the "poor, hardworking immigrants," rather then his standard "murderers and rapists" byline.

He's a popularist, but it's unfair to compare him to Sanders. Sanders has values and sticks to them.

[velcro]

The majority pretty much said, this is an order that would be upheld for any other President, ergo upheld.  The minority pretty much said, yes but it's Trump therefore it should be pitched.

No, the minority pretty much said that the evidence regarding  anti-Muslim intent was crystal clear, and therefore unconstitutional.  The majority said that as long as you can make up a plausible excuse for an anti-Muslim policy, the clear anti-Muslim intent is not relevant.

The minority said it should be pitched because it is anti-Muslim.  If any other President had done it, it would still be anti-Muslim.  You can speculate what the court would have done, but you don't actually know.  To claim it was just because it was "it's Trump" is an attempt to distract from the anti-Muslim core of the policy.

If they believe they benefit from a rule of law free from corruption it was to their benefit[to vote for Trump]

So the multiple lawsuits, indictments, resignations, firings, guilty pleas, congressional investigations, special prosecutor investigations, IG investigations, and FBI investigations of Trump administration members, campaign staff, Trump family, and Trump lawyers are signs of being free from corruption?  The claim that the President can pardon himself for anything is benefiting from the rule of law?

The level of denial required to believe that is staggering.  The damage that  this belief will cause this country to suffer is tragic.

He didn't win at all because people were poor and uneducated.  That's far more the polity of the Democratic base than the Republican one.

Source please?  Because mine says the opposite, at least for education. People with 4 years of college lean 54%/39% Democratic. Postgraduates are 63% to 31%.  HS or less is 45%/47%. Generally, those earning $30K or less are Democrats, about 60% of the time.

[TheDrake]

The minority said it should be pitched because it is anti-Muslim.  If any other President had done it, it would still be anti-Muslim.  You can speculate what the court would have done, but you don't actually know.  To claim it was just because it was "it's Trump" is an attempt to distract from the anti-Muslim core of the policy.

In one sense, it is because "it's Trump". Nixon and FDR both had policies that had roots in highly racist origin, they just weren't stupid enough to have a fireside chat where they talked about the yellow threat or the need to contain a negro uprising.

Trump blasted out EOs that would have been halted at the draft stage for any other President.

Never mind the turning away of Jewish refugees, which had even less validity than Trump turning away Syrians.

Immigration restrictions actually tightened as the refugee crisis worsened. Wartime measures demanded special scrutiny of anyone with relatives in Nazi territories—even relatives in concentration camps. At a press conference, President Roosevelt repeated the unproven claims from his advisers that some Jewish refugees had been coerced to spy for the Nazis. “Not all of them are voluntary spies,” Roosevelt said. “It is rather a horrible story, but in some of the other countries that refugees out of Germany have gone to, especially Jewish refugees, they found a number of definitely proven spies.”

Kind of sounds a lot like Trump, its just that FDR got away with it. And is somehow revered for his greatness.

[Seriati]

The majority pretty much said, this is an order that would be upheld for any other President, ergo upheld.  The minority pretty much said, yes but it's Trump therefore it should be pitched.

No, the minority pretty much said that the evidence regarding  anti-Muslim intent was crystal clear, and therefore unconstitutional.

I'm guessing you didn't read the opinion.  But your claims are about the minority view are just a charitable interpretation of what I summarized.  It ignores an entire history of law (much of it written by those same justices) on deferrals to the executive.

The majority said that as long as you can make up a plausible excuse for an anti-Muslim policy, the clear anti-Muslim intent is not relevant.

No.  What they said - consistent with previous policy from the SC (and all four dissenting Justices from time to time) is that facially neutral policies are enforceable where they have a reasonable basis.  To hold otherwise would have been a truly remarkable change in how the executive branch works. 

The minority said it should be pitched because it is anti-Muslim.  If any other President had done it, it would still be anti-Muslim.  You can speculate what the court would have done, but you don't actually know.  To claim it was just because it was "it's Trump" is an attempt to distract from the anti-Muslim core of the policy.

This is where you start lying.  Can you cite the provisions in the order that are anti-Muslim?  Please, take your time.

If they believe they benefit from a rule of law free from corruption it was to their benefit[to vote for Trump]

So the multiple lawsuits, indictments, resignations, firings, guilty pleas, congressional investigations, special prosecutor investigations, IG investigations, and FBI investigations of Trump administration members, campaign staff, Trump family, and Trump lawyers are signs of being free from corruption?

Selective quoting is not an argument.  This was a direct response to this point, "If they run or or work for a company that will grow because of the immigration policy or border security, then it was in their own self interest."

Enforcement of the border law is directly supportive of the Rule of Law.  You're already on record as not supporting the law at the border, and lying about what it entails, so I'm not surprised you don't want to touch that.

Your laundry list of slights looks pretty until you realize most of it rests on little more than speculation.  Investigations are proof?  Aren't they supposed to be find out the truth?  Resignations are some kind of violation of the rule of law?  What's Trump's motto again?  How would you expect him to deal with people that aren't achieving his goals?

Lawsuits?  You have got to be kidding.  If you have a specific argument of somewhere that you can prove Trump is violating the Rule of Law make it.  Cause, we both know you just full of hot air and you can't meet the proof burden you so freely demand of others.

The claim that the President can pardon himself for anything is benefiting from the rule of law?

Well actually yes.  Are you not up on how the Constitution works?   Of course, it's certain to lead to impeachment and probably removal.

On the other hand, the principal is untested.

The level of denial required to believe that is staggering.  The damage that  this belief will cause this country to suffer is tragic.

The damage that's already occurred from illogical emotive and reactionary opposition is already tragic.  The endorsement of a doctrine of political hate by those on the left has already returned us to a place where people endorse kicking people out of public spaces, shutting down their words even with violence, refusing to marry anyone of the disfavored race, oops, I mean political party.  Shutting down your brain rather than trying to understand the otherside is not a good idea.

He didn't win at all because people were poor and uneducated.  That's far more the polity of the Democratic base than the Republican one.

Source please?  Because mine says the opposite, at least for education. People with 4 years of college lean 54%/39% Democratic. Postgraduates are 63% to 31%.  HS or less is 45%/47%. Generally, those earning $30K or less are Democrats, about 60% of the time.

Again with the partial quotes?   You literally cut off the sentence where I say "The Dems are literally a mix of the poor and uneducated with the highly educated elites," so that you can post some stats showing pretty much the same thing.  I guess you're hanging your hat on the high school grads stat, lol, and ignoring the income ones.

It's literally not surprising that college increases Democratic partisanship when 90% plus of professors are left aligned and believe it's their duty to push kids in that direction.  I'm hopeful that some of them will come to their senses as they get older and start dealing with real world issues.

[velcro]

Enforcement of the border law is directly supportive of the Rule of Law.  You're already on record as not supporting the law at the border, and lying about what it entails, so I'm not surprised you don't want to touch that.

Them's fightin' words, Seriati

Show me where I said I don't support "the law at the border", or I will call YOU a liar.

This is where you start lying.  Can you cite the provisions in the order that are anti-Muslim?  Please, take your time.

Again with the lying! If only you held Trump to 1% of what you hold me to, I would be happy.

The intent is documented to be anti-Muslim.  If I say I am removing all Japanese, but on my third try I add in a Jew, does that make it immediately kosher?  No, it is still anti-Japanese with a fig leaf.  And that is my opinion, shared by 4 SC justices, and about half the country.  Are you calling all of us liars?

My laundry list of potential and actual corruption proves at least the appearance of conflict of interest.  That is not indicative of a reduced state of corruption.  All your dancing around does not change that.

There's lots more like this, but I don't have time.  But one more.

The claim that the President can pardon himself for anything is benefiting from the rule of law?

You say yes.  Wow.  Just wow.

Please explain how a President who can commit any federal crimes he wishes without any fear of criminal prosecution can be aligned with the rule of
law.  Sure he can be impeached, but the pardon still stands.  All he does is lose his job.  I think he keeps the pension.

So why does a clearly intelligent and informed person like you try to make the case that a leader who is impervious to prosecution for federal crimes  helps the rule of law?  It is a puzzlement.  Not to mention the constant accusation of lying, when you have no evidence.

I anxiously await the semantic gymnastics.

[rightleft22]

"If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society. Our values, and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans, and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our great country." - Trump

[Fenring]

"If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society. Our values, and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans, and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our great country." - Trump

Is your point that this isn't really Trump's view, or that if this is his view it's bad in some way?

[TheDeamon]

"If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society. Our values, and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans, and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our great country." - Trump

Is your point that this isn't really Trump's view, or that if this is his view it's bad in some way?

He views it as self-contradictory because
1) Trump is trying curtail illegal immigration, which means he must hate Hispanics. Just ask the DNC.
2) Trump isn't particularly sympathetic towards quota-type systems using race, gender or religious affiliations for hiring(or admittance) practices. So he must hate minorities, and more specifically Black People. Just ask the DNC and the NAACP.
3) Trump clearly hates Muslims, as demonstrated by his travel ban that targets Muslims, which refutes the "different faiths" part. (Of course, that those regions also have large numbers of adherents to Sharia Law, who wouldn't be upset about killing gays, oppressing women, and generally making life hell for other faiths is somehow moot)

[Fenring]

So that would mean that it isn't really Trump's view?

[rightleft22]

There is no contradiction.
It is most certainly Trumps view that "If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society.  Our values, and our tolerant way of life"
"Our" values being Trumps values, "Our" Tolerant way of life being Trumps understanding of being tolerant - as in when America was great, I can tolerate you being Black or Muslim as long as you maintain white christian values and live the way we tell you.


Trump is America and he rules from the perspective that what is good for Trump is good for America. 

[Fenring]

It is most certainly Trumps view that "If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society.  Our values, and our tolerant way of life"

Ok, that's actually what I thought you meant.

"Our" values being Trumps values, "Our" Tolerant way of life being Trumps understanding of being tolerant - as in when America was great, I can tolerate you being Black or Muslim as long as you maintain white christian values and live the way we tell you.

It's funny you should choose to interpret the quote in this way, as I've seen statements very similar to that quote posted on social media by extremely left-leaning liberals, by way of saying that intolerant people are not welcome. In fact on a related topic, even people on this board have argued something similar, but instead of the issue of being welcome in our "society" and "our great country" it was about being welcome in "the marketplace."

[TheDeamon]

There is no contradiction.
It is most certainly Trumps view that "If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society.  Our values, and our tolerant way of life"
"Our" values being Trumps values, "Our" Tolerant way of life being Trumps understanding of being tolerant - as in when America was great, I can tolerate you being Black or Muslim as long as you maintain white christian values and live the way we tell you.


Trump is America and he rules from the perspective that what is good for Trump is good for America.

Funny, because from where I sit, most of conservative America, and to some extent, apparently Donald Trump, are trying to pursue their right to be left alone. There are, and there always will be, fringe elements who want more than that. You're literally failing to see the forest because of all the trees blocking the view.

For most of "Middle America" your comment can easily be retuned to say this:

It is most certainly the view of many Liberal Activists that "If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society.  Our values, and our tolerant way of life" should be parsed in this manner:
"Our" values being their activist values, "Our" Tolerant way of life being their activist understanding of being tolerant, but being activists, they don't have much time or patience for that. As such, you need to sit down, shut up, and live the way the activists tell you to.

[rightleft22]

Yes, its very interesting – in essence the use of the words tolerance and values are meaningless in such a statement if one does not define the values or tolerance.
That you can re-state the quote in Liberal Activists terms does not address the problem of identifying the values and tolerances are we really demand everyone accept.

That said this is the Trump administration so when he talks about values (which he does not define) he is talking about his values, which I think, based on his actions can be identified.

[Fenring]

That said this is the Trump administration so when he talks about values (which he does not define) he is talking about his values

I think you are right. But I will also observe that this is true of more people than just Trump. Many more people.