Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 297423 times)

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3576
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #250 on: November 25, 2019, 09:52:29 AM »
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.

I mean . . . technically, our commander in Chief of the military is the queen.  But I'd be surprised if we ever actually went to war on her say so.  It's a ceremonial title.  :P

When I worked for the Canadian government I had to sign a declaration that I would work for her majesty the Queen should she ever require my service. That felt exceptionally weird as a US citizen.  The way it was worded it made it sound like the queen could just call me up and crash on my couch whenever she wanted.

Ha ha, if she brought along a couple of her corgis, I would probably be fine with it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #251 on: November 25, 2019, 09:56:37 AM »

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #252 on: November 25, 2019, 10:09:48 AM »

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #253 on: November 25, 2019, 10:24:39 AM »

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #254 on: November 25, 2019, 11:35:52 AM »

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?

Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #255 on: November 25, 2019, 11:43:43 AM »
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.

I am not sure he is stupid. He's been conning people successfully for years, so he must have some sort of brain.

He has...high EQ of a sort? Narcissistic charm? Riding-his-coattails pull?

Sort of like a televangelist. Rather than promises about heaven, he makes empty promises about power and money. He is thought to have some so money might land in his believer's hands too if they go along with him. He is very charismatic like a cheap salesman and certain people really buy his schtick. His charisma seems so contrived and obvious that I can't believe people give him any attention but they do. I'm happy to report that DW and I seem to be immune to this type of schtick. I suppose if any of us here spent time learning to do these we too could be very rich by taking advantage of gullible people.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #256 on: November 25, 2019, 11:58:31 AM »

Right. I was just explaining part of the reason that anyone in the US would think a "general's president" is something important.

And why a dude who faked bone spurs to get out of serving would pander so hard to the faux patriots in our country, and use that kind of BS language to do it.

It doesn't explain how they're gullible enough to fall for it, though.

I also wonder why so many were gullible enough to buy into such rhetoric.  My working theory i that DJT identified a few constituencies that could be swayed from HRC despite all his obvious handicaps/limited experience in those areas.  Evangelicals, the military, blue-collar workers. Over-promise right out of the gate.  Nevermind that you are a thrice-married serial adulterer who has no discernible faith.  Never-mind that you dodged the draft and denigrated the military for years. Nevermind that you inherited hundreds of millions, went to private academies and literally sit on a gold-plated throne inside a gold-plated nyc skyscraper.

He got key leaders (e.g. Flynn) to back him by promising them positions (no accident Flynn wound up NSA, until he got busted).  Promise the evangelical leaders you'll appoint uber-conservative judges (one promise kept!) and promote faith-based exemptions and they'll overlook your sins and godlessness.  Tell workers in a dying industry you 'dig coal' and they'll ignore their own analyses and all the writing on the wall. 
Overpromise, win, then to hell with everyone.

Question is - can it work a second time?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #257 on: November 25, 2019, 12:36:46 PM »
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard. 

Fair enough.


Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.

War - A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

?


And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.

The British Empire has certainly been at war often, particularly while it was building it's empire in the 17 and 18 hundreds.  Not sure that the same can really be said about Canada though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Canada

You can check for yourself, but Canada has certainly not been "holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years."




Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you on that.  Britain has been moving away from powerful monarchy and towards democracy since the 1400s (when democracy and voting were first implemented), then accelerating with the great revolution of 1688 (when they removed and then re-installed the monarch in a greatly weakened state).  The reform act in the 1800s continued this change that had already been under way for some time.

I mean, I'm sure that the continued success of democracy in the US helped the cause, but it certainly wasn't the sole source of the change.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 02:06:59 PM by GuitarStv »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5780
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #258 on: November 25, 2019, 01:51:38 PM »

Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you on that.  Britain has been moving away from powerful monarchy and towards democracy since the 1400s (when democracy and voting were first implemented), then accelerating with the great revolution of 1688 (when they removed and then re-installed the monarch in a greatly weakened state).  The reform act in the 1800s continued this change that had already been under way for some time.

I mean, I'm sure that the continued success of democracy in the US helped the cause, but it certainly wasn't the sole source of the change.
These Johnny-come-lately colonials constantly over-estimate their effect on a State which has been evolving the concepts of rule of law and democracy since 1215.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 03:05:38 PM by former player »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #259 on: November 25, 2019, 02:44:14 PM »

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?

One could argue we have been in and out of a cold war with Russia and China for quite some time. A full scale traditional war appears to be simply to undesirable to the worlds major powers to commit to for the time being. So instead we all engage in constant and sustained proxy wars through tech, economics and some military force.

Cold wars appear to simply be the future among super power countries since nuclear weapons have pretty much squashed all hope of directly subjugating a major country.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #260 on: November 25, 2019, 07:59:13 PM »


The British Empire has certainly been at war often, particularly while it was building it's empire in the 17 and 18 hundreds.  Not sure that the same can really be said about Canada though.


The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #261 on: November 25, 2019, 08:21:43 PM »
Another career public servant and military brass has been shoved out the door - this time none other than SECNAV Richard Spencer.

I've never encountered so many high-ranking officials meet an abrupt and embarrassing end as there have been under this administration. Will the forced-dismissal of Spencer (and Mattis, and McMaster, and Kelly, and the conviction of Flynn) blunt the support of the rank-and-file military?

Trump isn't really a "General's president" anymore...

It appears that Spencer tried to work a deal with the President regarding Gallagher's SEAL status that smelled bad and also went right around the SECDEF.  The whole affair has been a mess.

https://taskandpurpose.com/eddie-gallagher-richard-spencer?fbclid=IwAR1EnOvh6Siq6JBn9hag5ONl7PipXCfnT6AeoVgdB9eWpc8q7xE3n2sl2VU


To answer your question - no. Cabinet and Service Secretaries come and go.  The rank and file will move on with their lives.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #262 on: November 25, 2019, 09:41:23 PM »

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?

It is a technical fact that Canada declared war in WWI and WWII separately from Great Britain, but it is also true that there was zero chance of it not happening.  Here in Canada our political mythology says that WWI defined us as a separate country, with its own seat at the table in the Armistice talks and Treaty negotiations at Versaille (said seat was something of a condition of our putting 10% of our population in uniform etc.

Between the wars Canada took no part in any conflicts that Britain engaged.  After the war we tended to stick with UN related things like Korea and peacekeeping.

Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 10:09:23 PM by rocketpj »

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #263 on: November 26, 2019, 12:17:36 AM »

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #264 on: November 26, 2019, 06:25:02 AM »
Back to nereo's question, will it work again? Will the rank and file military vote for him again? Will the farmers in the midwest after the tariffs have hurt them (to the point where we are paying them off)? Will the workers in the rust belt he told not to sell their homes, I'm gonna open up that factory again (and it never happened)? How about the coal miners he told he is bringing coal back (and several mines have closed in the last 2 years)? Or is everyone going to vote for him because at the moment, their stock market investments are doing well, and they have a job (or two).

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #265 on: November 26, 2019, 07:48:48 AM »
I think Trump polls worse against generic Democrats than he will perform in an election against a specific candidate.

Again, I see people all around me beginning the mental gymnastics they will need to go through to justify voting against Sanders or Warren.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13892
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #266 on: November 26, 2019, 08:01:00 AM »

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.

Is 1867 to 1918 that long a stretch? Before 1867 we had home rule but were several colonies.   We were somewhat involved in the Boer war, my great uncle fought there. Very nasty war.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #267 on: November 26, 2019, 08:34:13 AM »

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.

I'm not sure that it's fair to call the time that Canada spent as a British colony a part of it's military history.  I wouldn't include the time that the US was a British colony as part of the United States military history . . . because it was before there was a United States.

Either way, when you look at what has happened militarily between the two countries after they became independent of the British, there's a pretty stark contrast in how war-like they have been.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #268 on: November 26, 2019, 08:59:11 AM »
It's not fair to expect Canada to be a world power. They look big on maps, but--measured by size--their economy is roughly comparable to that of Texas.

No offense, Canadians, I love you guys, particularly Alberta. Everyone tells me Alberta is basically like Texas, but with the seasons flipped.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #269 on: November 26, 2019, 05:54:41 PM »
You know, it occurs to me that there must be a lot of Republicans in office that really don't like Mike Pence given the amount of effort they are going to to keep Trump in office.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #270 on: November 26, 2019, 06:01:36 PM »
You know, it occurs to me that there must be a lot of Republicans in office that really don't like Mike Pence given the amount of effort they are going to to keep Trump in office.

I don’t think one should read this as a dislike of Pence. Virtually every GOP member is terrified of losing Trump’s base of voters. If s/he angers Trump even mildly he makes it know via twitter and on the talk-show circuit.  That’s how Trump keeps them in line - he realizes that he’s got a good 25-30% of the voters in his pocket (...”i could shoot someone on 5th avenue”...)
Those in competitive districts/states can’t afford to lose even 5% of their voters and win re-election.  Those in ‘safe’ red districts/states fear a “pro-Trump’ primary challenger.

Unfortunately Pence has little to do with it.  I’ve often thought the GOP would be better off with Pence - all the same outcomes (tax cuts, conservative judges, etc) with none of the drama.  But at least right now bucking Trump means electoral defeat, so they toe the line in pubic while they quietly vent behind closed doors.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #271 on: November 26, 2019, 08:48:12 PM »
Armed conflict abroad is not war. 
An interesting distinction which would not, I think, be made by anyone who had ever been on the two-way rifle range.

But if it saves you from asking and answering uncomfortable questions about your country's history, well that is a long tradition in many countries, so enjoy!

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #272 on: November 30, 2019, 07:27:36 PM »
Check this out.   Boris Johnson is being portrayed as "Britain's Trump".

Bojo has said "it would be “best” if U.S. President Donald Trump does not get involved in Britain’s election when he visits London for a NATO summit next week."

Apparently the tweeter in chief doesn't realize how badly the Brits dislike him.



OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3576
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #273 on: November 30, 2019, 07:36:15 PM »
Check this out.   Boris Johnson is being portrayed as "Britain's Trump".

Bojo has said "it would be “best” if U.S. President Donald Trump does not get involved in Britain’s election when he visits London for a NATO summit next week."

Apparently the tweeter in chief doesn't realize how badly the Brits dislike him.

His support has been bad news for US candidates in several high-profile elections lately. I can’t imagine his patronage would be any more successful overseas.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #274 on: December 01, 2019, 07:14:06 AM »
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 07:20:27 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #275 on: December 01, 2019, 10:10:13 AM »
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

I'm unconvinced the the average Republican is capable of feeling shame at this point.  Just anger and schadenfreude.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5780
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #276 on: December 01, 2019, 10:52:45 AM »
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

I'm unconvinced the the average Republican is capable of feeling shame at this point.  Just anger and schadenfreude.
The last 3 years is the perfect example of how easy it is to lead the average human being into believing repellent nonsense just by consistently lying to them about it.  See also the growth in conspiracy theories.

The problem is: how do you get back from here to something "normal"?  Or is this an unstoppable slide?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #277 on: December 01, 2019, 12:27:43 PM »
The last 3 years is the perfect example of how easy it is to lead the average human being into believing repellent nonsense just by consistently lying to them about it.  See also the growth in conspiracy theories.

The problem is: how do you get back from here to something "normal"?  Or is this an unstoppable slide?

Anything we can do needs more revenue and that's off the tables. We're fucked unless we can get a Democratic President and Senate.

But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #278 on: December 01, 2019, 12:49:44 PM »
But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.

Climate change will hit us all, no matter what.  But one political party has decided they don't like the idea of climate change, so consistently deny any measurement, science, or fact related to it and appear to be hellbent on increasing the problem as much as possible.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #279 on: December 01, 2019, 01:05:16 PM »
Well how long has it been since we've had a liberal president? Basically FDR is the last liberal president we've had. Since then it's been a battle of middle-conservative or right-conservative.

The GOP strategy during the Obama years was to reframe Obama as an uber leftist, which I think most Americans now looking back realize, Obama was a pretty conservative leader.

The GOP only had 2 possible moves after that because what they did with Obama was cede the middle road to the Democrats. I thought that the GOP might make the Tory move, basically co-opt a few pieces left politics but otherwise maintain a right position. The reality was that the GOP turned absurdly right wing, rather than find a coalition with populists.

You could say that Trump ran on a few populist points, but he hasn't really delivered. So instead the GOP has been left with entrenching their power through the courts, and taking gerrymandering to a whole new level. They know they won't be winning the House anytime in the next 10 years, the Senate is swinging 50/50. So the GOP members with least amount of shame have taken on fascist traits of maintaining power through voter suppression, and redistricting games.

Dems need to take a multilayered approach:
1. Executive orders that can restore most of the damage done
2. Federal laws that will restore voting rights.
3. Making Puerto Rico and DC a state
4. A whole slew of new constitutional amendments: Eliminate the slavery exception clause in the 14th amendment, end electoral college, ERA, add term limits to all branches of government.
5. Pack the courts

There's more that needs to be done, but dems have to start playing hardball when they win the Senate back.

Leisured

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Age: 75
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #280 on: December 02, 2019, 03:30:58 AM »

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #281 on: December 02, 2019, 08:02:00 AM »

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.

Not surprising at all to me.  Trump is the embodiment of what Republican voters want in a leader.

Lincoln would be drummed out of the Republican primaries so quickly it would make your head spin.  A moderate, self-made man . . . who isn't beholden to large corporations?  Who doesn't have a track record of disenfranchising minorities?  No chance.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #282 on: December 02, 2019, 08:05:38 AM »

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.

Not surprising at all to me.  Trump is the embodiment of what Republican voters want in a leader.

Lincoln would be drummed out of the Republican primaries so quickly it would make your head spin.  A moderate, self-made man . . . who isn't beholden to large corporations?  Who doesn't have a track record of disenfranchising minorities?  No chance.

This is true. I'd bet money that if you asked the average Republican voter these days to talk about why Trump is better than Lincoln, if you let them talk long enough, they'd start expressing their doubts that Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was a good idea.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #283 on: December 02, 2019, 09:29:50 AM »
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #284 on: December 02, 2019, 09:38:37 AM »
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.

Sure.  And if he struck down the 13th amendment and re-established slavery as a thing there would be many people who would think he was the greatest President ever.  History will judge his actions.


But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #285 on: December 02, 2019, 09:48:31 AM »
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.

Sure.  And if he struck down the 13th amendment and re-established slavery as a thing there would be many people who would think he was the greatest President ever.  History will judge his actions.


But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.

Agreed.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #286 on: December 02, 2019, 09:54:26 AM »
Neither Clinton nor Obama earned the undying fealty that Reagan seems to have, that's true.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #287 on: December 02, 2019, 10:51:47 AM »
Neither Clinton nor Obama earned the undying fealty that Reagan seems to have, that's true.

What's interesting to me is that - from my own very unscientific observations - it seems like popular opinion among democrats of Obama and Clinton have dipped slightly.  Obama is now seen as not as progressive as many of his supporters hope, and Clinton has been diminished by the 'me-too' movement and a shift in opinion that his actions were definitely not ok.  At the same time Dem's disdain for 'W' has ebbed and his father is seen by many as a principled, cautious conservative.

OTOH, the GOP hates Obama just as much (if not more) than they did while he was in office, and now blame him for some of what has happened afterward.  Bill Clinton is as hated as ever, and perhaps moreso as some sort of 'enabler' of HRC's 'Evil Ambition'.  Reagan is still referenced as some sort of political founder/saint - even though I'm relatively certain the Gipper would be appalled at the positions many in today's GOP have taken.

I wonder what the GOP's opinion of Trump will be in  few years. Wild speculation - if he loses the WH and Senate he'll be tarred (metaphorically) as the ruiner of the GOP - even though he was gleefully supported all the way along. If he wins a second term (and the judges which will come with them) he'll be as popular as Reagan for decades to come.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 10:54:40 AM by nereo »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #288 on: December 02, 2019, 03:53:39 PM »
But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.
It's the same in Australia. Once Howard was turfed out of his own seat, all of a sudden you couldn't find anybody who'd voted for him. "Who? What? Me? No, no, I was never taken in by that "children overboard" and "Iraq dossier" nonsense. And do you know he said he'd never ever bring in a GST, and then he did - and he still got back in? But nobody I know voted for him. Must have been electoral fraud or something. Maybe low-class poorly-educated people, all racists of course." But then with the recent string of PMs, Howard's starting to be rehabilitated in public opinion. And in ten years it'll go around again.

All these shenanigans are simply because nobody can bring themselves to say, "Well, I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I was wrong. Now I've changed my mind."

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."

Successes are always to my credit, and failures are always someone else's fault. I have always shared whatever progressive/conservative ideals are prominent right now, even twenty years ago, I was just really quiet about it. And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

six-car-habit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #289 on: December 02, 2019, 06:44:56 PM »

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."


 Maybe you don't know too many people with integrity ?
There's no way I'd let Trump spend a week around my family, with his corrosive morals and actions.
Not even if you offered all the money , free time, and human respect + adulation, that one person could use in a natural lifetime...

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #290 on: December 03, 2019, 06:42:40 AM »
But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.

Climate change will hit us all, no matter what.  But one political party has decided they don't like the idea of climate change, so consistently deny any measurement, science, or fact related to it and appear to be hellbent on increasing the problem as much as possible.

There is a real irony to appreciate with that thought process. The flow off immigrants is partly a result of climate change itself as many crop fields are being wiped out due to severe drought. And since most of these farmers rely on these fields for their daily meals, what are they to do? Stay on starve to death or head north where we have ginormous grocery stores and food everywhere. Of course Trump credits "his" great economy. And his followers do as well.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #291 on: December 03, 2019, 07:42:29 AM »

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."


 Maybe you don't know too many people with integrity ?
There's no way I'd let Trump spend a week around my family, with his corrosive morals and actions.
Not even if you offered all the money , free time, and human respect + adulation, that one person could use in a natural lifetime...

It's a higher order of self-awareness and intellectual honesty to be able to admit: I didn't know what would happen with Trump, but I was damn sure Clinton wouldn't be a good idea.

Plenty of people have normal amounts of integrity but don't have this.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #292 on: December 03, 2019, 10:15:48 AM »
Trump's latest trade-war & currency war threats.  Particularly this idea of imposing a 100% tariff on French luxury goods, including wine. 

Remember way back in, oh, 2018 when Trump used "national security" as his tissue-thin justification for imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and other allies?  Well he's dropped that fig-leaf entirely, and assumed unilateral authority to impose tariffs (or not) whenever and for whatever reason he feels like. 

In other words - Trump's given up all pretense of assuming Congress's tariff power, e.g.  "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" (Article I, Section VIII).

This latest French tariff feels more punitive and vindictive than purposeful or strategic. Trump just wants to poke Macron in the eye, and doesn't care if it's in the nation's best interests.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #293 on: December 03, 2019, 10:18:29 AM »
This latest French tariff feels more punitive and vindictive than purposeful or strategic. Trump just wants to poke Macron in the eye, and doesn't care if it's in the nation's best interests.

Yep.

And Trump just threatened to send ISIS fighters to France, in front of Macron. On live TV.

President Trump is an imbecile.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/next-to-macron-trump-threatens-to-send-isis-fighters-to-france-on-live-tv-wOfJRbhjeUmnf0OLqH0w-A/?fbclid=IwAR0cQOiVZzX3Vqg28I5KuguIXitRS0OHb5rWU1X22Re51QTp6LK6LLRU7dY

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7030
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • The Best Is Yet To Come
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #294 on: December 03, 2019, 10:28:30 AM »
I saw the photo of Macron next to Trump. One young, fit, educated, a great orator. In short, presidential, and the other the weird guy in the corner you would be embarrassed to be associated with.

I follow Macron on FB and just read his post honoring the 13 French soldiers recently killed in combat. The eulogy reads like poetry. It is evocative, painting a picture of the terrain they were in, the mission, the loss, and each individual person for who he was.

180* different from anything that would coke out of trump’s mouth or pen, in short.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #295 on: December 03, 2019, 11:27:08 AM »
I saw the photo of Macron next to Trump. One young, fit, educated, a great orator. In short, presidential, and the other the weird guy in the corner you would be embarrassed to be associated with.

I follow Macron on FB and just read his post honoring the 13 French soldiers recently killed in combat. The eulogy reads like poetry. It is evocative, painting a picture of the terrain they were in, the mission, the loss, and each individual person for who he was.

180* different from anything that would coke out of trump’s mouth or pen, in short.

I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #296 on: December 03, 2019, 11:54:17 AM »
Macron has been really pragmatic in trying to cultivate a relationship with Trump. It's hard to watch (if you don't like Trump and want someone to just tell him to his face he's an idiot), but I truly comprehend the extent to which the world has depended on American soft power, and how greatly that has been diminished.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #297 on: December 03, 2019, 12:01:55 PM »
Macron has been really pragmatic in trying to cultivate a relationship with Trump. It's hard to watch (if you don't like Trump and want someone to just tell him to his face he's an idiot), but I truly comprehend the extent to which the world has depended on American soft power, and how greatly that has been diminished.

Agreed. It's clear that Macron has to draw on all of his reserves to treat Trump as anything approaching an intellectual equal. I honestly doesn't know how he does it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #298 on: December 03, 2019, 12:10:14 PM »
I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.

::snort::
Having lived in French-speaking regions, I have frequently been impressed at how systematically they are taught English in school.  Whereas in the US we largely use "English class" to read literature and discuss plot, they spend a lot more time learning sentence structure and grammar. AS a result, few young people in the US can identify an adverb, whereas many French students have no trouble diagramming entire paragraphs (something I only learned to do when I was living there).

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #299 on: December 03, 2019, 12:14:18 PM »
I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.

::snort::
Having lived in French-speaking regions, I have frequently been impressed at how systematically they are taught English in school.  Whereas in the US we largely use "English class" to read literature and discuss plot, they spend a lot more time learning sentence structure and grammar. AS a result, few young people in the US can identify an adverb, whereas many French students have no trouble diagramming entire paragraphs (something I only learned to do when I was living there).

On the whole, I'd say the French aren't the greatest language-learners compared to some other countries in Europe, but definitely better than the US. I was a French professor for many years before "retiring" to do other things, and the English faculty at the university where I taught always said that the language majors (particularly mine) were always the best at English grammar in their classes, precisely because they learned sentence structure and grammar through their language courses, not their English courses.

But above and beyond that, I am serious about Macron v. Trump. Macron's sentence structure, grasp of vocabulary, ability to express complex concepts, etc. in English are all superior to Trump's. The only thing Trump has that Macron doesn't is a native accent.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 12:16:18 PM by Kris »