President Trump

Tools    





In Trump's case it's a lot more egregious (as I mentioned when we previously discussed this), but regardless, the standard gandalf put out was "greatest of all time," so comparisons to normal, crappy politicians obviously wouldn't fly.



I must restate my previous question: Isn't this summary virtually the same for every new President? Don't they all promise things during campaigns that are improbable and unfeasible which seems fairly obvious even at the time they first say them, and which they never get around to fully accomplishing? And aren't they all rather slow in accomplishing anything of major importance (aside from starting or getting involved in wars) and don't they then blow out of proportion anything they actually did have a hand in getting started or getting done?

Seems to me politics works something like this: you lie by promising impossible things to people to get elected, once elected you lie about what you originally lied about while you lie to cover up any mistakes you make in formulating your current lies, and at the end you lie about anything you actually accomplished.
This article is a few years old, but it claims most presidents do try to keep their campaign promises, for good or bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...A9DQ_blog.html

Just because a job applicant sells themselves a little in a job interview doesn't mean anything goes for the next applicant.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



This article is a few years old, but it claims most presidents do try to keep their campaign promises, for good or bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...A9DQ_blog.html

Just because a job applicant sells themselves a little in a job interview doesn't mean anything goes for the next applicant.
True - anything should not go for future applicants based on past office holders' records, but how many Presidents have we impeached to raise the standard and give the message that lies and corruption would no longer be tolerated?

WE are to blame for the precedents we've set for Presidents. (say that 10 times fast)



We've gone on holiday by mistake
In Trump's case it's a lot more egregious (as I mentioned when we previously discussed this), but regardless, the standard gandalf put out was "greatest of all time," so comparisons to normal, crappy politicians obviously wouldn't fly.
GOATs gonna GOAT
__________________



President Trump did not get elected with a majority of cast votes. In fact, he even received less votes than his main opponent. Because President Trump is such a divisive figure, and because of the extreme polarization in the country between the left and right, it is doubtful if the president will ever get a positive approval rating, even if he personally cured cancer. The left hates him that much. This is not intended to be a partisan note, rather an objective one. The point is that President Trump’s approval ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. Few who voted for Secretary Clinton or Dr. Stein will ever give him a positive rating, come what may. He might be able to convince some of Governor Johnson’s voters, but not enough to get him over fifty percent. However, what people tell pollsters and how they vote does not always coincide. Democrats shoud bear that in mind going into the next elections.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Try it without the capitalization.
goats they be goatin



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
they goatin' cuz they ain't us... wait. damn. no that doesn't work with that. hm.....



Again, it's thinking the heritage automatically creates a conflict of interest that's the problem.
I think that's a strawman, for reasons I've already given.

Originally Posted by Yoda
He said "inherently" and "absolutely," which means the judge's heritage predetermined his position.
IF you ignore context,
IF you trust him to be that articulate,
and IF he hadn't contradicted that notion repeatedly.

I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by Yoda
the idea that our heritage predetermines our beliefs is offensive as hell. Do you disagree with that?
I certainly believe genes affect our varying capacity to believe and understand belief, and if "heritage" includes your cultural upbringing I would say that informs people's beliefs and behaviors significantly.

Does having a Mexican heritage automatically make you an impartial judge? Hell no.

Originally Posted by Yoda
it's not clear if your position is that he didn't mean it (maybe),
My position is that he didn't mean what you think he means.

Originally Posted by Yoda
didn't say it (he definitely did),
My position is also that he didn't say what you think he said. If "said" is analogous to "mean".

If you're referring to what he literally said, in the most black and white assessment possible, I'm still not convinced because of the general way in which those words are commonly used, as well as the context in which those words were used, in both sentence and scenario.

Every angle of this looks ridiculous to me.

Originally Posted by Yoda
or that it's not a problem if he did.
What he meant? No.

What he literally said? No.

What you take him to be saying? I quote again:

stating a given demographic is "inherently" biased towards their own demographic is one of the least bigoted things you possibly construe as discrimination,
I say this, because this is factually true. It is an utterly basic biological predisposition to favor the in-group, in whatever form that happens to take place. It's as much an archaic tool of self-preservation as it is to fear things that are different. Ironically, it's Progressivism that's usually trying to "break down walls" and adopted "racism" as a derogatory term to categorically describe exclusionary behavior towards biologically homogenized outgroups.

I do not credit Trump with enough knowledge, intelligence, and consistency to articulate even a tenth of that, yet I find it bewildering that you're echoing what appears, to my eyes, to be some of the cheapest bottom-of-the-barrel propaganda peddled by left-wing media sites. Every way I look at this, every which way you put it, I'm not sold. I couldn't even call it RACISM, because "Mexican" and "Muslim" are not races.

The only issue I see here, apart from, once again, the bad precedent that would be set for defendants to veto judges... is that Trump asserts that his verdict is unfair and makes the logical leap that it must have something to do with his campaign... without evidence... and makes the connection, intentionally or unintentionally, between his border policy and the judge's name to produce a narrative supporting that baseless conclusion.

Not a word of this speaks racism or bigotry to me. Arguably worse is that it speaks to a blatant disregard for evidence which was rather rendered plain when he recently bombed a foreign country on literally no evidence. I think that's significantly more problematic than some comments he made accusing a Mexican-American judge of having an "inherent" conflict of interest.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



Onto other developments...

Item 1: NAFTA
People are saying Trump's backing out of killing NAFTA, my side of the grapevine says "renegotiating" instead. Don't know enough about NAFTA to prefer either way so I can't say much else.

Item 2: Tax Reform
First tax cut proposals' finally been rolled out. Not as good as I'd prefer, but significant nonetheless. Endless whinging about "this just so the rich can get richer" even though it's not limited to them (*COUGH*Bernie*COUGH*) and apparently over half the nation has already forgotten about the budget cuts and've gone full-on "but muh deficit" mode. Still need to hear details ironed out, but that "eliminate Obamacare tax" looks oh so inviting.

Item 3: Net Neutrality
A lot of misinformation swirling around the FCC wanting to take back the internet from the government who, according to them, jeopardized net neutrality in 2015 by making them set down some rules. Given a little bit of research, they appear to be fearmongering with the goal of retracting three specific consumer protections that would allow ISPs to do some scummy ****. Not sure I would trust a censorship organization on it's face anyway. Why weren't they defunded?



I think that's a strawman, for reasons I've already given.
You'll have to point me to those reasons, because I don't recall any.

Here's how this has gone: I gave you the definitions of both words, and showed how, together, they mean exactly what I've said. You responded with some variant of "he didn't mean it." When I then asked you if we could agree it's what he SAID, rather than what he meant, you said no, he didn't literally say it either. So I pointed you right back to the same definitions and the same logic, and your response was "he didn't mean it" again.

IF you ignore context,
I've claimed that neither word is modified by the context, and specifically asked you to explain what context could modify them. Feel free to do that at any time.

IF you trust him to be that articulate,
Again, this is "he didn't mean it." And not being articulate is a fine excuse for misspeaking and then correcting, not misspeaking and then doubling down and pretending you didn't actually say anything wrong in the first place.

I don't think he means most of what he says, so you don't have to sell me on that part. Where you lose me is suggesting this lets him off the hook for the literal content of whatever he blurts out.

I certainly believe genes affect our varying capacity to believe and understand belief, and if "heritage" includes your cultural upbringing I would say that informs people's beliefs and behaviors significantly.
Agreed.

Does having a Mexican heritage automatically make you an impartial judge? Hell no.
Good. Glad we agree on this much. Now we just need to figure out how you could interpret his words to mean anything else.

My position is also that he didn't say what you think he said. If "said" is analogous to "mean".
For real? After half a dozen rounds of this, you just casually mention that you're using "said" as a synonym for "mean"? Why would I even make that distinction if they were interchangeable? You made the same distinction, in fact, so this makes no sense to me.

If you're referring to what he literally said, in the most black and white assessment possible, I'm still not convinced because of the general way in which those words are commonly used, as well as the context in which those words were used, in both sentence and scenario.
Again, what context? What common usage? This wasn't saying "cool" to mean something other than "cold." This isn't inflicting a clumsy literalism on clearly metaphorical words. The words were "absolute" and "inherent." They're not modified by the context and they're not slang.

I do not credit Trump with enough knowledge, intelligence, and consistency to articulate even a tenth of that, yet I find it bewildering that you're echoing what appears, to my eyes, to be some of the cheapest bottom-of-the-barrel propaganda peddled by left-wing media sites.
It isn't. I know the bottom-of-the-barrel stuff you're talking about, and yes, it's silly. A lot of people are going out of their way to read the most sinister intentions into everything coming out of this administration (though, to be fair, they've given them lots of reason to do so). But this isn't a case of interpreting something uncharitably when a less insidious, more straightforward explanation is just sitting there. In this case, it's flipped; in this case it's his defenders going out of their way to try to interpret and parse so charitably, and the critics who are simply using a perfectly straightforward interpretation of what he said.

I really think this doesn't belong in the same category as all that other stuff you're thinking of.

Every way I look at this, every which way you put it, I'm not sold.
Well, that much I knew. But at minimum we should be able to agree that this isn't a "lie." You can't call something a lie only to explain that it's a lie because you don't think he meant what he said. If you wanna dabble in that kind of nuance in your explanation, you've got to use it in your disagreement, too. Let's reserve "lie" for things that are demonstrably false (like, say, pretending you never supported invading Iraq or Libya), rather than things you've decided were probably meant in a way other than their most straightforward meaning.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I'm only posting to ask others to sit this one out for the weekend. I've got my popcorn and coke, and I'm set.

Yoda? Omnizoa? Please carry on! This is better than trying to rewatch The Talented Mr. Ripley! Thank you for that.

0=]



Trump's first 100 days: Here's how they compare with Obama's, Bush's, and Clinton's



Franklin D. Roosevelt got more done in his first 100 days in office than any president before him or any since. He took office in the depths of the Great Depression, enacting a dizzying number of laws and signing executive orders to stabilize the economy with the New Deal.

Roosevelt is the reason people focus on the first 100 days. When presidents take office, they have the most political capital to enact their agenda. Studies have found that it's the most productive time for legislative action.

Of course, presidents don't have total control over their time in office. Ronald Reagan was shot during his first 100 days and spent the last month in the hospital. Bill Clinton's first months were distracted by the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy, then the fatal raid in Waco, Texas. George W. Bush bombed Iraq, and Barack Obama had to save Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates.

Donald Trump's 100th day in office is Saturday. How has his tenure compared with that of the last three presidents?

We looked at how many executive orders they signed, how many laws they enacted, how the economy performed, where they traveled, what their approval ratings were, and, for fun, how often they golfed.

Here's how they stack up:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...Kef?li=BBnb7Kz



I must restate my previous question: Isn't this summary virtually the same for every new President? Don't they all promise things during campaigns that are improbable and unfeasible which seems fairly obvious even at the time they first say them, and which they never get around to fully accomplishing? And aren't they all rather slow in accomplishing anything of major importance (aside from starting or getting involved in wars) and don't they then blow out of proportion anything they actually did have a hand in getting started or getting done?

Seems to me politics works something like this: you lie by promising impossible things to people to get elected, once elected you lie about what you originally lied about while you lie to cover up any mistakes you make in formulating your current lies, and at the end you lie about anything you actually accomplished.
Best post in this thread.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



"Bill Clinton's first months were distracted by the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy....." [Tongo]

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is only controversial in retrospect. It was a compromise reached after Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Clinton he would resign if he allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. At the time, the Australian military, for example, had for a few years allowed homosexuals to serve. However, not one serviceman had declared himself or herself gay to that date. People are either too young to know or fail to remember how times have changed in the interim.



As Congress touts spending deal, Trump calls for shutdown

Lawmakers in both parties celebrated reaching a spending deal that would avoid a government shutdown this week, but President Trump took to Twitter on Tuesday morning to argue that the country "needs a good shutdown" to fix Senate rules that require him to negotiate with Democrats.

The deal struck by Republican and Democratic leaders to fund the government through Sept. 30 includes some of the increased defense spending Trump had requested but not funding for his wall along the Mexican border. It also continues subsidies for health insurance under Obamacare and provides emergency funding for Puerto Rico, where a budget crisis has threatened Medicaid payments. Both were big Democratic priorities.

Congress is expected to vote on the deal in the next couple of days; the government is currently funded only through Friday under a temporary measure passed last week.

Trump tweeted Tuesday that the deal had to be negotiated because Republicans can't push a bill through the Senate without bipartisan support. He then suggested changing Senate rules to scrap the minority party's ability to block legislation, and said a government shutdown would help.





Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., changed the Senate rules this year to allow Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed without Democratic support, but he said he would not change the rules for other legislation.

Democrats expressed dismay at the president advocating a government shutdown.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...B2c?li=BBnb7Kz



“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., changed the Senate rules this year to allow Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed without Democratic support, but he said he would not change the rules for other legislation.” [Tongo]

When Harry Reid was the Senate minority leader he stated in his book (he wrote it right in his book!) that it would be wrong to eliminate the filibuster for judges and cabinet appointees. Later, when he was majority leader, he did exactly that except for supreme court justices. Now, after the GOP letting through Kagan (the Democrats had 60 votes for Sotomayor), the Democrats filibuster a GOP pick for the court who had distinguished ratings from the ABA and other organizations concerned with the judiciary. Therefore, the GOP eliminated the filibuster for supreme court picks, going a step further than Reid. There are too many:country club Republicans for the senatorial GOP to go along with President Trump’s desire to eliminate the filibuster altogether. I, however, don’t trust the Democrats not to do so when they are again in the majority rationalizing: “Now we’re taking the next step just as you did.”

It all depends as to how far Trump is willing to take it. He could threaten to run his own slate of GOP candidates in the primaries against any sitting Republican senator who won’t go along. This would cause very hard feelings within his own party and might even result in the embarrassment of having some of his vetoes overridden--including budgets in which he doesn’t get things like money for the wall and defunding Planned Parenthood--with the help of his own party. He could even bolt the party altogether and run third party candidates in the general elections. That would be highly counterproductive and would virtually certainly hand the Senate to the Democrats. However, he is a hothead and the GOP leadership might take the threat seriously. Many doubt that Trump was ever a Republican at heart anyway, and if loses reelection he is still rich. "My way or the highway." He might not even run again despite what he indicates now. He is anything but predictable.



You'll have to point me to those reasons, because I don't recall any.
It's been my argument since square one. I don't see much point in repeating myself any more than I already have.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Here's how this has gone: I gave you the definitions of both words, and showed how, together, they mean exactly what I've said.
Out of context. In three different ways. As I've explained.

Originally Posted by Yoda
When I then asked you if we could agree it's what he SAID, rather than what he meant, you said no, he didn't literally say it either.
No, he DID literally say that. I don't think you're using "literally" the same way I am. Or "said".

Originally Posted by Yoda
I've claimed that neither word is modified by the context,
And I've disputed that.

Originally Posted by Yoda
and specifically asked you to explain what context could modify them. Feel free to do that at any time.
I've done that. Repeatedly. In three different ways. This will be the last time I state them, there are 3 S's:

1.) Sentence. Given what was said in it's entirety, the meaning you've attributed to these words is contradicted.

2.) Scenario. Given the situation in which they were said, the meaning you've attributed to these words is contradicted.

3.) Standard Usage. Given how they are commonly used, the meaning you've attributed to these words is contradicted.

He literally used those words,
but he did not "literally" "say" what you claim he "literally said".

Originally Posted by Yoda
Again, this is "he didn't mean it." And not being articulate is a fine excuse for misspeaking and then correcting, not misspeaking and then doubling down and pretending you didn't actually say anything wrong in the first place.
He didn't. Including those words, grammatically inappropriate as they may be, does not change what he said.

He's not responding to people criticizing his grammar,
he's responding to a misinterpretation of his words.

Think about it from his perspective:
Imagine you said something you think is true, then people start attacking you and saying you said something else. NONE of them specifically refer to your grammar and only quote you insofar to show that it is somehow self-evidently offensive and you just don't see it.

Why would you renege any specific words? That wouldn't make any sense.

"This judge is ruling against me out of spite!"
"What's that you say? 'Other demographics are always unfair?'"

I think that, in and of itself, is self-evidently absurd, but I've just spent weeks getting wrapped around the axel on this.

Originally Posted by Yoda
we just need to figure out how you could interpret his words to mean anything else.
I don't see how it's so difficult, especially when I've elaborated on it incessantly.

This reminds me of a couple wackos a few months back who thought a "scientific paper" validated their views and linked me to some botched mess of a case study. I immediately took a screenshot of one of it's biggest errors and put it to them as a counterargument and they subsequently spent the next 6 straight hours vigorously denying that I had even made a counterargument, calling me a "science-denier" until they finally suspended my Twitter account.

It was pretty frustrating.

Originally Posted by Yoda
For real? After half a dozen rounds of this, you just casually mention that you're using "said" as a synonym for "mean"?
"utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction."

I believe that's how I've been using it.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Why would I even make that distinction if they were interchangeable?
They're not interchangeable, but just as there is overlap with "said" and "mean", there is overlap with "said" and "spoke". I took you to be using "said" as "spoke" (in contrast to "mean", as in merely to use words), but I argued against it because were I to concede that what was "said" was "spoke", then what was "spoke" can be conflated with "mean".

Spoke: Used words.
Said: Used words to express intention.
Meant: Expressed intention.

"Literally" Said: Used exact words to express intention or used words to express exact intention.

If I agree that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was spoken, then I can inadvertently validate the claim that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was meant.

Perhaps it's a failure on my part not to have elucidated what I was doing, but I was a bit more focused on your general argument. Much like Trump was.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Again, what context? What common usage? This wasn't saying "cool" to mean something other than "cold." This isn't inflicting a clumsy literalism on clearly metaphorical words. The words were "absolute" and "inherent." They're not modified by the context
I disagree. Here, I'll even do a quick search of Twitter using those words and you tell me if they're using them in the same manner:




Originally Posted by Yoda
It isn't. I know the bottom-of-the-barrel stuff you're talking about, and yes, it's silly.
I think this is silly.

Originally Posted by Yoda
A lot of people are going out of their way to read the most sinister intentions into everything coming out of this administration (though, to be fair, they've given them lots of reason to do so). But this isn't a case of interpreting something uncharitably when a less insidious, more straightforward explanation is just sitting there. In this case, it's flipped; in this case it's his defenders going out of their way to try to interpret and parse so charitably, and the critics who are simply using a perfectly straightforward interpretation of what he said.
In which case it's just a brute force argument over language.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I really think this doesn't belong in the same category as all that other stuff you're thinking of.
I believe it does, and I've explained how out-of-nowhere it comes across to me, again, I wouldn't accept this argument given of a complete stranger. That it's Trump has nothing to do with it, if he came out tomorrow in support of David Duke my opinion will not have changed because what I think of Trump is entirely unrelated to my argument. I defend him only insofar as he's unfairly attacked which I believe this is.

I do not defend his wall,
I do not defend his cabinet choices,
I do not defend his military spending,
I do not defend his numerous self-contradictions,
I do not defend him bombing other countries based on total mythologies...

But I do defend him when someone twists his words out of context in order to paint him as the freewheeling bigot everyone is so desperate to have confirmed.

Even if he was, that wouldn't change my thoughts about him as a candidate because my expectations of him are already spectacularly low, they're just not low enough to continue trying to pin him for something he never said and specifically said he never said months ago.

You want to make this semantic, and honestly, if what he said looked offensive on it's face, I would say so, it's not like saying stupid **** is beyond him, but I don't even think the statement in and of itself is offensive. I'm not perturbed by it because I don't read into it what you read into it. I can't even really conceive of how you would manage to convince me that it's worse than it appears.

I'm not even sure why we're still on this, I've admitted multiple times the guy is crap at speaking and I've quoted him specifically clarifying what he meant. Shouldn't that be it? He said something that was construed as offensive and he clarified himself.

What more is there to talk about beyond trying to convince me that the interpretation was rational? I personally hate "agree to disagree", but this is so inconsequential and we've sunk so much time going around and around in circles I'd rather just drop it.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Well, that much I knew. But at minimum we should be able to agree that this isn't a "lie." You can't call something a lie only to explain that it's a lie because you don't think he meant what he said. If you wanna dabble in that kind of nuance in your explanation, you've got to use it in your disagreement, too. Let's reserve "lie" for things that are demonstrably false (like, say, pretending you never supported invading Iraq or Libya), rather than things you've decided were probably meant in a way other than their most straightforward meaning.
I should think the most probable interpretation is also the most straightforward. Occam's Razor.

Originally Posted by Don Schneider
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is only controversial in retrospect. It was a compromise reached after Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Clinton he would resign if he allowed homosexuals to serve in the military.
Let him resign. He can be replaced. Maybe by one of the people they fired from their job.
https://www.stripes.com/news/service...-dadt-1.257393