The Trump Presidency

[gillianren]

I'd also like it demonstrated that the Democrats are this flawed.  Flawed, yes, but this?

[MBDK]

I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body

Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?

[LunarOrbit]

I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body

Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?

Yes, that should be obvious. And I'm sure your next post will be about how Trump reversed the decision to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics... "See, Trump isn't bad, he cares about ethics!"

But the thing is, he only reversed the decision after there were people marching in the streets over it. Republicans voted in the middle of the night to gut an ethics watchdog, people noticed, and then Trump pretended he was against it all along to save face.

He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created.

If Trump cared about ethics he would not have ripped off people who performed work for him before he became President. He wouldn't have operated a fraudulent "university", or stolen money from his fake charity. He wouldn't use the Presidency to enrich himself or his businesses. He would pay his taxes.

People who know Trump warned voters that he was corrupt before the election. People have been aware of it for years. We didn't need to manufacture any flaws, he wears them with pride (ie. evading taxes makes him smart).

Why would anyone believe that someone who was so blatantly corrupt years ago would suddenly be so squeaky clean that they were handpicked by God to be President now?

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

[MBDK]

No matter how you spin it, he still made what you think is the right call.  Despite direct evidence otherwise, you are now following the illogical path of every conspiracy theorists by claiming to know what others are thinking, and denying that direct evidence (i,e,. "He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created") with unsubstantiated conjecture.  You are chasing your prey down the rabbit hole, because of your own prejudicial binders.  Just like the last 3 years of supposed Russian interference.  You have already decided innocence and/or guilt, so, like a CT,, you rationalize the irrational.  THAT is my point, and if you can't see it, then you may as well claim we never landed on the Moon.

[MBDK]

I'd also like it demonstrated that the Democrats are this flawed.  Flawed, yes, but this?

"Flawed" is undoubtedly a projection of our own criteria.  The major ones for me is the constant name-calling, redefinition of terms to fit an agenda, and slander of those with opposing opinions.

[LunarOrbit]

No matter how you spin it, he still made what you think is the right call.

He made the right call after they were caught and it became an embarrassment. Would he have made that same call if the vote to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics had gone unnoticed by the public? What reason is there to believe he would have, based on all of his past corrupt behaviour?

Despite direct evidence otherwise, you are now following the illogical path of every conspiracy theorists by claiming to know what others are thinking,

It is not illogical to believe that his past corruption would follow him to the White House where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in office. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire adult life would suddenly care about ethics now.

Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet? Or to believe that a pyromaniac can't be trusted with a box of matches? Trump has a long, well documented, history of corrupt behaviour. He has gone to court over his fake university and charity, and lost both times. Every time he visits one of his properties his bank account benefits at the taxpayers expense... some would call that embezzlement. So it's unbelievable that you are still expecting people to give him the benefit of the doubt after 3 years of this. We know who he is, and anyone that continues to believe that he is the second coming of Christ is deluding themselves.

and denying that direct evidence (i,e,. "He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created") with unsubstantiated conjecture.

Even IF Trump didn't specifically ask for the ethics office to be dismantled, do you really think the Republicans would have done so if they didn't believe he would support it? They saw the opportunity to do something that would only benefit unethical people, and they took it. Believe me, I am by no means saying that Trump is the only corrupt Republican, so I'm not hanging this all on him.

You are chasing your prey down the rabbit hole, because of your own prejudicial binders.

And you're burying your head in the sand. The difference between you and me is that if I'm wrong, I've only encouraged ethical behaviour. If you're wrong, you've stood by while Trump and the other Republicans tried to dismantle every form of ethical oversight they could get their hands on. I'm concerned about protecting ethics in government, and you're on the side of letting Republicans get away with murder.

Just like the last 3 years of supposed Russian interference.

There is nothing "supposed" about it. It was verified by 17 US Intelligence agencies. It was admitted to by Facebook, who I believe was (at best) an unwitting accomplice. Denying it at this point would be ridiculous.

You have already decided innocence and/or guilt, so, like a CT,, you rationalize the irrational.  THAT is my point, and if you can't see it, then you may as well claim we never landed on the Moon.

I'm siding with the verified facts, just like I do when I defend Apollo. I'm siding with protecting your country (which is not even my own country), just like I do when I protect it from the misinformation spread by Apollo conspiracy theorists. Trump and many of his friends are conspiracy theorists. So I don't get your comparing me to a conspiracy theorist.

[MBDK]

Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about.  Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.

Example:  Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -

"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."

Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations.  What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past.  THAT is not logical.  Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay. 

I could go on, but I feel I am beating a dead horse here.  Again, I am not here to defend him, but to point out the parallels in your (and others') rhetoric on this subject as a cautionary tale.  Your blanket refusal to honestly consider that (to this point) is a little disturbing to me.

[Jason Thompson]

Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about.  Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.

Example:  Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -

"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."

Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.

Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations.  What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past.  THAT is not logical.

Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.

Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.

It is not hearsay to say that Trump has boasted about his evasion of taxes or how bypassing the rules makes him smart. It is not hearsay to point out that he has been taken to court over his financial affairs. It is not hearsay to point out the huge number of lies and the vast amount of hypocrisy he displays. It is not hearsay to point out that he has declared thigs that are actually written in the consititution as phony or unconstitutional. He is open about it.

He and his allies are working very hard to build a narrative whereby the trust in everything but them is eroded. They are trying to create a place where it is somehow reaosnable to consider people summoned under the rules of the constitution to testify under oath are liars and frauds, while those who refuse to testify and defy court orders to produce documents are somehow above suspicion. If he actually had nothing to hide, why hide it? If his records prove him to be squeaky clean, why refuse to release them and end the 'harrassment' once and for all?

Trump is fundamentally unfit for office, has demonstrated time and again a willingness to not give a toss about anyone else but him and his cronies, constantly claims himself an expert on anything and everything (despite clearly being anything but), will deny having done things that are a matter of record (even his own record, denying saying things that are clearly written and preserved on his Twitter feed), and has a very obviously demonstrated pathological inability to admit any kind of mistake or culpability. If it's good he will take credit even if it wasn't his to take, and if it is bad it is always someone else's fault. This is not speculation or hearsay, this is his own behaviour, demonstrated by his words and his social media presence.

[gillianren]

The reversal of policies toward trans people in particular is literally killing people.  The policies cutting food stamps will literally kill people.  The changes to the level of emissions cars are allowed to produce will literally kill people.  I can point to any number of lethal policies from the current administration.  But "they said bad things about people" is apparently just as bad.  Good to know.

[gillianren]

Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK.  Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016.  So what slander are we talking, here?

[MBDK]

Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.

That can be argued to be as much conjecture as the original anti-Trump quote is, and therefor remains a prime example of the continued use of CT tactics by some of the posts written here.

Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.

a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty, as was the OP's logically fallacious conclusion.  You have just confirmed your unrecognized (by you) agreement with me on this point.

Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.

It is not hearsay to say...

Things that were not brought up in the OP.  Okay.  Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?

He and his allies are...

All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law.  I get it, but that is still conjecture.  No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did,  claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.

[MBDK]

Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK.  Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016.  So what slander are we talking, here?

Actually, it is.  If YOU support a candidate, cause, etc., you have no control over who else does, including reprehensible people.  When someone then claims you and such reprehensible people have forged a bond because of such an association, they have slandered you by making a false analogy.

[Apollo 957]

I've seen interviews with the child cast of Young Sheldon.

Even they show better decorum and public speaking skills than this President ...

[Jason Thompson]

Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.

That can be argued to be as much conjecture as the original anti-Trump quote is, and therefor remains a prime example of the continued use of CT tactics by some of the posts written here.

No, that's a conclusion drawn by people who knew him, his own words, the content of a biography or two, and the conclusions drawn by the US intelligence agencies who interviewed him extensively after Operation Paperclip and put him and his colleagues to work on US military projects.

Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.

a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty, as was the OP's logically fallacious conclusion.  You have just confirmed your unrecognized (by you) agreement with me on this point.

The OP did not conclude guilt. Actual words used were is "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" There is nothing in there about concluding guilt, only in lacking trust, which is reasonable.

Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.

It is not hearsay to say...

Things that were not brought up in the OP.  Okay.  Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?

That is on topic. Very much so. Trump's behaviour is literally the entire topic. Just because I added a few other examples to the original doesn't make it 'off-topic'. I shall conclude from your attempt to suggest otherwise that you have no actual comeback to those points and you concur that he does indeed behave in those ways.

He and his allies are...

All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law.  I get it, but that is still conjecture.  No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did,  claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.

So, what conclusion should I draw from their actions? They are smearing their opponents, portraying themselves as the victims of something 'unconsitutional' which is in fact following the letter and spirit of the constitution. Trump's attorney has literally claimed he can get away with cold blooded murder as long as he is President. Even if I don't know their intent for sure (frankly Trump's irrationality makes me wonder if there is actually any intent at all beyond paranoid crybaby whining about unfair treatment), there's not much wiggle room in the interpretation.

[LunarOrbit]

Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about.  Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.

Example:  Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -

"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."

Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations.  What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past.  THAT is not logical.  Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay. 

I could go on, but I feel I am beating a dead horse here.  Again, I am not here to defend him, but to point out the parallels in your (and others') rhetoric on this subject as a cautionary tale.  Your blanket refusal to honestly consider that (to this point) is a little disturbing to me.

I wasn't alive at the time, but I think it would have been perfectly reasonable to not trust Werner von Braun, and I'm sure it took years for him to earn whatever amount of trustworthiness that he had. He most likely had people watching him closely until the day he died.

Donald Trump has done nothing to earn our trust, instead he has only confirmed that he is dishonest, rude, impulsive, reckless, self-centered, thin-skinned, weak, narcissistic, and unethical. This isn't speculation or "manufactured flaws", it's all observed behaviour. I really don't understand why you are defending him.

Using your logic, even the worst criminal should be trusted and their past ignored... because hey, today is a new day, and the past doesn't matter. Donald Trump might have lied a thousand times yesterday, but you can trust him today. That is exactly what con men like Trump want from people like you... gullibility.

I have no loyalty to the Democratic or Republican party because I am Canadian. I speak out against Donald Trump because he is dangerous, not just to the United States but to the entire planet. If you can't see it then you either aren't paying close enough attention, or you are blinded by loyalty.