President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[swampfrog]

I've tried very hard to not project my utter disdain for Trump onto his supporters. Early on, I was influenced by that John Stewart interview where he told the CBS reporter that Trump voters had valid reasons to vote for him. I was also influenced by a podcast I heard a while back that promoted Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and how it argues why good people support leaders who are viewed as unethical by other good people (still need to read it). I believe that moral decisions are very relative indeed, and so I give a lot of leeway for those who tell us that their vote for Trump was based on some value/moral judgement. He is a master at tapping the fairness and law-abiding 'nerves', and his supporters reflexively react accordingly. I do not understand it most of the time, but I accept their values are based on some moral code that is as valid as mine.

However, I'm beginning to push back on some of Trump's support. I can accept that there are groups of people who feel left behind in today's society, and they support someone who says will help them out. I can also respect a vote for someone who says he can protect the country better than previous leaders, if safety is the most important priority. But any Trump support that is based on lies and faulty perception needs to be called out. And a growing proportion of the support Trump has in the Republican Party is based on outright media distrust and conspiratorial thinking. And, failing that, just pwning the libs. If a person voted for Trump because of an irrational world view, then sorry Creek, I am going to judge a person for that. And I will hold supporters who should know better in even more contempt. I'm looking at you, Aunt.

You should read that book. It's worth the time. Read this also:

Gay Muslim Man visits Alaska

[tooblue]

What if they just understand how their goals are benefited if the National Labor Board or FCC has more Republicans on it than Democrats? Could it be that simple? What happened to that talk that any salaried employee earning less than $60,000 must be paid overtime?

I don't understand why you folks need to feel so morally superior. Especially in light of that he was running against Hillary Clinton - who many really believe is equally corrupt. It can really be that some folks understand that 3 is more than 2. You once posted that Hillary would have been a more conservative President than Trump and as far as I can tell that competition began and ended with free trade. There is a lot of clout that goes with having your teams guy in charge of the entire Executive.

Moral superiority is not required to discern that Trump is a repugnantly immoral human being. It's common sense to not support such an individual, regardless the potential benefits to you and yours.

[creekster]

Moral superiority is not required to discern that Trump is a repugnantly immoral human being. It's common sense to not support such an individual, regardless the potential benefits to you and yours.

I don't think that is, necessarily, common sense. Common sense usually promotes your own well-being. It may be common sense if you assume certain moral truths, but not necessarily otherwise.

[creekster]

I've tried very hard to not project my utter disdain for Trump onto his supporters. Early on, I was influenced by that John Stewart interview where he told the CBS reporter that Trump voters had valid reasons to vote for him. I was also influenced by a podcast I heard a while back that promoted Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and how it argues why good people support leaders who are viewed as unethical by other good people (still need to read it). I believe that moral decisions are very relative indeed, and so I give a lot of leeway for those who tell us that their vote for Trump was based on some value/moral judgement. He is a master at tapping the fairness and law-abiding 'nerves', and his supporters reflexively react accordingly. I do not understand it most of the time, but I accept their values are based on some moral code that is as valid as mine.

However, I'm beginning to push back on some of Trump's support. I can accept that there are groups of people who feel left behind in today's society, and they support someone who says will help them out. I can also respect a vote for someone who says he can protect the country better than previous leaders, if safety is the most important priority. But any Trump support that is based on lies and faulty perception needs to be called out. And a growing proportion of the support Trump has in the Republican Party is based on outright media distrust and conspiratorial thinking. And, failing that, just pwning the libs. If a person voted for Trump because of an irrational world view, then sorry Creek, I am going to judge a person for that. And I will hold supporters who should know better in even more contempt. I'm looking at you, Aunt.

If at some point I said irrational people are beyond reproach if they voted for Trump, please consider this a withdrawal of that position. I don't think I ever said that and, if I did, I didn't mean it like that.

[tooblue]

I don't think that is, necessarily, common sense. Common sense usually promotes your own well-being. It may be common sense if you assume certain moral truths, but not necessarily otherwise.

Common sense 'should' indicate Trump cannot be trusted. His obvious moral failings dictate that though at first you may benefit from associating yourself with him, such a person will not hesitate to forsake you in the name of his own self interest.

[Northwestcoug]

What if they just understand how their goals are benefited if the National Labor Board or FCC has more Republicans on it than Democrats? Could it be that simple? What happened to that talk that any salaried employee earning less than $60,000 must be paid overtime?

I don't understand why you folks need to feel so morally superior. Especially in light of that he was running against Hillary Clinton - who many really believe is equally corrupt. It can really be that some folks understand that 3 is more than 2. You once posted that Hillary would have been a more conservative President than Trump and as far as I can tell that competition began and ended with free trade. There is a lot of clout that goes with having your teams guy in charge of the entire Executive.

Incoming moral judgment alert: Hillary was a very ethically-challenged politician. But after everything we've seen in the last 3 years, I will judge you and anyone else who believes that Trump is a less corrupt person than her. I will do that because IMO that faulty assumption is based on a whole group of faulty assumptions that Fox News and their ilk reported her issues in a truthful context. Remove the hysteria that Fox and others promulgated for decades, and the Clinton ethical lapses pale in comparison to the lasting damage Trump has done and will do to the presidency.

It's one thing to vote for Trump because you believe his policies are better for the country. That's the position I can respect, though in most cases I disagree with. It's the ignorant one that a vote for him was to save the country from Killary, and then to support him blindly no matter how far he deviates from moral behavior, that deserves scorn.

And yes, I still believe that Hillary would have been a more conservative president than Trump.

If at some point I said irrational people are beyond reproach if they voted for Trump, please consider this a withdrawal of that position. I don't think I ever said that and, if I did, I didn't mean it like that.

I don't think you did. I was just referring to you in general after what I felt was an overreaction to PAC's post.

[Walter Sobchak]

the Clinton ethical lapses pale in comparison to the lasting damage Trump has done and will do to the presidency.

And whatever hypothetical "lasting damage" President Trump will do is not even a blip on the radar compared to the actual damage done by Bush43. You need to get some perspective man.

[Northwestcoug]

And whatever hypothetical "lasting damage" President Trump will do is not even a blip on the radar compared to the actual damage done by Bush43. You need to get some perspective man.

Too soon, bro. Give Trump another 2 (or 6 ) years to see what damage he can do.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Too soon, bro. Give Trump another 2 (or 6 ) years to see what damage he can do.

Yes, it took W a little more than two years to hit his stride.

[Maximus]

lmao
“If you want to be stupid,” he told Mr. Trump, “I can be stupid, as well.”

Backing up his points, Mr. Juncker flipped through more than a dozen colorful cue cards with simplified explainers, the senior EU official said. Each card had at most three figures about a specific topic, such as trade in cars or standards for medical devices.

“We knew this wasn’t an academic seminar,” the EU official said. “It had to be very simple.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eus-whi...ons-1532624882

[Walter Sobchak]

Too soon, bro. Give Trump another 2 (or 6 ) years to see what damage he can do.

It will be 6.

Yes, it took W a little more than two years to hit his stride.

Exactly my point and thank you for your contribution. At this time in the Bush presidency, the public relations march toward the war with Iraq was in full swing. Here is Vice President Cheney addressing the VFW in August 2002:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

Perhaps together, you and I can reign in the hyperbole surrounding how "damaging" President Trump is to our nation. :fistbump:

[Jeff Lebowski]

It will be 6.




Exactly my point and thank you for your contribution. At this time in the Bush presidency, the public relations march toward the war with Iraq was in full swing. Here is Vice President Cheney addressing the VFW in August 2002:



Perhaps together, you and I can reign in the hyperbole surrounding how "damaging" President Trump is to our nation. :fistbump:

What about Bush!

[creekster]

It will be 6.




Exactly my point and thank you for your contribution. At this time in the Bush presidency, the public relations march toward the war with Iraq was in full swing. Here is Vice President Cheney addressing the VFW in August 2002:



Perhaps together, you and I can reign in the hyperbole surrounding how "damaging" President Trump is to our nation. :fistbump:

I will probably regret posting this, but doesn't that Cheney quotation sound eerily similar to the current pronouncements about the intelligence consensus about the Russian interference in the DNC and our elections?

[Northwestcoug]

I will probably regret posting this, but doesn't that Cheney quotation sound eerily similar to the current pronouncements about the intelligence consensus about the Russian interference in the DNC and our elections?

I...did not see Creekster forming the whatabout- trilogy with UT and Walter coming

[Walter Sobchak]

What about Bush!

Good point... historical perspective should in no way serve as a guide to comment on current behaviors, politics, et al.

I will probably regret posting this, but doesn't that Cheney quotation sound eerily similar to the current pronouncements about the intelligence consensus about the Russian interference in the DNC and our elections?

You will regret it.