Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump is doing what Rs have been trying to do all along -- gutting ACA, undermining the Iran treaty, getting rid of environmental protections, rolling back banking regulations, ... Now if they could only get those tax cuts for the rich.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 10-14-2017 at 07:17 PM..
Amazing, isn’t, how both Left and Right vituperatively lob the term “fascist†at each other? Everyone seems to agree, that authoritarianism is bad. The disagreement – the diametrical disagreement – is regarding who and what is “authoritarianâ€. To some, when agents of the government make a midnight raid in the apartment of illegal aliens, that’s rampant authoritarianism. To others, when agents are prohibited from doing so, is itself authoritarian.
It is impossible to rise to a position of power, without being corrupt – whether that position is that of US President, corporate CEO, pastor of the local church, or town dog-catcher. Corruption by itself can’t be a cause to cashier a president. If it were, we’d never have any leaders, beyond private-first-class. What matters isn’t unsavory behavior, or boorish outbursts, or knavish manipulation, but truly abysmal turpitude. Few leaders rise (if that’s the appropriate term) to such a level – be it the present incumbent, or his predecessor.
But to be trolled, is insulting and annoying. To be deceived, carries no such emotional recoil. We fully expect to be deceived, and at times are even grateful for the smoothness of the deception. To be trolled is by definition irritating. Even if the troll means no harm, and intends at most a light distraction and whimsy, it is so jarring and crude, that it drives people to apoplectic frenzy.
Indeed, I disagreed with most of Obama's policies, but found a soothing comfort with his speeches, demeanor and behavior. He had a tremendous skill to pacify and to placate, even if ultimately his ideas lacked substance. Being overall skeptical of massive public solutions, I prefer a do-nothing leader who speaks softly and scrupulously avoids harshness, to a do-nothing leader (or even worse, a do-something leader!) who constantly galls, prods and perturbs.
So you're just fine with being lied to and being completely deceived as long as the person doing it is a smooth talker?
You'd be fine with Putin or Stalin as your leader as long as he could dress it up and deliver it in a nice soothing speech?
Kind of shallow don't you think?
I'd prefer leaders actually tell the truth with as much candor as possible. I prefer leaders who DO WHAT THEY PROMISE to do when asking for our votes otherwise why vote for them?
Like it or not Trump was elected on the premise that he'd do what he promised to do unlike all the other "smooth talkers". I didn't vote for him but respect and am not surprised that he's doing his best to deliver on what he said.
Having worked with/around blue collar workers for years I don't really care that he's rough around the edges and speaks like a normal person and not like someone who's a prompter puppet (Obama) or steeped in politispeak double talk.
He's not going to "ruin the nation", he's not going to "destroy the U.S." or any other hyperbole his detractors want to accuse him of.
If that were possible for him to do then we as a nation are very,very weak and in a whole lot worse trouble that just having him as president.
Trump is doing what Rs have been trying to do all along -- gutting ACA, undermining the Iran treaty, getting rid of environmental protections, rolling back banking regulations, ... Now if they could only get those tax cuts for the rich.
Nope, he's a religious zealot. But he won't tweet us into WWIII.
Yes. Pence may be a religious zealot, but at least he’s not a bombastic clown. Even if he were to advocate for extreme positions, for positions with which I’d disagree, at least he’d do so from personal belief, and not a mixture of cynical opportunism and gross ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
So you're just fine with being lied to and being completely deceived as long as the person doing it is a smooth talker?
You'd be fine with Putin or Stalin as your leader as long as he could dress it up and deliver it in a nice soothing speech?
Kind of shallow don't you think?
I'd prefer leaders actually tell the truth with as much candor as possible. I prefer leaders who DO WHAT THEY PROMISE to do when asking for our votes otherwise why vote for them?
Like it or not Trump was elected on the premise that he'd do what he promised to do unlike all the other "smooth talkers". I didn't vote for him but respect and am not surprised that he's doing his best to deliver on what he said.
Having worked with/around blue collar workers for years I don't really care that he's rough around the edges and speaks like a normal person and not like someone who's a prompter puppet (Obama) or steeped in politispeak double talk.
He's not going to "ruin the nation", he's not going to "destroy the U.S." or any other hyperbole his detractors want to accuse him of.
If that were possible for him to do then we as a nation are very,very weak and in a whole lot worse trouble that just having him as president.
I'd prefer a president who's as far removed from the blue-collar ethos as possible, whether in speech or values or promises. You're right, that Trump can't entirely "ruin the nation", owing to a higher national resiliency than that which the more extreme partisans fear. But it's certainly possible to weaken the nation, to exacerbate strife and to produce anti-solutions to festering problems. In the latter sense, it is better to do nothing whatsoever, to make empty promises and to flagrantly disregard them.
The trouble with your Stalin-analogy is that you're taking a dictator with unfettered powers, who advances those powers even further, through propaganda... and comparing that with largely constrained leaders, who don't really have too much by way of actionable ideas, who use propaganda merely to look good and to get reelected. If I fundamentally believe that the government won't actually do much of anything, and that such not-doing is OK, then indeed, I don't mind being the recipient of abject lies. But if the government is willing and able to do quite a bit, and then lies on top of that, I'm going to fret considerably more.
A lying candidate who bamboozles the public with promises of watershed changes, and then fails to deliver, is fine in my book. A candidate who makes idiotic promises, and then acts upon them - unilaterally! - is a serious danger indeed.
Nope, he's a religious zealot. But he won't tweet us into WWIII.
I agree.
Pence would be more of a Bush. As a former evangelical Christian, I think somebody who is actually a person of faith will be less damaging to human rights than somebody like Trump who is non-religious but willing to pander to the most extreme sects of fundamentalist Christianity for political support.
If I was still a Christian, I would really wonder if Trump might be the anti-Christ. He has done exactly what end times enthusiasts have long predicted the anti-Christ would do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can we impeach Trump yet??? (Congress, legal, impeachment, treason
