Comrade Trump

[BlueK]

Ok, if you wish to see it that way. He was asked to act, he deliberated, and he didnt. And so Mueller wasnt fired, which is sort of the salient point.

Yes, there are a few sane people still around Trump. For that I am grateful. The fact that such a thing is even necessary around our president is still frightening to me.

[creekster]

Not sure I understand what you mean about loyalty in regards to Mueller. That line of thinking makes more sense if the story came out that he wanted to fire Rosenstein after he first wrote a memo in support of the Comey firing but then turned around and followed the law that allowed him to hire special counsel Mueller to take over the Russia investigation. I can see loyalty being a thing with him. But Mueller wasn't a Trump hire.

Your point, as I understand it, is that trump's near-termination of Trump shows a consciousness of guilt. It may reflect that consciousness, I agree. But we also know that Trump thinks he should be treated as above reproach by the executive branch (if not everyone) and he sees Mueller as an unjustified thorn in his side and so wanted someone, including Sessions or himself if necessary, to rid him of this meddlesome attorney.

[creekster]

Yes, there are a few sane people still around Trump. For that I am grateful. The fact that such a thing is even necessary around our president is still frightening to me.

I am not sure this sort of thing hasn't happened before. I know there are stories of Johnson and Nixon acting this way. I don't think impetuous outbursts demanding imprudent actions which are never carried out are unknown in the Whitehouse.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And so Mueller wasnt fired, which is sort of the salient point.

Really? Wow.

"Yes, the president directed us to start a nuclear war. The generals refused. So no missiles were fired, which is sort of the salient point."

[creekster]

Really? Wow.

"Yes, the president directed us to start a nuclear war. The generals refused. So no missiles were fired, which is sort of the salient point."

Sure, that is a very reasonable and useful comparison. Not hyperbolic at all.

[BlueK]

Sure, that is a very reasonable and useful comparison. Not hyperbolic at all.

When your president is trying to pick fights with Kim Jung Un over twitter, it's actually much less hyperbolic than it should be, IMO.

I saw an interview with him on TV with Chris Matthews asking why we don't use nuclear weapons. He sounded like an 6th grader asking that. Granted, that was before he was the president.

If he's not kind of a nut, he does a great job acting like it. That's ok in celebrity world. But it's scary when it's the president of the country. I kind of feel like Republicans are just constantly having to talk themselves into believing all his nuttiness is really not a big deal. But it shouldn't even be necessary. I've had plenty of policy disagreements with presidents from both parties over the years, but Trump is not even in the same universe.

[old_gregg]

Sure, that is a very reasonable and useful comparison. Not hyperbolic at all.

the principle holds, dingus

[creekster]

the principle holds, dingus

Nuclear war compared to personnel/political choices in an internal investigation? Not the same.

[creekster]

When your president is trying to pick fights with Kim Jung Un over twitter, it's actually much less hyperbolic than it should be, IMO.

I saw an interview with him on TV with Chris Matthews asking why we don't use nuclear weapons. He sounded like an 6th grader asking that. Granted, that was before he was the president.

If he's not kind of a nut, he does a great job acting like it. That's ok in celebrity world. But it's scary when it's the president of the country. I kind of feel like Republicans are just constantly having to talk themselves into believing all his nuttiness is really not a big deal. Again, it shouldn't even be necessary. I've had plenty of disagreements with presidents from both parties over the years, but Trump is not even in the same universe.

I agree with this, actually.

[old_gregg]

Nuclear war compared to personnel/political choices in an internal investigation? Not the same.

no, outcomes of bad judgment being avoided by other people’s less bad judgment does not make the original bad judgment less bad. how is this controversial? your reactions to this stuff are so bizarre.

[creekster]

no, outcomes of bad judgment being avoided by other people’s less bad judgment does not make the original bad judgment less bad. how is this controversial? your reactions to this stuff are so bizarre.

Perhaps because that doesnt describe my reaction. Dingus.

[old_gregg]

Perhaps because that doesnt describe my reaction. Dingus.

it exactly describes your reaction. the hyperbole of the comparison does not matter. what does not make sense about this to you?

[creekster]

it exactly describes your reaction. the hyperbole of the comparison does not matter. what does not make sense about this to you?

The hyperbole of the comparison doesn't affect the underlying principle, if it is accurately used. But the value of the comparison depends a great deal on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Internal investigation is not the same as a decision to launch nukes, neither in terms of the process by which that decision is reached or in terms of the likely reaction of those around the president. Trump's foreign policy adventures are certainly unwise and crude and have put us closer to nuclear war than we ever should be. Here, however, the point was (assuming it is being reported accurately) that Trump lashed out, an official failed to follow through, and Trump let it go. This is not at all how the process would have to play out for the comparison to hold, as you know. So, from my POV, the comparison is facile but ultimately meaningless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The hyperbole of the comparison doesn't affect the underlying principle, if it is accurately used. But the value of the comparison depends a great deal on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Internal investigation is not the same as a decision to launch nukes, neither in terms of the process by which that decision is reached or in terms of the likely reaction of those around the president. Trump's foreign policy adventures are certainly unwise and crude and have put us closer to nuclear war than we ever should be. Here, however, the point was (assuming it is being reported accurately) that Trump lashed out, an official failed to follow through, and Trump let it go. This is not at all how the process would have to play out for the comparison to hold, as you know. So, from my POV, the comparison is facile but ultimately meaningless.

So Trump lashed out and then he wisely let it go. Uh ... ok.

As usual, you are nitpicking over meaningless distinctions and missing the broader point completely.

It's incredible to me how the Trump presidency has changed the way people react to stuff like this.

[creekster]

So Trump lashed out and then he wisely let it go. Uh ... ok.

As usual, you are nitpicking over meaningless distinctions and missing the broader point completely.

It's incredible to me how the Trump presidency has changed the way people react to stuff like this.

Was it not a better choice to let it go? And comparing an aborted attempt to fire a special counsel to a nuclear attack is meaningful? What's the broader point that I am missing?