The Trump Presidency

[MBDK]

What are you talking about?

Some alternate universe, apparently.  Somehow I got 2017 and 2019 mixed up.  I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep.  My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience. 

Oh, and thank you for the much needed corrections.

[VQ]

Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way.  Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?

I was modifying your analogy to be accurate. To recap, the associations are:

Braun: former Nazi.
Trump: misogynist narcissist swindling boor.

You correctly noted that the CT hypothesis of Braun, former Nazi then NASA career something something HOAX!!!, is inaccurate. I agree that:

a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.

But no one is claiming that it does, so (a) is a straw man. I then modified the analogy to make it germane:

b. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior precludes him from being fit for elected public office (in my opinion as a voter), just as Braun's pre-NASA behavior would have precluded him from being fit for elected public office (in my opinion as a voter).

I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep.  My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience. 

I hope you feel better. Once you are back to 100% and reading this, can I suggest that maybe you could have jumped to some other conclusions prematurely in this thread, along with the ones we've already highlighted?

[gillianren]

Okay, here's a point I'd like.  If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.

I can do you one better.  It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything.  I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing.  Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion. 

So if another country had considered our leadership guilty of war crimes for what we have done--"enhanced interrogation," etc.--would they be justified in assassinating our leaders?

[VQ]

I can do you one better.  It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything.  I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing.  Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.

You say you are no fan of Trump, but you sure do spout the party line predictably.

Soleimani was commander of the Quds force. As such he was not a friend of the United States, but that doesn't make him a "dedicated killer of Americans". He (more specifically, the force he commanded) trained Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, some of which have subsequently attacked Americans. Those same militias also fought in coordination with the Americans (or more specifically, American air power) against ISIS. The various situations in the Middle East are complex and dangerous.

Historically, assassinating commanders of irregular forces hasn't been an effective strategy: it turns the leaders into martyrs, while there are always more personnel available to take on the leadership role. Assassinating a general of organized special forces doesn't seem to be likely to be any more effective, and has far more significant strategic and grand strategic drawbacks (ie, the loss of the Iraqi government as a regional ally). So Trump gets criticized for the apparently unnecessarily inflammatory and destabilizing action.

As we are not at war with Iran, it is illegal under US and international law to assassinate its military leadership with one key exception - if done in self defense against an imminent attack. The Republicans have vaguely alluded to an imminent attack, but haven't provided details publicly. All indications are that they haven't provided an imminent justification to Congress internally, either. So, Trump gets criticized for the apparently illegal action.

The timing of the attack, the day after the release of devastating (and previously redacted with no legal basis) emails regarding Trump and Ukraine, also stinks.

So no, I don't think that in this example the Democrats are just as bad.

[Jason Thompson]

I can do you one better.  It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything.  I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing.  Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.

Whether you consider it a good thing or not is largely irrelevant, since the point is that the way it was done was illegal, and that Trump flat out stated the US would merrily commit war crimes in retaliation. 'They can kill our people but we can't touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way', he said. Well actually it does work that way, as explicitly stated in UN agreements on the rules of military conflicts that were drawn up precisely because previously that was just the kind of thing that people did, and just the kind of thing ISIS were doing and being condemned for not so long ago.

A recurring pattern of this last three years has been Trump saying he will do something, a whole bunch of his officials pointing out that actually they can't do that thing, and him repeating the statement that they will do it.

Personally I consider killing leading figures pointless, because it's a classic trope from fiction that doesn't hold in reality. If the organisation exists and the means for it to carry on doing what it does exist, it will carry on because someone else will fill the gap. Tell me you've eradicated a threat by wiping out weapons caches, training facilities, military establishments, fine. Tell me it's a big victory because you killed one person and I'll wonder which boy's own comic you've been reading instead of getting sound military advice. Would killing Trump eredicate the republican party? No, of course not. So why should killing this one general end a supposed threat? All it's done is make a martyr and further piss off Iran. How is that a good thing?

[Jason Thompson]

a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.

I still stand by my point when comparing these two men that von Braun's controversial past was a short chapter in his life that was well and truly over by the time he rose to prominence as the man who helped put humankind on the Moon, while Trump's pattern of behaviour has been ongoing hsi entire life. Let's say hypothetically that von Braun were running for office at the same age as Trump was when he ran. While I would consider both of them unfit for office, I'd be far more willing to let a man who had a short period of his life in the Nazi party but had subsequently built a history showing no sympathy with their policies and become a respected member of his community and widely liiked around the world take office than someone with a long, uninterrupted, consistent pattern of behaviour showing him to have no real interest in anything except personal achievement and fame, a clearly racist, misogynistic and bigoted attitude to all and sundry, and a total disdain for anyone less well off than himself. A man who has done something to advance humanity's achievements versus someone only interested in his own.

My biggest issue with the whole business of Trump as President is that his attitude and behaviour were clear to everyone, and so naturally we get more of the same while he is in office, now made worse by his belief that he is unassailable in his position and can do what the hell he wants. Does that make him incapable of making 'good' choices and doing good deeds with his positon? Not at all. It does make it surprising, however.

[gillianren]

He once took out a full-page ad advocating for killing children who had not yet been convicted of a crime--and now that the evidence has become quite clear that they were railroaded because of their age and ethnicity . . . he's doubled down and insisted they weren't actually innocent.  He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.  Gosh, why do racists like him?

[MBDK]

Okay, I am much better, health-wise, except for a few infrequent times when I cough like a bad engine.  So, to elaborate somewhat on my point, which to be clear is: 
Posters in this discussion topic sometimes use untrue, illogical and/or exaggerated claims, as well as other tactics often used by CTs, and should be mindful of such actions.

A couple of recent examples:

But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.

Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point.  This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

[MBDK]

He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.

His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt.  That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).

Making what I assume to be an honest mistake, yet still an untrue statement only shows how facts can get twisted inside our heads.  Happened to me a couple of times in this discussion. 

[MBDK]

You correctly noted that the CT hypothesis of Braun, former Nazi then NASA career something something HOAX!!!, is inaccurate. I agree that:

a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.

But no one is claiming that it does, so (a) is a straw man.

Which is my point.

[Jason Thompson]

He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.

His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt.  That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).

His company settled after a countersuit was thrown out. Now why settle out of court if there is no case to answer?

When you reach a certain level of wealth, legal fines and penalties just become fees. Who gives a toss about a fifty grand lawsuit when one has billions in the bank? Trump is one of a small group of people in this world with enough money to buy his way out of legal issues, and has demonstrated time and time again that admission of guilt is something he is simply incapable of doing even if it is blatantly obvious he is guilty. He won't even admit a simple mistake, much less cuplability in any criminal or civil proceeding.

[MBDK]

Okay, now I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings, but I was just pointing out my observations.  I had similar discussions with all the Obama-haters in his time (birthers being some of the biggest fools out there).  Though I wasn't an Obama fan, either, I still called out the BS that was said about him during his presidency (and, as you know, there was PLENTY).  From my experience, BOTH parties have relatively equal amounts of blame when political chicanery is at play.  I just think it would make more constructive discourse to double check ourselves when making claims, especially when we let emotions enter and leap to promote speculation as fact.

As for Trump, I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, but not always to the extent they have been taken.  He is not a very likable person, has many faults and this country deserves better leadership.  Still, In my opinion, he is not the demon leftists make him out to be, either.  His major tactic is a salesman's one I mentioned to my friends prior to taking office.  Ask for the sea, when all you really want is a drop - anything more is a win (to the salesman).

So, as  I have no real interest in discussing a lot of things at length, I am going to withdraw from this topic, unless there is something of particular importance you feel should be mentioned.  Thank you.

[rocketman]

No.  No, that's wrong.  If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis.  That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them.  And if you are . . . .

Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?

I'm not sure what the contradictory message is here, but the "logic" used is discussed here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

under "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy".

I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton.  If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters.  But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own.  Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.

If supporting Trump (or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) is objectively a bad thing, then one should be able to show that without examining the moral qualities of other people who support Trump (or Clinton or whomever).

For what it's worth, I'm going to make myself really popular by quoting one of your earlier statements, that seems to have kicked off this whole flurry:

However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.

I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember.  I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy.  I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.  Etc.

Why anyone would find your observation in the least bit objectionable is beyond me.  The sentiment "I don't like Trump" (substitute anyone else you like) does not require one to reach the conclusion "every criticism of Trump is a valid one", or "no critic of Trump is ever hypocritical".  Furthermore, arguing that some criticisms of Trump are invalid, or that some critics of Trump are hypocritical, does not make one a Trump supporter.  And yet internet logic frequently comes up short of real logic

[VQ]

Which is my point.

Your point is that you agree no one is making the claim you are debunking?

[gillianren]

Hillary Clinton never said there were "good people on both sides" when one side was actively saying they were Nazis.  In fact, one of the things she got in the most trouble for during the campaign was pointing out that there were people supporting Trump who were awful--and somehow, all his supporters thought she was talking about them.  Hillary Clinton would've had the good sense to flatly say, "I do not accept his endorsement" if David Duke had come out supporting her.  Donald Trump did not.

And why assume his stated preference for not renting to black people was an honest mistake?