Trump outrage of the day

[RetiredAt63]

I cannot believe we have a sitting US president who does not know how to pronounce “Yosemite.”

Like Yosemite Sam?

Like Yosemite National Park. One of the best-known parks in our entire country.

But yeah, you would think at least he might have picked up the pronunciation from the cartoon sometime in the last 74 years, if nothing else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510501-trump-struggles-with-pronouncing-yosemites-at-bill-signing

Not being American, I  have no idea how to pronounce Yosemite in regards to the park, I have never heard anyone say it.  I've seen it in print, but that doesn't help.  So many names are country/region specific.

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Sorry, back to Trump, who should know how to say Yosemite.

[Vertical Mode]

Every time this thread pops up, my brain immediately reads the title as "Trump outage of the day", as if he has blown a fuse or lost internet connectivity or something. Maybe its some sort of instinctive defense mechanism to try and find humor in it at this point.

January 2021 cannot arrive fast enough. Agent Orange has done enough damage.

[Travis]

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Just fyi there are people who can't stand eye contact. Some can't stand spiders, some can't stand cramped or open places, some can't stand eye contact.
And if those people turn their away during a conversation they are not looking away, they are lending you their ear.

And in some cutlures it would be rude to look someone in the eyes.

Just as a btw and reminder you should not put too much meaning in such single things.

In a one on one conversation with just a few feet of space between people - I'd buy that; however, we're talking about a national leader who looks at his audience and speaks with arrogance or disgust to them several times per week.  This wasn't a conversation where he'd "lend you his ear." This was a speech. A one way conversation. 

"In some cultures." Not in the USA. Not to an American audience. Looking away while someone is talking to you is to ignore them.  Looking away while you're the one speaking means you don't want to talk to them or don't put high value on the conversation.  Looking down and speaking from your notes 90% of the speech is considered to be ill-prepared. 

"Too much meaning." I put meaning in an example of someone who has a significant change in repeated behaviors. Especially one who brags about his public speaking skills, that he's never wrong, and never has an off-day. This was atypical of his speaking style.

[Kris]

I cannot believe we have a sitting US president who does not know how to pronounce “Yosemite.”

Like Yosemite Sam?

Like Yosemite National Park. One of the best-known parks in our entire country.

But yeah, you would think at least he might have picked up the pronunciation from the cartoon sometime in the last 74 years, if nothing else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510501-trump-struggles-with-pronouncing-yosemites-at-bill-signing

Not being American, I  have no idea how to pronounce Yosemite in regards to the park, I have never heard anyone say it.  I've seen it in print, but that doesn't help.  So many names are country/region specific.

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Sorry, back to Trump, who should know how to say Yosemite.

It is, in fact, Yo SEM it ee.

[Travis]

He didn't seem to have any trouble making eye contact during his disastrous Axios interview...looked even more desperate and unprepared...but still made eye contact as he was flailing on camera

President Obama caught flak a few times when he stumbled without a teleprompter. Trump was just inventing shit out of thin air and sticking to it when called on it.

[Travis]

I cannot believe we have a sitting US president who does not know how to pronounce “Yosemite.”

Like Yosemite Sam?

Like Yosemite National Park. One of the best-known parks in our entire country.

But yeah, you would think at least he might have picked up the pronunciation from the cartoon sometime in the last 74 years, if nothing else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510501-trump-struggles-with-pronouncing-yosemites-at-bill-signing

Not being American, I  have no idea how to pronounce Yosemite in regards to the park, I have never heard anyone say it.  I've seen it in print, but that doesn't help.  So many names are country/region specific.

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Sorry, back to Trump, who should know how to say Yosemite.

It is, in fact, Yo SEM it ee.

Now you both have me curious. What's the difference between "Sem" and "SEM?"  I know how to pronounce the name of the park that I pretty much grew up next to, but I'm typing the sound wrong?

[turketron]

Now you both have me curious. What's the difference between "Sem" and "SEM?"  I know how to pronounce the name of the park that I pretty much grew up next to, but I'm typing the sound wrong?

It's to indicate which syllable is stressed.  There's an easier way to resolve this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS6_uh-fwmY

[GuitarStv]

In Trump's defense . . . the pronounciation of Yosemite is stupid.  The way it's written, it should be prounounced Yo-se-might.

[nereo]

In Trump's defense . . . the pronounciation of Yosemite is stupid.  The way it's written, it should be prounounced Yo-se-might.

Well the name originates from the native people.  They didn't write it down in our alphabet - that was done by a the white soldiers who tried to transcribe the word phonetically (which is an oddly spelled word, too, no?)

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Well... I mean Yosemite Sam was a cartoon character created largely to be an over-the-top foil to Bugs Bunny (and occasionally Daffy).  He was a stereotype of the gold prospectors, complete with overdrawn pronunciations of words and a pretty heavy accent, and the implication that he was under-educated.  So take any pronunciation of his with a bit of humor.

Glad you mentioned Hermine.  I read the first couple of books with zero idea how to say her name, and was glad when Rowling slipped that in (likely because so many of us over here were struggling).   Of course the movies - released slightly later - served the same function.

[Kris]

I cannot believe we have a sitting US president who does not know how to pronounce “Yosemite.”

Like Yosemite Sam?

Like Yosemite National Park. One of the best-known parks in our entire country.

But yeah, you would think at least he might have picked up the pronunciation from the cartoon sometime in the last 74 years, if nothing else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510501-trump-struggles-with-pronouncing-yosemites-at-bill-signing

Not being American, I  have no idea how to pronounce Yosemite in regards to the park, I have never heard anyone say it.  I've seen it in print, but that doesn't help.  So many names are country/region specific.

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Sorry, back to Trump, who should know how to say Yosemite.

It is, in fact, Yo SEM it ee.

Now you both have me curious. What's the difference between "Sem" and "SEM?"  I know how to pronounce the name of the park that I pretty much grew up next to, but I'm typing the sound wrong?

You use capitals to indicate the syllable with the stress on it. With the word “Yosemite” it’s the second syllable that’s stressed when saying it.

[GuitarStv]

In Trump's defense . . . the pronounciation of Yosemite is stupid.  The way it's written, it should be prounounced Yo-se-might.

Well the name originates from the native people.  They didn't write it down in our alphabet - that was done by a the white soldiers who tried to transcribe the word phonetically (which is an oddly spelled word, too, no?)

Ugh.  Don't get me started on the myriad problems with foeniks . . .

[talltexan]

Every time this thread pops up, my brain immediately reads the title as "Trump outage of the day", as if he has blown a fuse or lost internet connectivity or something. Maybe its some sort of instinctive defense mechanism to try and find humor in it at this point.

January 2021 cannot arrive fast enough. Agent Orange has done enough damage.

I created this thread to process the events of October 17, 2020. Aside from Trump's gracious tweet acknowledging the passing of Elijah Cummings, there were eight outrages that day that were far beyond the mispronunciation of a well-known national park.

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

News is also circulating about Trump planning to give his acceptance speech for nomination for President from the White House property, a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act.

[OtherJen]

Every time this thread pops up, my brain immediately reads the title as "Trump outage of the day", as if he has blown a fuse or lost internet connectivity or something. Maybe its some sort of instinctive defense mechanism to try and find humor in it at this point.

January 2021 cannot arrive fast enough. Agent Orange has done enough damage.

I created this thread to process the events of October 17, 2020. Aside from Trump's gracious tweet acknowledging the passing of Elijah Cummings, there were eight outrages that day that were far beyond the mispronunciation of a well-known national park.

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

News is also circulating about Trump planning to give his acceptance speech for nomination for President from the White House property, a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act.

He'll just keep going. At this point, he knows there are no real legal consequences for him or his cronies. Assume that his administration will declare the November election invalid and he will remain in office regardless of the actual ballot counts. Who's going to remove him? The SCOTUS? The Senate? If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

[LennStar]

I just want to point out that my fyi was a general fyi and not meant to mean Trump. If Trump does not look into your eye, then it is likely because he cannot see any golden reverence of him in them.

It was just a general warning that you should not judge too much based on body language etc. I once talked to a body language reading trainer and asked what he thought about my stance (with the thought that would happen what happened), and he took my stance as me rejecting his ideas.
But I was standing the way I was because my knee hurt.

Or the famous exchange:
I don't like him. He never looks into my eyes.
Well, yeah, he is blind after all!

Every time this thread pops up, my brain immediately reads the title as "Trump outage of the day", as if he has blown a fuse or lost internet connectivity or something. Maybe its some sort of instinctive defense mechanism to try and find humor in it at this point.

January 2021 cannot arrive fast enough. Agent Orange has done enough damage.

On a slightly finny side I am disapointed that Trump still hasn't declared his incredible success in fighting Covid: No country in the world has more people that survived an infection than the US!

[nereo]

Every time this thread pops up, my brain immediately reads the title as "Trump outage of the day", as if he has blown a fuse or lost internet connectivity or something. Maybe its some sort of instinctive defense mechanism to try and find humor in it at this point.

January 2021 cannot arrive fast enough. Agent Orange has done enough damage.

I created this thread to process the events of October 17, 2020. Aside from Trump's gracious tweet acknowledging the passing of Elijah Cummings, there were eight outrages that day that were far beyond the mispronunciation of a well-known national park.

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

News is also circulating about Trump planning to give his acceptance speech for nomination for President from the White House property, a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act.

He'll just keep going. At this point, he knows there are no real legal consequences for him or his cronies. Assume that his administration will declare the November election invalid and he will remain in office regardless of the actual ballot counts. Who's going to remove him? The SCOTUS? The Senate? If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

But...but... but... 'moderate Republicans' like Susan Collins said the impeachment proceedings would chastise Trump and that he would be more cautious in the future.

Are you suggesting getting a pass from the Republican-controlled Senate has only emboldened this President?  I'm shocked.  SHOCKED!!

Now imagine what being re-elected would do to his approach of governance.  Why would he care about legality and prudence when he has no more re-election to hold to and no precedents to suggest he'll be held accountable for his actions?

[bacchi]

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

[nereo]

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

Trump's been surprisingly transparent about his preference for elevating people into "acting" positions rather than undergo the full senate confirmation. 

Trump sees an advantage in their status.

"I like 'acting' because I can move so quickly," he told CBS' Face The Nation in February, adding, "It gives me more flexibility."

I worry that this practice will continue and be expanded upon by the next administration (regardless of party).  Easier to fire whomever is in the position and leave the office upon and staffed by a loyalist who answers only to POTUS than nominate a middle-of-the-road apolitical public servant ensured to get confirmation but unlikely to do whatever POTUS asks without question.

[former player]

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

The pandemic has shown up the incompetence of US beaurocracy - for instance, the CDC's failure on testing, not just because they effed up their own attempt at making a test but that they prevented tests that did work from being used while they were trying to get their own going.  That wasn't Trump's fault, other than that Trump has just continued the anti-government feeling in the US for the last 4 decades that has resulted in an underfunded beaurocracy lacking in competence, never mind what the politicians ask it to do.

But the big problem is the almost complete failure of your legal system to enforce the rule of law against Trump.  Congress is a political enforcer but not a legal one.  Your courts have time after time stopped legal actions trying to enforce the law against Trump on the grounds that the person bringing the action has no standing, rendering provisions of the Constitution such as the Emoluments clause effectively null and void  (no doubt the same would happen if someone tried to enforce the appointments requirements).  The courts have also time after time been so slow in progressing actions which have been allowed that Trump has been given years free from enforcement - see the years long battle, still going on,  to get Trump's taxes.  Policies such as Trump's, however shitty, can be reversed.  Politicians leave office.  But a sclerotic and incompetent legal system that can't enforce the rule of law against goverment power will be the end of your democracy.

[bacchi]

But the big problem is the almost complete failure of your legal system to enforce the rule of law against Trump.  Congress is a political enforcer but not a legal one.  Your courts have time after time stopped legal actions trying to enforce the law against Trump on the grounds that the person bringing the action has no standing, rendering provisions of the Constitution such as the Emoluments clause effectively null and void  (no doubt the same would happen if someone tried to enforce the appointments requirements).  The courts have also time after time been so slow in progressing actions which have been allowed that Trump has been given years free from enforcement - see the years long battle, still going on,  to get Trump's taxes.  Policies such as Trump's, however shitty, can be reversed.  Politicians leave office.  But a sclerotic and incompetent legal system that can't enforce the rule of law against goverment power will be the end of your democracy.

Agreed.

This is of course also a symptom of the Senate's power. When a complicit Senate controls judge and Justice confirmations, it can put in power those who agree with it. Those judges reinforce the power of the party in control.

Senate and House term limits might solve this, or at least ameliorate it, but the real problem is the Constitution. Even if a heavily biased, crazy-ass, federal judge is appointed, the House can impeach but the Senate doesn't have to convict.

[ctuser1]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

[RetiredAt63]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Fevers are symptoms too, but a high fever can do damage all on its own.

He may be feeling like an old grandfather, healthwise, but he is still running a second time.

[nereo]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

Yes, I watched it. 
For anyone else who wants to, it is availble here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

I don't feel bad for him, because this is his JOB.  It is one he campaigned for, and accepted, and actively tells us he's done an incredible job.
I have no sympathy for people who  discover they are not able to competently do their job 3.5 years in.

Further, this was a scheduled interview and the subject (the response to the virus)  was known well beforehand.  The questions Swan asked him were obvious, and yet he fumbled them badly. His press secretary was at his side (you can see her enter at the start), and he had notes - but it was a train-wreck

Trump didn't cause the virus, nor civil unrest over racial inequality, but he's spent decades exploiting and magnifying distrust (e.g. he headed the "birther" movement) and courting conspiracy nutjobs and white extremests (e.g. Bannon, QAnon, Miller).  Specifically on the virus he spent months deflecting and downplaying the risk, going so far as to claim it would 'magically go away' by late spring (and has recently doubled-down ont his statement).  For months we had a shortage of tests and PPE  As POTUS he is ultimately responsible for the slow and completely fragmented federal response.  This tendency to push an unrealistic, optimistic view is exactly what Swan asked him about, and Trump had no clear answer.  Worse, despite having the CDC at his beck-and-call he remains woefully under-informed about what's really going on regarding case-counts, mortality, testing and contact tracing.

tl;r -- When the 'boss' is unable to do his job competently after 3+ years, I do not feel sorry for him.

[OtherJen]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Not yet. I don't feel sorry for him in the least. He was born wealthy, has spent his entire life grifting people and getting off essentially scot-free, and refuses to do the job for which he campaigned and is paid. Why would I ever feel sorry for him?

[Glenstache]

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

The pandemic has shown up the incompetence of US beaurocracy - for instance, the CDC's failure on testing, not just because they effed up their own attempt at making a test but that they prevented tests that did work from being used while they were trying to get their own going.  That wasn't Trump's fault, other than that Trump has just continued the anti-government feeling in the US for the last 4 decades that has resulted in an underfunded beaurocracy lacking in competence, never mind what the politicians ask it to do.

But the big problem is the almost complete failure of your legal system to enforce the rule of law against Trump.  Congress is a political enforcer but not a legal one.  Your courts have time after time stopped legal actions trying to enforce the law against Trump on the grounds that the person bringing the action has no standing, rendering provisions of the Constitution such as the Emoluments clause effectively null and void  (no doubt the same would happen if someone tried to enforce the appointments requirements).  The courts have also time after time been so slow in progressing actions which have been allowed that Trump has been given years free from enforcement - see the years long battle, still going on,  to get Trump's taxes.  Policies such as Trump's, however shitty, can be reversed.  Politicians leave office.  But a sclerotic and incompetent legal system that can't enforce the rule of law against goverment power will be the end of your democracy.

The CDC failure is painful in many ways. But, it is also arguably at least in part a result of GOP efforts to render institutions dead in the water. Through 2017 and 2018 the Trump admin gutted programs that we would need for the covid pandemic. Across many science-based organizations funding cuts have led to brain drain and loss of function. Sure policies can be reversed, but rebuilding the institutions will take years to decades.

See:
https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017_3_13_Letter_to_CDC.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/health/cdc-slashes-global-epidemic-programs-outrage/index.html

Yes, the organizations and bureaucracy failed, but that is because they were set up to fail.

[bacchi]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.



* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-22/venezuela-limits-covid-tests-then-claims-low-rates-latam-wrap

[Fireball]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

[Glenstache]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

Imagine  if he was as outraged at the human cost of the pandemic as at the news coverage of it.

[OtherJen]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

So a 9/11 death count every three days is no big deal. Fifty 9/11 death counts in the last 6 months.

[GuitarStv]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

So a 9/11 death count every three days is no big deal. Fifty 9/11 death counts in the last 6 months.

Sounds like you're going to invade Iraq again?  I mean . . . doing that would have nothing to do with coronavirus deaths.  But it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either sooo . . . .


:P

[ixtap]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

So a 9/11 death count every three days is no big deal. Fifty 9/11 death counts in the last 6 months.

Sounds like you're going to invade Iraq again?  I mean . . . doing that would have nothing to do with coronavirus deaths.  But it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either sooo . . . .


:P

Haven't you heard? We are just invading ourselves this time. Double points for libtard cities!

[OtherJen]

Did anybody watch the Axios interview?

I was feeling really bad for Trump. He looks and sounds like an old Grandpa who is dragged into things way beyond his competence level.

He is not the cause of all the problems. He is just the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Yeah, it really seems like Trump doesn't understand the pandemic problem. He was able to make one correct assessment, where no testing=no (official) cases, which is great when you compare the US to Venezuela* but fails when you compare the US to South Korea, as Swan mentioned, but that's where he stops. He doesn't care about the death rate and it's not only about his lack of empathy -- he truly doesn't understand those numbers.

Besides dwelling on the snub at his inauguration, Trump obviously knew fuckall about John Lewis' civil rights past.

You can really see Trump's negotiating style in the interview. He does a gish gallop and overruns Swan until Swan becomes more forceful.

Swan: "Sir, a thousand deaths a day is under control?"
Trump: "Look, it is what it is."

Agreed. Trump literally doesn't have the mental capacity to understand there are dead people behind these numbers. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. What a terrible president & an even worse person.

So a 9/11 death count every three days is no big deal. Fifty 9/11 death counts in the last 6 months.

Sounds like you're going to invade Iraq again?  I mean . . . doing that would have nothing to do with coronavirus deaths.  But it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either sooo . . . .


:P

Merely putting the US death count from COVID-19 in terms that any American aged 30 years or older should easily understand.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I'll take what you quoted at face value: "The president continued: 'You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.'"  Seems reasonable that the intermediate trial step would prevent peaceful protesters (e.g., those in Flint) from prison, even in the unlikely event they were arrested in the first place.

That's different from the window smashers, car burners, etc. - in other words, the destructive protesters.

You have a lot more faith in the justice system that I do.

There have been reports of cities all over the country announcing curfews five minutes before curfew begins, then arresting peaceful protesters who (understandably) can't get off the streets before the curfew starts.

That would indeed be a spectacular example of government overreach, so I agree with you that any "arresting peaceful folks after a five minute curfew warning" are not good.  But window smashers, car burners, etc.?  Yeah, I say arrest them.

I urge arrest, prosecution, and if convicted, punishment of vandals, looters, and arsonists.

And not only because of their patent criminality.

I want them off the streets because their criminality induces fear that has a chilling effect on constitutionally protected assembly and speech.

Within the last few days five plaintiffs  filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court located in Seattle Washington.

The plaintiffs claim that  exercise of their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and demonstrate is hindered by their need to purchase protective gear such as "protective clothing, goggles, gloves, boots, [and] umbrellas" for protection from crowd-control tactics such as use of pepper spray by  police.

The plaintiffs' imaginative lawsuit precisely instances the chilling effect on free speech and peaceable assembly that occurs when law-breaking demonstrators, whose acts are entirely beyond  the ambit of First Amendment  protection, must be  countered and dispersed by resort to use of pepper spray  and other crowd-control  tactics by the police.

 

[nereo]

That's not terribly unusual.  To file a lawsuit one typically must show 'harm' - that the actions of the defendant resulted injury or hardship.  Needing protective gear to peaceable protest fits that.

Similar arguments were successfully made about poll taxes, company uniforms, etc.  If you are forced to purchase something simply to carry out one of your rights, then your rights are being fringed upon.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I cannot believe we have a sitting US president who does not know how to pronounce “Yosemite.”

Like Yosemite Sam?

Like Yosemite National Park. One of the best-known parks in our entire country.

But yeah, you would think at least he might have picked up the pronunciation from the cartoon sometime in the last 74 years, if nothing else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510501-trump-struggles-with-pronouncing-yosemites-at-bill-signing

Not being American, I  have no idea how to pronounce Yosemite in regards to the park, I have never heard anyone say it.  I've seen it in print, but that doesn't help.  So many names are country/region specific.

Yo Sem It EE

I'm sure my 10 year old could have made more eye contact during that little spiel. It looked like he was straining to read from an index card to a group of children.

Thanks. I guess I was remembering the cartoon wrong, I thought it was Yo SEM it ee.  Guessing at pronunciation from the spelling is always iffy.  I like how JK Rowling has Hermione explaining to a German student how to say her name, for the benefit of all non-UK readers..   ;-)

Sorry, back to Trump, who should know how to say Yosemite.

It is, in fact, Yo SEM it ee.

That's how I say it.

Right now I'm looking at the mountains on the southeast border of Yosemite.

[Glenstache]

Right now I'm looking at the mountains on the southeast border of Yosemite.

Are you in the June Lake / Mammoth area? I used to work as a ranger up in Tuolumne and that part of the world has a very special place in my heart.

[Dancin'Dog]

Today, news is swirling about Trump appointing people to jobs called "Performing the duties of an acting deputy undersecretary" so as to promote people who've not been confirmed by the Senate to these jobs. This is yet another brazen move to avoid the advice of the Senate with regard to staffing the executive branch.

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

The pandemic has shown up the incompetence of US beaurocracy - for instance, the CDC's failure on testing, not just because they effed up their own attempt at making a test but that they prevented tests that did work from being used while they were trying to get their own going.  That wasn't Trump's fault, other than that Trump has just continued the anti-government feeling in the US for the last 4 decades that has resulted in an underfunded beaurocracy lacking in competence, never mind what the politicians ask it to do.

But the big problem is the almost complete failure of your legal system to enforce the rule of law against Trump.  Congress is a political enforcer but not a legal one.  Your courts have time after time stopped legal actions trying to enforce the law against Trump on the grounds that the person bringing the action has no standing, rendering provisions of the Constitution such as the Emoluments clause effectively null and void  (no doubt the same would happen if someone tried to enforce the appointments requirements).  The courts have also time after time been so slow in progressing actions which have been allowed that Trump has been given years free from enforcement - see the years long battle, still going on,  to get Trump's taxes.  Policies such as Trump's, however shitty, can be reversed.  Politicians leave office.  But a sclerotic and incompetent legal system that can't enforce the rule of law against goverment power will be the end of your democracy.

What news sources have you been listening to?  That is the opposite of what I heard.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

The scope of all legitimate executive power is problematic because  it eludes  precise boundaries. When  a president is of the same party as the House and/or Senate they have  a corruptive,  partisan tendency to  acquiesce  to questionable exercises of executive power by "their" president. The coupling of the indefinite  scope of executive power with partisan acquiescence means that "past is prologue."  Left unchecked,  questionable  exercises of executive power  ensure more of them by future presidents.




In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.  Justice Jackson expounded eloquently on the indeterminate scope   of executive power.


A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves.

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.

A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question.

 They largely cancel each other.

 And court decisions are indecisive because of the judicial practice of dealing with the largest questions in the most narrow way.


The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context.

While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.

Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Right now I'm looking at the mountains on the southeast border of Yosemite.

Are you in the June Lake / Mammoth area? I used to work as a ranger up in Tuolumne and that part of the world has a very special place in my heart.

No.

The Mammoth Lakes area is  ~130 miles from my house.

[SunnyDays]

Hopefully Trump does a lot more interviews between now and November so he can display more of his stunning ignorance and stupidity in time for the election.  I want to see him lose abysmally.

[John Galt incarnate!]

That's not terribly unusual.  To file a lawsuit one typically must show 'harm' - that the actions of the defendant resulted injury or hardship.  Needing protective gear to peaceable protest fits that.

Similar arguments were successfully made about poll taxes, company uniforms, etc.  If you are forced to purchase something simply to carry out one of your rights, then your rights are being fringed upon.

Counsel for the plaintiffs likened the expense of protective gear to a tax.

"Attorney Talitha Hazelton wrote in the lawsuit that the city of Seattle established a 'de facto protest tax' by forcing demonstrators to purchase gear to withstand police munitions."

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

There are some differences between rolling coal and burning a Bible, certainly. Both, however, are very similar in that they aren't really done to change minds..they're done to piss people off and offend. Burning Bibles is extremely similar to 95% of what Trump does in that there's almost certainly no substance behind it (they're not presenting a message, they're acting out like a spoiled kid), and it's done to energize your base and piss off the opposition, just because you can.

I think you are missing a key difference between the bible burners and your "spoiled child" example.

The spoiled child has not tried many other methods to get the message across (taking a knee, rational discourse, peaceful protests for literally generations, social activism, etc) and failed to be taken notice of.

Perhaps after generations of systemic racism and discrimination with little sign of any true willingness to address the problem, bible burning as an expression of fuck you is actually a considered tactic to gain attention.  Soft of like the "all publicity is good publicity, even negative publicity" idea.

The spoiled child analogy was probably a poor one. There are legitimate grievances for most of the protestors - certainly for all the minority protestors. I do believe that there are especially white protestors in the crowd that aren't there because they believe in it but are there because they just want an excuse to do stupid stuff like burning Bibles for whatever reason (kind of along the lines of spoiled white people screaming, spitting on, etc. black officers - yeah, institutional racism is a problem dude, but you have absolutely no moral authority to do anything like that to a black person in your situation, full stop). But imo, that would be the minority overall, so I shouldn't use that analogy in a way that would in any way blanket the protests as such - my bad.

I do strongly disagree with the thought that this kind of thing is in any way productive. The protests this time have gained strength and had lasting power imo, not because of the criminals who set fires to buildings or destroy things in the midst of it but because of the egregiousness of the crime against Floyd amongst a number of other factors. Many people on here and in other threads have commented about the rioting with a line of reasoning similar to yours - what do you expect to happen when other peaceful ways haven't worked as well? I don't disagree with it in terms of what do you expect - sure, it's the next step you would expect from not being heard. It being the next step in no way, though, is a justification that it's actually a good thing. Stuff like this, sure it generates some publicity, but it's not helpful. I sincerly doubt this made any more people rally to their cause. What it did do is ignite a passion of people against the protest that before were on the fence. Rioting (actual rioting, not the loose definition Trump is using), arson, destruction of private property, and asinine stuff like burning Bibles, that does not help. It energizes the opposition tremendously, biases many more moderate people against the movement, and makes people for the movement at best say, "what do you expect?" So, yes, I can expect poor decision to be made, but no, I very strongly do not believe that it helps anything.

[PKFFW]

I do strongly disagree with the thought that this kind of thing is in any way productive. The protests this time have gained strength and had lasting power imo, not because of the criminals who set fires to buildings or destroy things in the midst of it but because of the egregiousness of the crime against Floyd amongst a number of other factors. Many people on here and in other threads have commented about the rioting with a line of reasoning similar to yours - what do you expect to happen when other peaceful ways haven't worked as well? I don't disagree with it in terms of what do you expect - sure, it's the next step you would expect from not being heard. It being the next step in no way, though, is a justification that it's actually a good thing. Stuff like this, sure it generates some publicity, but it's not helpful. I sincerly doubt this made any more people rally to their cause. What it did do is ignite a passion of people against the protest that before were on the fence. Rioting (actual rioting, not the loose definition Trump is using), arson, destruction of private property, and asinine stuff like burning Bibles, that does not help. It energizes the opposition tremendously, biases many more moderate people against the movement, and makes people for the movement at best say, "what do you expect?" So, yes, I can expect poor decision to be made, but no, I very strongly do not believe that it helps anything.

I guess time will tell if it is helpful or not.

What is empirically evident after generations of continued systemic racism and discrimination with little to no evidence of any willingness to change the situation is that rational discussion, appealing to the better nature of the majority, peaceful protest, and every other tactic employed thus far does not in fact produce significant and lasting change.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I do strongly disagree with the thought that this kind of thing is in any way productive. The protests this time have gained strength and had lasting power imo, not because of the criminals who set fires to buildings or destroy things in the midst of it but because of the egregiousness of the crime against Floyd amongst a number of other factors. Many people on here and in other threads have commented about the rioting with a line of reasoning similar to yours - what do you expect to happen when other peaceful ways haven't worked as well? I don't disagree with it in terms of what do you expect - sure, it's the next step you would expect from not being heard. It being the next step in no way, though, is a justification that it's actually a good thing. Stuff like this, sure it generates some publicity, but it's not helpful. I sincerly doubt this made any more people rally to their cause. What it did do is ignite a passion of people against the protest that before were on the fence. Rioting (actual rioting, not the loose definition Trump is using), arson, destruction of private property, and asinine stuff like burning Bibles, that does not help. It energizes the opposition tremendously, biases many more moderate people against the movement, and makes people for the movement at best say, "what do you expect?" So, yes, I can expect poor decision to be made, but no, I very strongly do not believe that it helps anything.

I guess time will tell if it is helpful or not.

What is empirically evident after generations of continued systemic racism and discrimination with little to no evidence of any willingness to change the situation is that rational discussion, appealing to the better nature of the majority, peaceful protest, and every other tactic employed thus far does not in fact produce significant and lasting change.

Time might tell, but I doubt it will. Even if this time things change, it will be almost impossible to tell what was the real cause of it. I do challenge your empirical evidence on a couple of fronts. One - and I know I'm being cliche, but the civil rights movement, as best as I am aware, was a pretty good example of legitimate positive change being made apart from what we've been talking about. It wasn't peaceful in the way people want to paint it, and by that I mean, it was obstructive and in your face. However, it was in your face much more in line with protests today where people blocking off roads linked arm - not as much with the burning down of buildings or doing something like burning Bibles. Additionally, for now, there have been peaceful protests, but there have also been riots and violence and things still haven't changed either. So, I could say empirically we've had violence not changing it either, if you want to go that route. The fact is, there are problems that need to be changed, and we all have a personal choice to make about how we want to fight injustice. I'm less of an ends justify the means kind of guy, but people can do what they want to do.

[nereo]

What is empirically evident after generations of continued systemic racism and discrimination with little to no evidence of any willingness to change the situation is that rational discussion, appealing to the better nature of the majority, peaceful protest, and every other tactic employed thus far does not in fact produce significant and lasting change.

That’s not how I view it.  From my perspective, it was these strategies that led to the passage of the Civil Rights act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and numerous other advances during the 60s and 70s. For much of the 80s and 90s Affirmative Action policies hoped to close the racial gap in everything from education to hiring. 
‘But wait!’ You are probably saying, “most of those occurred in the 60s and 70s - doesn’t that prove my point?”  I’d argue no, and to look again at history.  The gains made during the civil rights era Remain in place, but progress is rarely linear and we moved away from peaceful protest and rational discussion for quite a while following those leaps.  The assasination of MLK Jr, Malcom X and RFK spiked riots.  Many insulated but well-reasoned people assumed that racism would just “go away” in a generation or two following desegregation: “the children who grow up in new world will have more equality, and racism will slowly ‘go away’”. 

That was a reasonable assumption but clearly it didn’t pan out that way.  Now that those of us who were born after the Civil Rights era (i.e. in the late 70s through the 80s) we are having another reckoning, one that the ‘race-blind’ parenting approach didn’t solve. 
Riots and screaming at one another doesn’t lead to progress.  Peaceful protests and continuous discussion can, but we must never write them off because progress is slow.  The aforementioned advances during the Civil Rights era started as WWII came to a close.  Rosa Parks got arrested in 1955, sparking the bus boycott - yet it would be another decade before those landmark bills were passed into law.  We cannot expect that several months of peaceful protests - or even a couple of years - will achieve our goals.  That’s unrealistic and almost unprecedented.   Personally I am encouraged by the degree to which public opinion has shifted.  Unfortunately one of the fastest way to lose public support is for peaceful movements to devolve into violence and make people fearful of their lives.  No doubt this is Trump’s ground-plan, as he long ago tied himself to the other side.

[former player]

I've been interested in the reactions to Trump calling the Beirut explosion "an attack".  The interesting point is that there has been no reaction.  In the past if the US President had called a devastating explosion of this nature an attack the world would be acting and reacting accordingly.  But in this case it has been so obvious that he not only doesn't know what he is talking about but that in his second comment he was just trying to justify his original mistake that what he has said has been completely discounted, even in the volatile Middle East and even by close US ally Israel.

Trump has succeeded in making the US Presidency irrelevant in world affairs.  That's possibly the most extraordinary outcome of his term of office.  I'm not sure whether there is any way back from that not just for Trump (there isn't, even if he does get a second term) but for the US Presidency as a whole and for the US position in the world.

[talltexan]

Yeah, this is another example of the failure of our system. If we rely on the Senate, and the Senate is complacent or complicit, there's not much we can do even if the rule of law is followed.

The scope of all legitimate executive power is problematic because  it eludes  precise boundaries. When  a president is of the same party as the House and/or Senate they have  a corruptive,  partisan tendency to  acquiesce  to questionable exercises of executive power by "their" president. The coupling of the indefinite  scope of executive power with partisan acquiescence means that "past is prologue."  Left unchecked,  questionable  exercises of executive power  ensure more of them by future presidents.




In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.  Justice Jackson expounded eloquently on the indeterminate scope   of executive power.


A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves.

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.

A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question.

 They largely cancel each other.

 And court decisions are indecisive because of the judicial practice of dealing with the largest questions in the most narrow way.


The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context.

While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.

Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.

indeed this i what concerns me: being trapped in a society that careens back and forth between extreme authoritarian Presidents to the far right (Trump...what other label is there for a President whose most significant achievement is a tax cut) and the far left (I suppose Obama, as well as whoever comes next).

[PKFFW]

@Wolfpack Mustachian and @nereo in rebuttal all I'll say is that viewed from the other side "slow progress" through rational discourse and peaceful protest has shown little to no result for at least 2 generations.  And while yes, things are obviously better now than they were 3 generations ago, knowing one is not being treated as badly as ones grand or great grandparents were back in the day, probably doesn't make the systemic racism and discrimination being experienced today seem ok or worth patiently putting up with for however long it takes for the ones perpetuating the injustice to finally decide for themselves to change things.

I wont argue that in a perfect world rational discourse and peaceful protest is the ideal strategy, nor will I argue that burning bibles is at all likely to achieve the result they are looking for, I wont even argue than in a perfect world just putting up with it for however long it takes to affect change and doing nothing to upset those who are perpetuating the discrimination and racism would be best for all concerned. 

My point is only that the act of bible burning may not simply be an unthinking desire to piss people off and escalate the situation for no other reason than to be rude asshats.  What's that old saying?  "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".  Perhaps those suffering injustice today, who have mostly been doing the same thing, with a few short lived riotous exceptions, for 2 generations, may consider it worth trying a different tactic to patient rational discourse and peaceful protest, which also does not involve mindless violence and destruction, but rather is a calculated expression of anger that gets a rise without causing real damage and is very similar to a well established expression of free speech frequently used in other situations.

Just another framing of the situation for possible consideration is all.

[former player]

indeed this i what concerns me: being trapped in a society that careens back and forth between extreme authoritarian Presidents to the far right (Trump...what other label is there for a President whose most significant achievement is a tax cut) and the far left (I suppose Obama, as well as whoever comes next).

Obama was "far left"??????

That is a way off centre view of political ideologies.

[talltexan]

Can I add to the discussion of empathy: many people put forward George W. Bush as an example of a failed Presidency: indeed he rose to power with a coalition of Evangelicals, pro-business conservatives, and foreign policy neo-cons, and--with the Iraq war and financial crisis--it felt like all of them receive severe letdowns during his Presidency. (or--in the case of Evangelicals--shortly after with the legalization of gay marriage)

But as a post-President, he's taken on the project of painting portraits of every soldier who died in the Iraq war. He sent them into harm's way, and he feels deeply committed to honoring their sacrifice with his own sweat. That is an act of incredible empathy!

[talltexan]

@former player , I added the "I suppose" before Obama because I agree with you that Obama was considered "far left" by many people who honestly didn't deeply study the matter.