White House Discord: Bob Woodward Book, NYT Op-Ed

[Gameface]

I love the way babe projects whatever he wants Trump to be when it has absolutely no basis in reality.

"Trump is actually just a tender soul who wants us all to get along..."

 

[Stoked]

Moderation is a hard thing to get people excited about.

You don’t even have to have moderate stances. Plenty of room for other stances.

Here’s a few non moderate ones of mine.

Military border enforcement
Death penalty for pedos and violent rapists
Pulling back from non formally allied nations
Allowing people to cover who ever the hell they want on insurance for whatever reason they want.

The political spectrum isn’t a line.

 

[babe]

I love the way babe projects whatever he wants Trump to be when it has absolutely no basis in reality.

"Trump is actually just a tender soul who wants us all to get along..."

CNN and others, many others, have never had any basis in reality for their views. I don't think you would accept any evidence I could offer, either. You are a privileged, you need no basis for your views.

Trump's tweets are all the fodder most folks can take in before deciding fer or agin Trump. I don't think he is "ideological" but I do think he has more of heart than most of his critics.

 

[Gameface]

CNN and others, many others, have never had any basis in reality for their views. I don't think you would accept any evidence I could offer, either. You are a privileged, you need no basis for your views.

Trump's tweets are all the fodder most folks can take in before deciding fer or agin Trump. I don't think he is "ideological" but I do think he has more of heart than most of his critics.

I have watched the words come out of Trump's mouth that I judge him by.

 

[babe]

imo, Hillary talking about the "deplorables" isn't a better level of conversation than Trump throwing street schtick out on tweets.

I think the anti-Trump schtick is just determined efforts to make it all out the very worst case possible to oppose Trump's agenda. If Rs had done that to that degree with Obama, it woulda been made out to be the most bizarre racism imaginable. In short, the media is not objective or non-partisan. Media reflects the commitments of ownership interests, which are pretty solid D and committed to the progressive agenda.

 

[babe]

You don’t even have to have moderate stances. Plenty of room for other stances.

Here’s a few non moderate ones of mine.

Military border enforcement
Death penalty for pedos and violent rapists
Pulling back from non formally allied nations
Allowing people to cover who ever the hell they want on insurance for whatever reason they want.

The political spectrum isn’t a line.

Of course, Bullets comment about how moderate politics doesn't make the news is spot on. But you have me wondering here..... I'm pretty much agin death penalty for sexual offenses but I agree insurance carriers could make life better for people, and earn great returns on their investments, if they allowed people to contract as small groups or households on standard measures of risk. Corporates could negotiate similar terms for their employee benefits, and we'd all be better off.

If you're saying you have these views, I applaud the fact that you care that much.

 

[fishonjazz]

I will admit that don't read many of your posts. Some of them seem like stream of consciousness. I don't have time to decode them. But this post is spot on, and for some reason it makes me want to go on a stream of consciousness rant myself.

As a conservative it was very disheartening to see the Obama administration infect government agencies (as described in your post) while the press slobbered over him instead of calling him out. It was frustrating to watch Hillary commit obvious crimes because she knew the sham investigation and compliant media were going to clear her, and then have people preaching in the face of all the blatant evidence that she did nothing wrong. It was disheartening to see Bill Clinton womanize and influence peddle, and then be lectured to that his personal behavior was irrelevant. It was discouraging to see Mitt refuse to respond to end-game attacks (he believed he was taking the high road, I think) and get squashed as a result.

So along comes Trump. He seems as if he was created from the worst parts of all of the preceding politicians, mashed together, and then put on steroids. He's a pure salesman who really doesn't care about the truth. He wouldn't know a high road if it bit him in the ***. He womanizes and brags about it. If he has a thought, no matter what it is, he broadcasts it to the world. He doesn't appear to have a moral compass of any kind. Yet, at least so far, he is standing for conservative principles, and he gets **** done.

Trump is made of mud. You can't get him dirty, no matter what you throw at him. He eats chaos for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The more you dump on him the stronger he gets. Controversies that would have annihilated any other politician are like rocket fuel for him. He is a workaholic with boundless energy. Is this guy really in his 70's? It would be impossible to count the number of times that Trump haters have predicted his end was near. It started on the day he announced his candidacy and it has never let up. What a crazy time we're living through.

You sound kind of proud of him. And really impressed

 

[fishonjazz]

Well said. This has been my stance for a long time. I think countries with multiple viable political parties have better representation as a whole because it can shift in multiple directions and allow multiple different viewpoints. In our country you largely get 2, and those are becoming worse and worse.

Abortion for all / No abortion for anyone
Guns for everyone / no guns for anyone
Tax the rich / Feed the rich

We do end up with policy that reflects some middle ground, but largely we miss out on the best solutions because everyone is so caught up in their end of the dichotomy. IMO we have become more and more extreme in political views among our politicians, while the populace generally have remained largely in the middle ground on the issues that really affect them. I also think the rise of social media has had a huge influence on the political spectrum, allowing mob mentality to enlist people in their homes instead of trying to reach people through traditional news media. It allows hysteria to reign instead of some semblance of reason and balance.

And we have never been more divided as a nation politically.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rowing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507#pone-0123507-g002

Here is a plot of congressional voting along party lines over time:

But to me this is a chicken and egg scenario. Is the middle really shrinking, and the populace in generally moving toward the extremes, so they are voting in more extreme candidates? Or is the political machine only putting forward extreme candidates, so people adopt their views to justify their votes, or vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" since that is all that is presented? Do the politicians affect the political atmosphere in American more, or does the populace?

Here is another interesting article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-politics-poll-democrats-republicans/1965431/



I hope he is right and that this will work itself out, and I also hope we can somehow minimize the damage done in the meantime. Frankly I find it frightening that a person like Donald Trump would even ever be taken seriously as a candidate, let alone elected, and I wish it would function as a wake-up call that we have slipped over the edge and are hanging on by our fingertips. But I am afraid we have become lemmings to the political demagogues and so we will rush headlong over the cliff, blissfully ignoring the dangers while we smugly "win" arguments in nebulous internet forums and 45 character tweets.

Tell me more about this “chicken vs the egg”

 

[Stoked]

Of course, Bullets comment about how moderate politics doesn't make the news is spot on. But you have me wondering here..... I'm pretty much agin death penalty for sexual offenses but I agree insurance carriers could make life better for people, and earn great returns on their investments, if they allowed people to contract as small groups or households on standard measures of risk. Corporates could negotiate similar terms for their employee benefits, and we'd all be better off.

If you're saying you have these views, I applaud the fact that you care that much.

I’m not talking any sexual crime. I mean adults and small children. Or the guy breaking into a house, assault long the women and getting his at knife point. For those people, death.

As for my insurance comment. I mean why the hell not?! Can anyone give me one good reason I cannot agree to pay the insurance it’s for my neighbor or the old widow down the street or whatever? If an insurance company and I agree to the terms...

 

[babe]

I’m not talking any sexual crime. I mean adults and small children. Or the guy breaking into a house, assault long the women and getting his at knife point. For those people, death.

As for my insurance comment. I mean why the hell not?! Can anyone give me one good reason I cannot agree to pay the insurance it’s for my neighbor or the old widow down the street or whatever? If an insurance company and I agree to the terms...

I think I agreed with your idea of contract.

Death penalty issues require a level of faith in our legal professions and courts I just don't really believe. Child abuse ruins lives too, but if people live they can and sometimes do heal.

Just like, if we elect a doofuss as Pres, it's only 4 years and pretty much we will live. We lived through 8 years of Obama. 12 years of Bushs.

 

[Stoked]

I think I agreed with your idea of contract.

Death penalty issues require a level of faith in our legal professions and courts I just don't really believe. Child abuse ruins lives too, but if people live they can and sometimes do heal.

Imo the only ones worthy of that chance are the victims in these scenarios. I agree the bar should be high, but add them.

No amount of discussion will change my mind on that issue.

 

[Red]

@Stoked, thank you for making me think. It's caused me to refine my rant, lol. Forthwith...

Repudiate our allies, embrace the man who interfered in our sovereignty and election, embrace dictators in general. Repudiate immigrants(Steven Miller is taking aim at all immigrants, not just undocumented). Repudiate minority races. Repudiate science, elevate conspiracy theory. Repudiate green energy, put coal first, elevate all fossil fuels. Describe wind power as bird killers. Repudiate better fuel standards for automobiles, worsen air pollution, worsen global warming.

These are just some of the actions and attitude, acted on by, and characteristic of, Trump. The GOP will not stand up to these things. Clinton would not have repeated any of the above. And I would not be reeling from all these things had Trump not been elected. What difference does the party make where the above actions are concerned? That's what I need to know, and do know. Do you think if Trump were a Democrat that I would be any less opposed to the above? If the Republicans tacitly or overtly approve of the above, and the Democrats reject it, how can I not support the Democrats? If rejecting the above is important to me, then the Democrats are acting in my interest. And the above takes priority to me. What someone else prioritizes doesn't interest me. I'm interested in my own vote.

These are differences that weigh far heavier in terms of importance to me, not whether partisanship rules the day. I can worry about that another day. It's about policy, not party. Telling me I have blinders on about political pros of both parties, and that I am supposed to recognize that failed promises, partisanship, whatever, is the status quo these many years, regardless of party, and that this understanding tells me all I need to know, well, that tells me that someone else has blinders on where all of the above is concerned. And all of the above is what matters to me. Nobody can tell me how I should or should not interpret the current scene. I'm not naive, in need of removing blinders. I just have priorities that have to come first.

And it's an easy choice. Hard to see how it could be easier. No contest at all. Nobody has to agree. Those are my priorities. I'll leave the blinders on if that's what's called for. First things first.

Someone I greatly admire, Tom Engelhardt, wrote an essay last week describing what Trump will be remembered for. He speaks for me, as far as I am concerned.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176464/tomgram:_engelhardt,_history,_memory,_and_donald_trump/

And that is where I stand on Donald Trump. Tom took the words out of my mouth...