Orlando Mayoral Race

[spenser1058]

9 minutes ago, Dale said:

You make a good point, McCain was a mass-murderer, But Trump makes churlish comments.

Your attempt to Bannonize a man who served his country honorably shows exactly what is wrong with Trumpism.

I vehemently disagreed with the war in Vietnam and, being in school at the time, editorialized about it, debated against it and volunteered for candidates seeking to end the war.

Had The Donald actually professed his opposition and taken alternative service or, conversely, been willing to go to prison in defense of his stand, then your point might well be valid. He did neither - he used the cowardly way out and blamed it on "bone spurs."

If McCain was a "mass murderer," then so is The Donald, because as commander in chief, he is responsible for those still dying in war zones in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

To try and score a cheap rhetorical point like that is everything that is wrong with our current president. I have long believed that it's vital to respect the office if not the man but that's really hard to do when the officeholder fails to respect it. 

By the same token, I cannot respect such rhetoric. I sha'n't converse with you further, sir.

[aent]

On 9/2/2018 at 12:11 PM, JFW657 said:

She said basically the same thing I've been saying (posting on political forums) since the first time I heard that "MAGA" nonsense.

Gotta agree on that. But it has come from both sides, the left definitely seems to be claiming that the poor have it worse then ever, that people are more hateful then ever, etc.   Infact, I think that has become an even more serious problem because they've literally created a witch hunt, calling people nazis and racists just because they don't agree with their beliefs on how the country should be run and what rules and laws protecting people should exist. I think regardless of the president, America, and generally the entire world, has moved forward raising the standard of living for the poorest people. No president really has been powerful enough to stop it because the separation of powers and the other motives are too strong that its really beyond the presidential power.

MAGA was no doubt a slogan to rile people up to get them to go vote. Its also really clear its that: Trump and his campaign/party seem to have very little to nothing they can cite that they want to go back to. As it should be. Campaigns are filled with dirty attack ads, that often just aren't true. Trump just took it another step.

[JFW657]

3 hours ago, Dale said:

You make a good point, McCain was a mass-murderer, But Trump makes churlish comments.

Well, I certainly don't want this to devolve into a political mud slinging fight here at UP, but I must say that your statement is pure hyperbole regarding both men.

McCain sacrificed five years of his life in a living hell while Trump was playing tennis and polo and chasing girls at some private school, all paid for by his father. And to describe the constant stream of obnoxious lies and hateful invective he spews as "churlish comments" is like describing the 9/11 attack as "a bit of vandalism".

If you'd like to respond to this, I'll let you have the last word, because I'm going to quit before this possibly gets out of hand.

 

[spenser1058]

A good look from Politico at why this year's governor's race may be very different from what we're used to:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/09/04/gillum-raises-profile-and-cash-in-florida-as-desantis-gets-quiet-591214

A couple of interesting stats:

• 25% of the Democratic turnout last week was from voters who did not vote in the last three elections (suggesting that Dems are more energized than usual and that a progressive like Gillum may be bringing out more voters, turning conventional wisdom on its head;)

• Andrew Gillum went from one of the worst fundraisers among the candidates to one of the best, bringing in 42% of his haul so far in the week since the primary (he's also poised to blow past DeSantis if the trend continues , a definite reversal.)

Look for this to be the most amazing race for governor since '94, when Lawton Chiles' "old he-coon walked just before the light of day" and held off the Bush juggernaut for four years.

[Dale]

18 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Your attempt to Bannonize a man who served his country honorably shows exactly what is wrong with Trumpism.

I vehemently disagreed with the war in Vietnam and, being in school at the time, editorialized about it, debated against it and volunteered for candidates seeking to end the war.

Had The Donald actually professed his opposition and taken alternative service or, conversely, been willing to go to prison in defense of his stand, then your point might well be valid. He did neither - he used the cowardly way out and blamed it on "bone spurs."

If McCain was a "mass murderer," then so is The Donald, because as commander in chief, he is responsible for those still dying in war zones in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

To try and score a cheap rhetorical point like that is everything that is wrong with our current president. I have long believed that it's vital to respect the office if not the man but that's really hard to do when the officeholder fails to respect it. 

By the same token, I cannot respect such rhetoric. I sha'n't converse with you further, sir.

Dems demonized McCain in 2008, canonized him in death to bludgeon Trump. Trump hatred is entirely manufactured. Nobody hated him before he eviscerated and humiliated Pantsuit Nation.

[spenser1058]

Quinnipiac has the first poll out for governor since the primary (Q is one of the more neutral and reliable pollsters.)

• Gillum

• DeSantis

However, MoE is 4% so it's anyone's race at the moment. Stay tuned.

[Dale]

Question about Gillum: if he does win -- and assuming the GOP hammerlock in Tally is not broken -- will he have to go hat-in-hand, to the legislature, to finance his plan to Make Florida Venezuela (MFV) ?

[spenser1058]

Meanwhile, in the US Senate race, Bill Nelson and Skeletor (oops, Rick Scott) are tied at 47% each with a 2.3% MoE. The pollster is St. Pete Polls which has been reliable of late.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/273733-heres-the-latest-poll-of-race-between-bill-nelson-and-rick-scott-for-floridas-u-s-senate-seat

From Florida Politics

[spenser1058]

A look at the runoff for the OC Commission District 3 from Orlando Politics:

http://orlando-politics.com/2018/08/30/orange-county-commissioner-district-3/

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, Dale said:

Dems demonized McCain in 2008, canonized him in death to bludgeon Trump. Trump hatred is entirely manufactured. Nobody hated him before he eviscerated and humiliated Pantsuit Nation.

Nobody "demonized" McCain anymore than the opposition in any Presidential campaign. Cretainly nowhere near as bad as the Repugs demonized Obama. The demonization of Obama was many times worse, for that matter and our current reprobate in chief was the leader of the worst of it, i. e. the birther movement.

I "love" (in the sarcastic sense) how defenders of Trump always work from the assumption that Trump is just another typical, reasonably honorable President being unfairly attacked, and not the immature, constantly lying, insult spewing, mentally and emotionally unstable and unqualified national embarrassment that we all know he is.

Stop acting like Trump doesn't deserve every drop of the hatred he gets from members of both parties. He has earned 100% of it and then some.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, Dale said:

Question about Gillum: if he does win -- and assuming the GOP hammerlock in Tally is not broken -- will he have to go hat-in-hand, to the legislature, to finance his plan to Make Florida Venezuela (MFV) ?

Question about Trump supporters: are any of them capable of engaging in honest discussion of political issues without engaging in the kind of absurd hyperbole they get spoon fed to them from their propaganda ministers at sites like Breitbart, Free Republic, NewsMax, Drudge, etc, etc?

[aent]

4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Nobody "demonized" McCain anymore than the opposition in any Presidential campaign. Cretainly nowhere near as bad as the Repugs demonized Obama. The demonization of Obama was many times worse, for that matter and our current reprobate in chief was the leader of the worst of it, i. e. the birther movement.

I "love" (in the sarcastic sense) how defenders of Trump always work from the assumption that Trump is just another typical, reasonably honorable President being unfairly attacked, and not the immature, constantly lying, insult spewing, mentally and emotionally unstable and unqualified national embarrassment that we all know he is.

Stop acting like Trump doesn't deserve every drop of the hatred he gets from members of both parties. He has earned 100% of it and then some.

I've been independent/third party for my entire history of being voting age. I've voted twice for major party candidates in that times: one with an R, one with a D. And it wasn't Trump that I voted for. Honestly, the last election, I feel the personal attacks on me by an extraordinary number of people in the party for not voting for Trump, but for "voting for him by voting for a third party", according to them, is absolutely insane. I've felt for the last decade now, that the left has slowly been becoming less and less tolerant, but to me, and many people I know, its reaching a tipping point. Too many in the left left has become just such a hateful, intolerant group of people. I've generally followed Penn Juliette's advise: never vote for someone because you hate them less or think they're less evil then the other side, thats a true wasted vote. Only vote for someone you like, even if they have no chance.

I personally don't think anyone, on either side, deserves the mistreatment Trump has had. But I'd say the same for Obama as well, although it did seem on a much, much smaller scale, but it was definitely still out there in significant numbers and terrible.

4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Question about Trump supporters: are any of them capable of engaging in honest discussion of political issues without engaging in the kind of absurd hyperbole they get spoon fed to them from their propaganda ministers at sites like Breitbart, Free Republic, NewsMax, Drudge, etc, etc?

But case in point: Dale's comment was, while snarky, directly about the candidate, referencing Gillum. Your attacking comment was on half the country who voted for him. While I may not have voted for him last time, between the response I get when I tell people I didn't vote for Hillary (or Trump), and the actual results, I kind of regret it and if the democrat chosen is IMO as bad of a choice as Hilary and Bernie were, I'm gonna break my rule and vote for Trump in the re-election. I no doubt hate his rhetoric and think its terrible, but results matter, and we also have no good choice at all on the other side. Trump won in spite of HUGE disagreement among the party whether he was even appropriate to be president. But even with Trump's absolutely terrible rhethoric, the total lack of respect of him from the other side makes them look just as bad to me. And he's really the main one in the party with the bad rhethoric; on the left, if you look at the disrespectful and downright hateful rhetoric about Trump, its widespread among the candidates and those in office.

In case you haven't figured it out previously, my political leanings are socially liberal (although not this modern SJW/fight on free speech to make sure everyone has to be equal, often by bringing down everyone to the lowest common denominator, but pro legalizing drugs even though I never have or will use any in my life, reforming police, fighting for real equality, such as the fight for gay marriage rights) and fiscally conservative (which we haven't had a fiscally conservative president in my lifetime)

[JFW657]

13 hours ago, aent said:

I've been independent/third party for my entire history of being voting age. I've voted twice for major party candidates in that times: one with an R, one with a D. And it wasn't Trump that I voted for. Honestly, the last election, I feel the personal attacks on me by an extraordinary number of people in the party for not voting for Trump, but for "voting for him by voting for a third party", according to them, is absolutely insane. I've felt for the last decade now, that the left has slowly been becoming less and less tolerant, but to me, and many people I know, its reaching a tipping point. Too many in the left left has become just such a hateful, intolerant group of people. I've generally followed Penn Juliette's advise: never vote for someone because you hate them less or think they're less evil then the other side, thats a true wasted vote. Only vote for someone you like, even if they have no chance.

I personally don't think anyone, on either side, deserves the mistreatment Trump has had. But I'd say the same for Obama as well, although it did seem on a much, much smaller scale, but it was definitely still out there in significant numbers and terrible.

But case in point: Dale's comment was, while snarky, directly about the candidate, referencing Gillum. Your attacking comment was on half the country who voted for him. While I may not have voted for him last time, between the response I get when I tell people I didn't vote for Hillary (or Trump), and the actual results, I kind of regret it and if the democrat chosen is IMO as bad of a choice as Hilary and Bernie were, I'm gonna break my rule and vote for Trump in the re-election. I no doubt hate his rhetoric and think its terrible, but results matter, and we also have no good choice at all on the other side. Trump won in spite of HUGE disagreement among the party whether he was even appropriate to be president. But even with Trump's absolutely terrible rhethoric, the total lack of respect of him from the other side makes them look just as bad to me. And he's really the main one in the party with the bad rhethoric; on the left, if you look at the disrespectful and downright hateful rhetoric about Trump, its widespread among the candidates and those in office.

In case you haven't figured it out previously, my political leanings are socially liberal (although not this modern SJW/fight on free speech to make sure everyone has to be equal, often by bringing down everyone to the lowest common denominator, but pro legalizing drugs even though I never have or will use any in my life, reforming police, fighting for real equality, such as the fight for gay marriage rights) and fiscally conservative (which we haven't had a fiscally conservative president in my lifetime)

Well, I certainly agree with you about the ever increasing intolerance of the far left and the SJW business, which is getting out of hand, but I don't see it as an excuse for or a valid reason to "normalize" Trump and make him out to be just another "regular guy" President who doesn't deserve the derision and disrespect he gets.

Donald Trump is an anomaly. An outlier. There has never been another politician in history, at least not American history, who has sunk to the depths of obnoxiousness and divisiveness that he has. To equate Hillary with this unstable, immature, bloviating lunatic, to me just illustrates poor judgement of character.

And it's not just his rhetoric. It is painfully obvious that the man is downright dangerously unqualified, both mentally and emotionally, for the position he holds. Many of us, prior to the election, saw how unfit for office he is and what a danger he poses to the nation. It was so obvious, we can't understand how other non-right wingers either couldn't see it, or didn't feel it was that big of a deal.

I can understand how partisan, far right conservatives would fail to see it or just be willing to overlook it for political expediency. But for those who hold basically liberal or centrist views and who care about the welfare of this country, I just don't see how it's excusable to have wasted their votes on a third party candidate who had no chance of winning, and in effect, while knowing how dire the consequences were, helped this current abomination of a President take over our country and begin running it into a ditch.

[aent]

5 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Well, I certainly agree with you about the ever increasing intolerance of the far left and the SJW business, which is getting out of hand, but I don't see it as an excuse for or a valid reason to "normalize" Trump and make him out to be just another "regular guy" President who doesn't deserve the derision and disrespect he gets.

Donald Trump is an anomaly. An outlier. There has never been another politician in history, at least not American history, who has sunk to the depths of obnoxiousness and divisiveness that he has. To equate Hillary with this unstable, immature, bloviating lunatic, to me just illustrates poor judgement of character.

Maybe I'm just a different type of person, but I don't think anyone deserves derision and disrespect. Especially not our elected leader. Its a fact they're going to get it, but to me its insane to say they deserve it, that just seems like something only extremists would say.

And Donald Trump is far from an outlier on your point. Hilary and many democrats clearly have sunken to the lowest levels with their insults of him, with many calling him a Nazi for seemingly no reason (Israel clearly is a Trump fan, they named their high speed rail they're building after him)

5 hours ago, JFW657 said:

And it's not just his rhetoric. It is painfully obvious that the man is downright dangerously unqualified, both mentally and emotionally, for the position he holds. Many of us, prior to the election, saw how unfit for office he is and what a danger he poses to the nation. It was so obvious, we can't understand how other non-right wingers either couldn't see it, or didn't feel it was that big of a deal.

 

I mean what you said is literally rhetoric. There is literally nothing in the official qualifications to be president about their emotions or mental states... Trump is an actor who appeared on the WWE and the reality show the Apprentice, which were both shows where he needed to be pretty rough on people for the intent of the shows. That worked for him, and he kept it going into his presidency. And realistically, since there was and is just so much claiming he poses a danger to the nation, what actual thing has happened that has been dangerous and has actually affected people in a negative way since he took office?

5 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I can understand how partisan, far right conservatives would fail to see it or just be willing to overlook it for political expediency. But for those who hold basically liberal or centrist views and who care about the welfare of this country, I just don't see how it's excusable to have wasted their votes on a third party candidate who had no chance of winning, and in effect, while knowing how dire the consequences were, helped this current abomination of a President take over our country and begin running it into a ditch.

Obviously you can't understand it, but that is your political views as apparently a pretty left leaning individual. As a centrist, I disagree with you.  And there is no doubt I care about the welfare of this country. To even question that seems insane. The very premise that people anyone who votes for who they believe in is literally the most un-American concept I've ever heard of and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the very basic principles this country was founded upon. As a centrist, I find what you said to be extremely offensive and inexcusable to go against the fundamental philosophy of this country, and the consequences of that are just far more dire then what any president is even capable of doing in their position of power, as you know, was literally something the founding fathers thought about and placed a system of checks and balances between our different branches of government to insure that a bad president can't be as dangerous as you say, and can't run the country into a ditch, at least not too deep. I strongly hope you reconsider your position because I promise you, its not helping you win any centrists to your side. I've definitely felt that other candidates on the Republican side were less worthy of a vote then Trump in recent history. As an example, with Bush's failed war that cost an insane amount of money, running McCain was absolutely insane, almost as insane as his VP pick Palin, I felt for the welfare of the country we needed someone to try to end the wars (even though Obama never did that, I do believe he sincerely wanted to do that, and likely the intelligence presented to him made him believe it was not feasible to do that during his term).

And clearly, the centrists of the country disagree, because they very clearly voted in the opposite way you indicate, they believe the exact opposite of you. Trump actually did better with the centrists then most candidates, because he obviously alienated a good number of people within his party with his rhetoric and a significant number of Rs didn't show up to vote as a result, or even voted against him. And how exactly has the country been run into a ditch at all? You may disagree with his policies he has enacted, sure, but what statistic anywhere indicates anything you're saying actually came true over the past 2 years? He's posted insanely good numbers in just about every category. The only negative to Trump seems to be some other countries seem to be angry at him, but that doesn't even really seem to be affecting anything. Its really hard to tell what actual effect he's having on our foreign policy, it seems pretty clear to me that many foreign leaders don't like him because he seems to be forcing them to have more fair trade deals and contribute there fair share to the different international organizations, instead of the US subsidizing them all and funding the world police.

[spenser1058]

Republican candidate for governor Ron DeSantis has picked Miami legislator Jeanette Nunez as his running mate:

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/09/05/desantis-pick-as-running-mate-miami-state-legislator-jeanette-nunez/

From the St Pete Times

 

[WAJAS]

1 hour ago, aent said:

Maybe I'm just a different type of person, but I don't think anyone deserves derision and disrespect. Especially not our elected leader. Its a fact they're going to get it, but to me its insane to say they deserve it, that just seems like something only extremists would say.

And Donald Trump is far from an outlier on your point. Hilary and many democrats clearly have sunken to the lowest levels with their insults of him, with many calling him a Nazi for seemingly no reason (Israel clearly is a Trump fan, they named their high speed rail they're building after him)

I mean what you said is literally rhetoric. There is literally nothing in the official qualifications to be president about their emotions or mental states... Trump is an actor who appeared on the WWE and the reality show the Apprentice, which were both shows where he needed to be pretty rough on people for the intent of the shows. That worked for him, and he kept it going into his presidency. And realistically, since there was and is just so much claiming he poses a danger to the nation, what actual thing has happened that has been dangerous and has actually affected people in a negative way since he took office?

Obviously you can't understand it, but that is your political views as apparently a pretty left leaning individual. As a centrist, I disagree with you.  And there is no doubt I care about the welfare of this country. To even question that seems insane. The very premise that people anyone who votes for who they believe in is literally the most un-American concept I've ever heard of and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the very basic principles this country was founded upon. As a centrist, I find what you said to be extremely offensive and inexcusable to go against the fundamental philosophy of this country, and the consequences of that are just far more dire then what any president is even capable of doing in their position of power, as you know, was literally something the founding fathers thought about and placed a system of checks and balances between our different branches of government to insure that a bad president can't be as dangerous as you say, and can't run the country into a ditch, at least not too deep. I strongly hope you reconsider your position because I promise you, its not helping you win any centrists to your side. I've definitely felt that other candidates on the Republican side were less worthy of a vote then Trump in recent history. As an example, with Bush's failed war that cost an insane amount of money, running McCain was absolutely insane, almost as insane as his VP pick Palin, I felt for the welfare of the country we needed someone to try to end the wars (even though Obama never did that, I do believe he sincerely wanted to do that, and likely the intelligence presented to him made him believe it was not feasible to do that during his term).

And clearly, the centrists of the country disagree, because they very clearly voted in the opposite way you indicate, they believe the exact opposite of you. Trump actually did better with the centrists then most candidates, because he obviously alienated a good number of people within his party with his rhetoric and a significant number of Rs didn't show up to vote as a result, or even voted against him. And how exactly has the country been run into a ditch at all? You may disagree with his policies he has enacted, sure, but what statistic anywhere indicates anything you're saying actually came true over the past 2 years? He's posted insanely good numbers in just about every category. The only negative to Trump seems to be some other countries seem to be angry at him, but that doesn't even really seem to be affecting anything. Its really hard to tell what actual effect he's having on our foreign policy, it seems pretty clear to me that many foreign leaders don't like him because he seems to be forcing them to have more fair trade deals and contribute there fair share to the different international organizations, instead of the US subsidizing them all and ufunding the world police.

Just wanted to clarify this paragraph.  The 25th amendment of the constitution gives the cabinet the ability to involuntary discharge the president if he is “unable to discharge the powers and hires of his office.” While there is little precedence for its use on mental illness, there is little precedence of its use for any reason.  While mental health is not an explicit qualification, it is implied based on the implications of the amendment.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, aent said:

Maybe I'm just a different type of person, but I don't think anyone deserves derision and disrespect. Especially not our elected leader. Its a fact they're going to get it, but to me its insane to say they deserve it, that just seems like something only extremists would say.

And Donald Trump is far from an outlier on your point. Hilary and many democrats clearly have sunken to the lowest levels with their insults of him, with many calling him a Nazi for seemingly no reason (Israel clearly is a Trump fan, they named their high speed rail they're building after him)

I mean what you said is literally rhetoric. There is literally nothing in the official qualifications to be president about their emotions or mental states... Trump is an actor who appeared on the WWE and the reality show the Apprentice, which were both shows where he needed to be pretty rough on people for the intent of the shows. That worked for him, and he kept it going into his presidency. And realistically, since there was and is just so much claiming he poses a danger to the nation, what actual thing has happened that has been dangerous and has actually affected people in a negative way since he took office?

Obviously you can't understand it, but that is your political views as apparently a pretty left leaning individual. As a centrist, I disagree with you.  And there is no doubt I care about the welfare of this country. To even question that seems insane. The very premise that people anyone who votes for who they believe in is literally the most un-American concept I've ever heard of and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the very basic principles this country was founded upon. As a centrist, I find what you said to be extremely offensive and inexcusable to go against the fundamental philosophy of this country, and the consequences of that are just far more dire then what any president is even capable of doing in their position of power, as you know, was literally something the founding fathers thought about and placed a system of checks and balances between our different branches of government to insure that a bad president can't be as dangerous as you say, and can't run the country into a ditch, at least not too deep. I strongly hope you reconsider your position because I promise you, its not helping you win any centrists to your side. I've definitely felt that other candidates on the Republican side were less worthy of a vote then Trump in recent history. As an example, with Bush's failed war that cost an insane amount of money, running McCain was absolutely insane, almost as insane as his VP pick Palin, I felt for the welfare of the country we needed someone to try to end the wars (even though Obama never did that, I do believe he sincerely wanted to do that, and likely the intelligence presented to him made him believe it was not feasible to do that during his term).

And clearly, the centrists of the country disagree, because they very clearly voted in the opposite way you indicate, they believe the exact opposite of you. Trump actually did better with the centrists then most candidates, because he obviously alienated a good number of people within his party with his rhetoric and a significant number of Rs didn't show up to vote as a result, or even voted against him. And how exactly has the country been run into a ditch at all? You may disagree with his policies he has enacted, sure, but what statistic anywhere indicates anything you're saying actually came true over the past 2 years? He's posted insanely good numbers in just about every category. The only negative to Trump seems to be some other countries seem to be angry at him, but that doesn't even really seem to be affecting anything. Its really hard to tell what actual effect he's having on our foreign policy, it seems pretty clear to me that many foreign leaders don't like him because he seems to be forcing them to have more fair trade deals and contribute there fair share to the different international organizations, instead of the US subsidizing them all and funding the world police.

Well, I'm not going to argue the merits of making one's own political choices. Certainly in politics as in other areas, the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure" applies.

So if a certain segment of American voters want to vote a certain way, that is absolutely their right, no matter how illogical it may be.

On the other hand, I'm wondering if at the time of writing the above post, you had not yet heard about the following letter published late this afternoon by the NY Times, which was written and submitted by a SENIOR MEMBER of the Trump Administration.

Keep that part in mind as you read the following....

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

"I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process.

The letter:

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

[aent]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

On the other hand, I'm wondering if at the time of writing the above post, you had not yet heard about the following letter published late this afternoon by the NY Times, which was written and submitted by a SENIOR MEMBER of the Trump Administration.

I did not, but it seems completely in line with my comments. Many traditionalist Republicans have made it clear they don't like Trump. Trump attracted votes from the center and turned many on the right away from him. Those like McCain, Bush, etc all did not support him. Sounds like this anonymous person is on the same side as McCain was.

Claiming the 25th amendment can be used to remove Trump from power is absolutely asinine. Thats clearly not its purpose, the VP isn't going to do that, nor are a significant number of people in his administration. A TON of people will go absolutely nuts if the president is removed in a completely unprecedented manner, and rightfully so, and I'm sure those in the administration like this guy who thought about it are surrounded by people who recognize it. I don't know if the democrats will get a majority in both the house and senate and be able to impeach him, but thats the only shot at getting him out early, and even that is gonna be really, really tough. Clinton was impeached but obviously still got to finish his term.

I understand the allies of the US are mad, and quite frankly it really makes they are: many of our allies have protectionist policies and huge tariffs on importing our goods to their nations, while we typically have very low tariffs on importing their goods. Trump decided to do exactly what they do to us back to them, and they don't like it. As an example, importing a American vehicle  to the EU has a has  a 10% tariff. But importing an EU vehicle to America has a 2.5% tariff. Trump's hiking that because he thinks its unfair for the tariff in exported American vehicles to be 4x as high as the tariff on exported EU vehicles to America, and its giving the American auto makers a tough time competing fairly. I mean, it makes sense, but our allies don't like that, because they used to be able to make sure their citizens had incentive to buy EU vehicles and they can still easily sell their vehicles here. I hated the tariffs when Trump started them, but he has a point.

[JFW657]

9 hours ago, aent said:

I did not, but it seems completely in line with my comments. Many traditionalist Republicans have made it clear they don't like Trump. Trump attracted votes from the center and turned many on the right away from him. Those like McCain, Bush, etc all did not support him. Sounds like this anonymous person is on the same side as McCain was.

Claiming the 25th amendment can be used to remove Trump from power is absolutely asinine. Thats clearly not its purpose, the VP isn't going to do that, nor are a significant number of people in his administration. A TON of people will go absolutely nuts if the president is removed in a completely unprecedented manner, and rightfully so, and I'm sure those in the administration like this guy who thought about it are surrounded by people who recognize it. I don't know if the democrats will get a majority in both the house and senate and be able to impeach him, but thats the only shot at getting him out early, and even that is gonna be really, really tough. Clinton was impeached but obviously still got to finish his term.

I understand the allies of the US are mad, and quite frankly it really makes they are: many of our allies have protectionist policies and huge tariffs on importing our goods to their nations, while we typically have very low tariffs on importing their goods. Trump decided to do exactly what they do to us back to them, and they don't like it. As an example, importing a American vehicle  to the EU has a has  a 10% tariff. But importing an EU vehicle to America has a 2.5% tariff. Trump's hiking that because he thinks its unfair for the tariff in exported American vehicles to be 4x as high as the tariff on exported EU vehicles to America, and its giving the American auto makers a tough time competing fairly. I mean, it makes sense, but our allies don't like that, because they used to be able to make sure their citizens had incentive to buy EU vehicles and they can still easily sell their vehicles here. I hated the tariffs when Trump started them, but he has a point.

I think, judging by your response, that you're missing the point of the letter. It's not about establishment Republicans "not liking" Trump because of his policies or other political considerations. It's about a group of highly knowledgeable people who have an intricate, up close and personal, day in and day out, behind the scenes view of Trump and the way he conducts himself and runs the country. They are giving us a warning and a heads up that the man is woefully unqualified and unequipped to handle the job, and as such, he is damaging the country and presents a real danger to the point that they have to babysit him and take away things with which he might cause harm or create havoc.

As for the 25th Amendment and what Mike Pence would do, according to a new book out about him (The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence), based on in depth research and an examination of his life and career, he is not the quiet, unassuming milquetoast figurehead he appears to be. He has been telling people since his teens that he was going to be President one day and he believes that he has been ordained by God to lead America down the path of righteousness. He is also described as a cunning and ruthless politician who will take whichever path to that end that presents itself.

We may well be seeing him in the WH sooner than many think, and when he's there, if he has a Republican Congress and a conservative SCOTUS, you can expect to see the laws changing to reflect their pro-evangelical Christian agenda. That would obviously include outlawing abortion, but also suppressing non-Christian religions, making Bible studies part of the public school curriculum, increasing the punishment for drug possession and prostitution, banning gay marriage, curtailing equal rights protections for gays, women and minorities, etc, etc.

There is cause for great concern here.

[aent]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I think, judging by your response, that you're missing the point of the letter.

I have not. That is one anonymous person in the administration's point of view of the situation, and they no doubt have aspirations and think they know whats best as well. As I said, its not a few, it is many establishment Republicans who don't like him. And I never once said its his policies they don't like, its not, its him personally, his personality, rhethoric, way of getting things done, etc; its just entirely non-traditional.

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

They are giving us a warning and a heads up that the man is woefully unqualified and unequipped to handle the job, and as such, he is damaging the country and presents a real danger to the point that they have to babysit him and take away things with which he might cause harm or create havoc.

No, they are giving their OPINION on Trump, just as you are, just as I am. I'm gonna ask again: what has Trump done so far that has actually, verifiably, already damaged the country? Don't mention anything he hasn't done or hasn't been able to do that he said because thats why we have a system of checks and balances. Again, all numbers point to things being absolutely great right now, unemployment is low, the economy is doing absolutely amazing, and everyone is living  a better life today then ever before in the history of our country. Show me any data that actually disputes that.

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

As for the 25th Amendment and what Mike Pence would do, according to a new book out about him (The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence), based on in depth research and an examination of his life and career, he is not the quiet, unassuming milquetoast figurehead he appears to be. He has been telling people since his teens that he was going to be President one day and he believes that he has been ordained by God to lead America down the path of righteousness.

Anyone who believes  this is not the case for literally anyone working in the white house is out of touch. The only way you get in there is to be extremely ambitious, not quiet sitting in a corner. Perhaps the only exception is if you're really good friends or family with someone who is and they get you in. And I guess the question is how long does he want to be president and in the white house? That might (probably not) work for a 1 or 2 year to finish up Trump's term, but there is just no chance he gets elected if he removes Trump without any allegations and the associated conviction of a crime, just claiming he's "mentally unstable" won't cut it for anyone at all to vote for him. The democrats would have the biggest landslide election ever if he did that.

 

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

 We may well be seeing him in the WH sooner than many think, and when he's there, if he has a Republican Congress and a conservative SCOTUS, you can expect to see the laws changing to reflect their pro-evangelical Christian agenda. That would obviously include outlawing abortion, but also suppressing non-Christian religions, making Bible studies part of the public school curriculum, increasing the punishment for drug possession and prostitution, banning gay marriage, curtailing equal rights protections for gays, women and minorities, etc, etc.

 

See, the president doesn't have the power to do any of those things on his own, and a significant portion of the republican congressman just don't agree with anything you're saying. Estimating on the low side, at least a third of republicans are gonna vote no on those things, they aren't all part of the pro-evangelical Christian agenda. The republicans aren't quite like the democrats, the party is more split on beliefs as many are socially liberal, or fiscally liberal, just usually not both (although plenty are, hence the common term RINO). There is just about zero chance of any of the things happening that you said if Pence is president, no matter how much he wants it. They couldn't even repeal Obamacare because they couldn't gather support in their own party, McCain was the deciding no vote.

Also another question: in your eyes who is worse and more "dangerous", Trump or Pence?

[WAJAS]

14 hours ago, aent said:

I did not, but it seems completely in line with my comments. Many traditionalist Republicans have made it clear they don't like Trump. Trump attracted votes from the center and turned many on the right away from him. Those like McCain, Bush, etc all did not support him. Sounds like this anonymous person is on the same side as McCain was.

Claiming the 25th amendment can be used to remove Trump from power is absolutely asinine. Thats clearly not its purpose, the VP isn't going to do that, nor are a significant number of people in his administration. A TON of people will go absolutely nuts if the president is removed in a completely unprecedented manner, and rightfully so, and I'm sure those in the administration like this guy who thought about it are surrounded by people who recognize it. I don't know if the democrats will get a majority in both the house and senate and be able to impeach him, but thats the only shot at getting him out early, and even that is gonna be really, really tough. Clinton was impeached but obviously still got to finish his term.

I understand the allies of the US are mad, and quite frankly it really makes they are: many of our allies have protectionist policies and huge tariffs on importing our goods to their nations, while we typically have very low tariffs on importing their goods. Trump decided to do exactly what they do to us back to them, and they don't like it. As an example, importing a American vehicle  to the EU has a has  a 10% tariff. But importing an EU vehicle to America has a 2.5% tariff. Trump's hiking that because he thinks its unfair for the tariff in exported American vehicles to be 4x as high as the tariff on exported EU vehicles to America, and its giving the American auto makers a tough time competing fairly. I mean, it makes sense, but our allies don't like that, because they used to be able to make sure their citizens had incentive to buy EU vehicles and they can still easily sell their vehicles here. I hated the tariffs when Trump started them, but he has a point.

3

For the 25th amendment, I simply stated the facts.  I didn't say whether its use would be plausible.  On impeachment, it is basically like an indictment in normal criminal law, which means it is not the same as removing someone from office. However, it is normally the first step in such a process.   The Senate didn't have the super majority necessary to remove him from office, which resulted in his acquittal and allowed him to finish his term.  I'm not saying you specifically don't know this, but I think this is some necessary context to your statement for anyone reading the thread.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, aent said:

I have not. That is one anonymous person in the administration's point of view of the situation, and they no doubt have aspirations and think they know whats best as well. As I said, its not a few, it is many establishment Republicans who don't like him. And I never once said its his policies they don't like, its not, its him personally, his personality, rhethoric, way of getting things done, etc; its just entirely non-traditional

No, it's not "just one guy's opinion". The letter stated quite clearly, though you may choose to ignore it, that it is the opinion of MANY of his top advisors and staff.

If you don't want to accept that, there's this:

White House officials agree with NYT op-ed: ‘Dozens and dozens of us’ wish we’d written it

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/white-house-officials-agree-nyt-op-ed-dozens-dozens-us-wish-wed-written

And of course, there were these comments about him, directly attributed...

But I guess Trump was right about one thing when he made the comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose the support of his fan base.

2 hours ago, aent said:

No, they are giving their OPINION on Trump, just as you are, just as I am. I'm gonna ask again: what has Trump done so far that has actually, verifiably, already damaged the country? Don't mention anything he hasn't done or hasn't been able to do that he said because thats why we have a system of checks and balances. Again, all numbers point to things being absolutely great right now, unemployment is low, the economy is doing absolutely amazing, and everyone is living  a better life today then ever before in the history of our country. Show me any data that actually disputes that.

An extremely informed and highly knowledgeable OPINION.

What has he done to damage the country? You could easily find a myriad of articles from major news sources that would give you plenty of insight into that, but if you're not willing to, I'll post some excerpts from one of the first pieces I found doing a simple Google search. This, in the subject of international trade:

Trump has instigated a trade war, insulted the leaders of numerous allies, thrown NATO into shock, labeled the European Union a foe, and held a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which he endorsed Putin.
 
Trump’s negative impact on the world will likely be lasting. His actions are eroding trust among both allies and rivals. Once gone, trust is hard to reestablish, even if the next president turns out to be a devoted internationalist. Another thing he is doing, is pushing nationalism. Like the politicians behind Britain’s “leave” campaign, he’s both harnessing and amplifying powerful emotions that tend to drive countries apart and keep them apart. 

His tariffs are already resulting in companies discontinuing the manufacture of certain products resulting in layoffs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/trump-s-damage-to-international-trade-will-take-years-to-repair

As for the "absolutely amazing" economy, like Trump himself, you're exaggerating:

Despite strong overall economic growth, its benefits have been uneven — and depend on the beneficiary. Evidence so far shows those benefits for business owners, is substantial. For average workers, pretty slight and for future growth, none at all.

In a recent NBC News/WSJ poll, voters preferred Republicans over Democrats on handling the economy but they preferred Democrats on "looking out for the middle class." Overall, they backed Democrats for control of Congress by 50 percent to 42 percent.

The stock market has risen, but since the richest 10 percent of Americans own more than 80 percent of stocks, that benefits the already-wealthy way more than everyone else.

Americans with lower incomes have derived lesser benefits through growth in their 401(k) accounts. The unemployment rate is down but wage growth remains weak, and inflation has either mostly or entirely wiped out worker raises.

The tax cut hasn't provided big benefits for average Americans. A Tax Policy Center analysis shows that the top 20 percent of American earners will receive 65 percent of the tax cuts this year, while the middle 20 percent receives 11 percent.

For that middle 20 percent, the average cut is $18 a week. In a recent survey, just 34 percent of Americans said the tax-cut has increased their take-home pay.

With the economy constrained by meager productivity gains and diminished labor supply as baby boomers retire, forecasters projected long-term growth of just 2 percent as Trump took office. 

Economists across the political spectrum see little encouragement so far.

Investment has picked up since the tax cut, but this is largely unrelated to the tax cut and will prove temporary. Rising oil prices and energy-related investment, have sparked much of the increase.

Trump's tariff wars could wipe out those benefits. So could White House plans to curb legal immigration, which would further crimp labor supply.

Thus a wide array of analysts — from Goldman Sachs to the Federal Reserve to the Congressional Budget Office to the supply-side-friendly Tax Foundation — see America's long-term growth path unchanged.

"It will likely slow down below 2 percent," said Tax Foundation economist Kyle Pomerleau. "It is possible there will be lingering positive effects from the TCJA, but they will be small and not enough to make a sizable difference."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/midterm-elections-are-referendum-on-trump-economy.html

2 hours ago, aent said:

Anyone who believes  this is not the case for literally anyone working in the white house is out of touch. The only way you get in there is to be extremely ambitious, not quiet sitting in a corner. Perhaps the only exception is if you're really good friends or family with someone who is and they get you in. And I guess the question is how long does he want to be president and in the white house? That might (probably not) work for a 1 or 2 year to finish up Trump's term, but there is just no chance he gets elected if he removes Trump without any allegations and the associated conviction of a crime, just claiming he's "mentally unstable" won't cut it for anyone at all to vote for him. The democrats would have the biggest landslide election ever if he did that.

I was merely responding to your statement that "Pence wouldn't do that". 

The evidence and his past behaviors indicate that in spite of the pious, unfailingly loyal VP act he puts on, it's quite likely that he would not only throw Trump under the bus, but kick him back under it and hold him down with his foot on Trump's face if he tried to crawl back out.

2 hours ago, aent said:

See, the president doesn't have the power to do any of those things on his own, and a significant portion of the republican congressman just don't agree with anything you're saying. Estimating on the low side, at least a third of republicans are gonna vote no on those things, they aren't all part of the pro-evangelical Christian agenda. The republicans aren't quite like the democrats, the party is more split on beliefs as many are socially liberal, or fiscally liberal, just usually not both (although plenty are, hence the common term RINO). There is just about zero chance of any of the things happening that you said if Pence is president, no matter how much he wants it. They couldn't even repeal Obamacare because they couldn't gather support in their own party, McCain was the deciding no vote.

You must not know the same Republican party that I do. 

The only reason they couldn't repeal Obamacare was not because some of the Senators were independent minded or pro-Obamacare, it's because so many poor rural Republican voters in their red states loved the program and depended on it to the point that voting to repeal it would've been political suicide. Same reason why they haven't (yet) screwed up Social Security.

But there is no political danger in those red states with conservative politicians marching in lockstep to a Pence pro-Christian agenda.

2 hours ago, aent said:

Also another question: in your eyes who is worse and more "dangerous", Trump or Pence?

 

That's hard to say, but my guess is that it would be close to a tie, although I much different ways.

[aent]

18 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

No, it's not "just one guy's opinion". The letter stated quite clearly, though you may choose to ignore it, that it is the opinion of MANY of his top advisors and staff.

And I'm not ignoring that. I've repeatedly said many of those in certain segments of the Republican party are super-anti-Trump. I said he did well with centrists. You keep ignoring what I'm saying, MANY in the establishment have personal problems with Trump and his rhethoric and how he does things. I never once denied that.

 

19 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

But I guess Trump was right about one thing when he made the comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose the support of his fan base.

And as I said, I was personally too concerned about Trump's rhetoric and the other prior mentioned issues to even vote for him. I felt I couldn't vote for either of the 2 candidates as I felt they were both so terrible and unfit for the office, so implying that I am part of his fan base is literally insane, I'm just a centrist who tries to pick the best candidates  based on my ideals, and don't follow any party lines. I'm a realist. I disagree with MUCH of what Trump does, but the same has been true for each of the past 3 presidents we've had in my adult lifetime.

36 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Trump’s negative impact on the world will likely be lasting. His actions are eroding trust among both allies and rivals. Once gone, trust is hard to reestablish, even if the next president turns out to be a devoted internationalist. Another thing he is doing, is pushing nationalism. Like the politicians behind Britain’s “leave” campaign, he’s both harnessing and amplifying powerful emotions that tend to drive countries apart and keep them apart. 

So I'll ask a few more questions about your opinions: when the EU and other nations implement or have had these huge tariffs on importing American products, is that part okay? The EU has huge tariffs on imports into the eurozone, is that policy ok and its only a problem when the US does it? My understanding is Trump has been willing to completely go back on the tariff increases with nations that heavily reduce the tariffs they apply to American imports, and he's done that multiple times. The US is also forced to contribute waaayyy more then its fair share to NATO, the UN, and other international organizations for world defense spending, and since Trump has been cracking down on our allies that are taking advantage of us, it seems some of them actually are willing and starting to contribute more. These are all issues that actually have been brought up by Obama as a serious problem, along with Bush, but there was no progress made on it under either of them. Forcing progress on these issues is just guaranteed to upset the other countries who took advantage of it and aren't able to anymore. They no doubt with the status quo, they got protectionist policies with no backlash on their exports, best of both worlds in their eyes. Thats coming to an end.

47 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

His tariffs are already resulting in companies discontinuing the manufacture of certain products resulting in layoffs.

 

Unemployment is waayyy down and wages are up. Yes, not as much as many would like, but they are up. There is always layoffs as a result of any changes, whether positive or negative, but many more jobs were created then destroyed. The ECI hit its highest increase in a decade. Between those factors, there is no doubt wages are going to start to increase more quickly, as we recently saw locally with the massive pay increase for Disney workers.

Most of what you mention are PREDICTIONS, not a disaster, which predictions are wrong all the time. I mean the only disaster you seem to mention is that we "destroyed our reputation" with foreign leaders and that will take an extremely long time to recover. But what exactly has that resulted in? It doesn't seem to have caused any wars, our money is still good and we still seem to want to buy their products and they still want to buy ours, it seems the damage is entirely limited to the opinion of some people about our country. No financial disasters, no rioting in the streets, no new wars (and hey, I haven't even heard about any wars in some time now, I don't know if the news is too busy talking about the crazy  crap Trump says or if it actually slowed down, I'll have to try to look that up). 

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

You must not know the same Republican party that I do. 

The only reason they couldn't repeal Obamacare was not because some of the Senators were independent minded or pro-Obamacare, it's because so many poor rural Republican voters in their red states loved the program and depended on it to the point that voting to repeal it would've been political suicide. Same reason why they haven't (yet) screwed up Social Security.

Yup, mine is viewed from independent eyes, yours is from a far-left set of eyes. Even if you're right that they couldn't repeat Obamacare because its political suicide, it'd be the same situation for these other things as well.  Republicans have been in control numerous times over the past, say, 50 years, and have done none of what you said. Its just a fake fear you have, because Republicans, while many believe in those things, many do not.

 

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

That's hard to say, but my guess is that it would be close to a tie, although I much different ways.

Alright, and how about Romney? And McCain in 08? And Bush? Its the common rhetoric for the left to say its the worst person ever, every single time. I personally love Bill Maher, no doubt a hilarious guy in my eyes, and he keeps saying that, and I think he's now on the "I cried wolf all the previous times, when I said it about Romney, it was nothing compared to Trump", but you know, once you cry wolf so many times....

History will tell how he did, if there is any lasting effects, etc.... but history has shown the left has been wrong claiming its destroying the country every time a republican wins, the country is not destroyed as of yet.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, aent said:

I'm not ignoring that. I've repeatedly said many of those in certain segments of the Republican party are super-anti-Trump. I said he did well with centrists. You keep ignoring what I'm saying, MANY in the establishment have personal problems with Trump and his rhethoric and how he does things. I never once denied that.

You seem to forget that we aren't talking about members of the Republican Senate here. These are his WH aides who he hand picked and hired to work side by side with. People who agreed to come on board because they considered it to be an honor to serve the President and believed Trump was the man for the job.

Now, after having seen the real Trump, they are appalled not only at his personality, but his utter lack of fitness for the job.

I keep saying that and you keep going around it.

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but we all need to understand, Trump's own people are warning us that this is a serious situation and one that we have never encountered in the history of our nation.

5 hours ago, aent said:

And as I said, I was personally too concerned about Trump's rhetoric and the other prior mentioned issues to even vote for him. I felt I couldn't vote for either of the 2 candidates as I felt they were both so terrible and unfit for the office, so implying that I am part of his fan base is literally insane, I'm just a centrist who tries to pick the best candidates  based on my ideals, and don't follow any party lines. I'm a realist. I disagree with MUCH of what Trump does, but the same has been true for each of the past 3 presidents we've had in my adult life.

That's fine.  But, I cannot count the number of people I've encountered on message boards who claim they didn't vote for Trump and aren't supporters, then defend him to the hilt and refute every single criticism made against him.

Same with Rush Limbaugh. Nobody on the right will admit to listening to him, but they all parrot his talking points. Go figure.

5 hours ago, aent said:

I'll ask a few more questions about your opinions: when the EU and other nations implement or have had these huge tariffs on importing American products, is that part okay? The EU has huge tariffs on imports into the eurozone, is that policy ok and its only a problem when the US does it? My understanding is Trump has been willing to completely go back on the tariff increases with nations that heavily reduce the tariffs they apply to American imports, and he's done that multiple times. The US is also forced to contribute waaayyy more then its fair share to NATO, the UN, and other international organizations for world defense spending, and since Trump has been cracking down on our allies that are taking advantage of us, it seems some of them actually are willing and starting to contribute more. These are all issues that actually have been brought up by Obama as a serious problem, along with Bush, but there was no progress made on it under either of them. Forcing progress on these issues is just guaranteed to upset the other countries who took advantage of it and aren't able to anymore. They no doubt with the status quo, they got protectionist policies with no backlash on their exports, best of both worlds in their eyes. Thats coming to an end.

You can’t compare tariff by tariff, because that is not how trade negotiations work. Every country uses tariffs for different reasons, including the protection of strategic resources, protection of nascent industries, political pressure, protection of jobs etc. Trade negotiations are held on the principle of reciprocity, where one party loosens policy in one area and the other party in another. The outcome is then balanced as a whole, but not necessarily on the level of specific products and services.

The automotive sector in the European Union employs around 12.6 million people, which represents 10.9% of manufacturing employment, thus making it a sensitive sector worth protecting. Something similar is the case with regards to the US, where Lyndon B. Johnson decided to protect the pick-up truck market with 25% import tariffs back in 1964 as part of another trade war. Back then the aim was to prevent Volkswagen minibuses from entering the US market. Incidentally, pick-up trucks are, or were, the most popular segment in the US.

Once tariffs are set, they can be very long lived and are only revisited in the context of the next trade negotiations between the two parties. And the fact that the EU imposes 10% on small cars and the US 2.5%, doesn’t mean that the US is in an unfair trading position as a whole.

Individual tariffs make for a great soundbite, but don’t reflect the whole picture. The mean tariffs can be visualized on world bank’s website. Interestingly, the US tariffs are on par or even higher than the other G7 countries.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Unemployment is waayyy down and wages are up. Yes, not as much as many would like, but they are up. There is always layoffs as a result of any changes, whether positive or negative, but many more jobs were created then destroyed. The ECI hit its highest increase in a decade. Between those factors, there is no doubt wages are going to start to increase more quickly, as we recently saw locally with the massive pay increase for Disney workers.

Most of what you mention are PREDICTIONS, not a disaster, which predictions are wrong all the time. I mean the only disaster you seem to mention is that we "destroyed our reputation" with foreign leaders and that will take an extremely long time to recover. But what exactly has that resulted in? It doesn't seem to have caused any wars, our money is still good and we still seem to want to buy their products and they still want to buy ours, it seems the damage is entirely limited to the opinion of some people about our country. No financial disasters, no rioting in the streets, no new wars (and hey, I haven't even heard about any wars in some time now, I don't know if the news is too busy talking about the crazy  crap Trump says or if it actually slowed down, I'll have to try to look that up).

There doesn't have to be wars and riots in the streets for real damage to have been inflicted. If left to his own devices, he'd be selling our national security out to the Kremlin right now. If a US President will stand on the world stage and praise people like Putin and Kim Jong Un, while trashing our allies like Britain and Germany, something is obviously wrong. Anyone who cannot acknowledge that just doesn't want to.

And let's not forget the damage he's doing to our own institutions. Trashing the FBI and calling the press "the enemy of the people" knowing full well that there are plenty of gullible dupes running around in society, only too happy to believe it.

And finally, his constant, obvious, blatant lies are just destroying people's trust in and respect for the Office of the Presidency.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Yup, mine is viewed from independent eyes, yours is from a far-left set of eyes. Even if you're right that they couldn't repeat Obamacare because its political suicide, it'd be the same situation for these other things as well.  Republicans have been in control numerous times over the past, say, 50 years, and have done none of what you said. Its just a fake fear you have, because Republicans, while many believe in those things, many do not.

No, I'm not far left. I'm probably more centrist than you are. And again, you're side-stepping what I said. It would not be political suicide for Republicans to support a radical pro-Christian agenda in the red states where they hold sway. It would actually help them politically and a Republican majority would go along with it.

We've never had a President who was a religious zealot like Mike Pence is, and if he gets into the WH with a Republican majority in Congress and a conservative SCOTUS, which is what I was talking about, and is something we have never had before, you can bet your last buck we WILL be seeing the things I was predicting.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Alright, and how about Romney? And McCain in 08? And Bush? Its the common rhetoric for the left to say its the worst person ever, every single time. I personally love Bill Maher, no doubt a hilarious guy in my eyes, and he keeps saying that, and I think he's now on the "I cried wolf all the previous times, when I said it about Romney, it was nothing compared to Trump", but you know, once you cry wolf so many times....

History will tell how he did, if there is any lasting effects, etc.... but history has shown the left has been wrong claiming its destroying the country every time a republican wins, the country is not destroyed as yet.

Romney and McCain were never the President. They never got elected. What was said about them is apples to oranges. During campaign seasons, everybody says every opponent of their guy is the worst ever. This is different. Trump is in the WH. He has his finger on the button. He can declare war. He can issue executive orders. He can do all kinds of damage and, according to the people who work the most closely with him, he is mentally unfit and emotionally unstable.

Bush? He actually WAS one of the worst Presidents we'd ever had up to that point. Remember, 9/11 happened on his watch and then he needlessly invaded Iraq, costing the US upwards of a trillion dollars only to destabilize the region. But at least he was otherwise in control of himself and not teetering on the brink of insanity. At least he respected and understood the importance of our long standing institutions.

You can talk about employment and the economy and tariffs etc, all day long, but the central issue is that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and he's unfit to be running a pizza parlor much less the US of A.

Anyway, we need to draw this to a close.

It's gone way too far off topic already.

.