What I’m interested in is specifics, not vague statements like “what is happening to your society”.
Okay, how about ‘the rule of law’ or the ‘furtherance of Justice’? How they doin’?
Why do you keep attempting to engage with this poster? Not a rhetorical question, but a real question. I’m really curious.
Seems to me that Trump does so many bad things for the reason that he does not allow one of those bad things to hang around. Others will pop up so as to not allow the supporters of the president time to wonder WTF he is doing.
So lets try one specific one:
https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/the-real-reason-trump-fired-jeff-sessions
Besides not having still an official reason for the dismissal of Sessions, the corrosive effect in our society is the dismissal of what was deemed proper before, at least we expected presidents to not interfere with investigations, or expected that justice should have a modicum of independence. Dropping that sets a very bad precedent and not even I think that a future Democratic president should have the chance to do likewise.
The problem here is that Trumpsists see that and do not see anything wrong. Or, in the end the leaders in congress see no pressure from the rank and file to do anything about it. If Trump is innocent then the president is resorting to pettiness as the reason to fire people and besides cuddling to dictators or other authoritarians, the problem is to see moves, that would be normal for dictators, as being ignored by people that need to be reminded that a functioning democracy is not like that.
I’m new here (well, in a way). Basically, I’m (re)learning the lay of the land, but looks like I may be a slow learner.
Welcome aboard this Ship of Fools. After you hit your head against the brick wall a few dozen times… it may cause a light bulb to appear over your head.
So, the Russians wanted him to go to Germany and convince them their reliance on Russian natural gas was a bad idea and they should upgrade their ports for North American tankers? And Trump’s push for more money into the US military was also a Russian request? It appears to me that he’s doing the exact opposite of what Russia wants.
For this, and all other Trump-defenders, the answer is a question: Do the ends justify the means?
This was posted in a different thread but I’m going to cite it here because I think it’s an excellent fit for the discussion:
Consider the concluding sentences, “The best among [Trump supporters] just want what is best for themselves. The worst among them don’t even care about that, and just want other people to suffer”. And then consider that Trump is now planning to use his newly constituted right-wing majority in the Supreme Court to attempt to overrule district courts on at least three different initiatives and probably many more to come:
He’s asked Supreme Court to overturn district court rulings against his military transgender ban, the only apparent purpose here being to stick it to transgender people and make them suffer. Trump has also been tweeting up a storm undermining the entire district court system and thus, in effect, the American judicial system, to the extent that Chief Justice John Roberts took the unprecedented step of issuing a public rebuke. Whereupon Trump then slammed Roberts in what is now a war between the Trump administration and apparently the entire judiciary.
Trump also wants his newly conservative Supreme Court to rule on the proposed new citizenship question on the census, opposed by a coalition of states and the American Civil Liberties Union, who claim that the question was included to reduce the representation of immigrant populations. The only apparent purpose here – as with most of Trump’s immigration related policies – is to stick it to immigrants and make them suffer.
Trump is also soliciting Supreme Court support for his plans to kill Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The only apparent purpose here is to stick it to immigrants’ children and make them suffer, too, which has already been done in abundance with the separation and detention of immigrants and their children.
Unrelated to that, here’s an op-ed on how the destruction and loss of life directly resulting from failure to act on climate change constitutes crimes against humanity. It states that Trump and anti-environment types of his ilk “are the authors and agents of systematic policies that deny basic human rights to their own citizens and people around the world, including the rights to life, health, and property. These politicians have blood on their hands, and the death toll continues to rise.” But it’s all good as long as they can stick it to those wimpy environmentalists and the Democrats who support them and make them suffer. It’s true that California has been hit by unprecedented wildfires with major casualties and property destruction, but most of the victims are liberals, so it’s all good. And – as Trump so nicely told everyone – said California liberals pretty much brought it on themselves. They’re to blame because of bad water management, or bad forest management, or failing to rake the leaves or something – it’s something different every day, and it’s all utter nonsense that he just blurts out with no forethought and certainly no knowledge. This is the new reality, the new political dialog. The point is that the fires are all the California liberals’ fault, and it certainly isn’t drought exacerbated by climate change or anything like that!
HMS Irruncible has already given an eloquent response to that in #58, and I concur. I’ll just add that the three big problems with your position are, one, as already said, that if you have to depend on a dumpster fire to enact your preferred policies, you need to seriously reevaluate the wisdom of those policies and the kinds of people that you appear to align yourself with.
Second, as the above examples only just begin to hint at, the collateral damage being inflicted by this dumpster fire is absolutely immense, even if you favor some of those policies, misguided or not.
Third, “government doing as little as possible” is meaningless, open-ended jingoism, nothing more than a libertarian bumper sticker slogan. It’s like putting forth “lower taxes” as a philosophy of governance. It doesn’t mean anything unless you can qualify it with actual information like lower taxes compared to what, and define what you do and do not like to see public funds being used for. Otherwise, all you’ve got is the radical extremist nonsense that the ideal taxation level is “none”, all taxes are “theft”, and government basically shouldn’t exist. A blanket aversion to government is just one of those uniquely American “distrust of government” things that causes people in democracies around the world to shake their heads in bemused disbelief.
What a silly and somewhat narcissistic initial post. How people exercise their right to vote is strictly up to them.
Can you cite the part in the OP that says that an individual’s voting preference should be up to someone else? I think you fundamentally misunderstood the post. The OP is saying that voters should be held accountable when they put dangerous incompetents in power. And in my view, “issue voters” who run out and support a candidate based on his views on certain issues, when said voters are grossly misinformed on those issues and couldn’t answer the most basic factual question about them, should be held accountable for their ignorance. Ignorance is the enemy of democracy because democracy can’t work when people don’t understand what they’re voting for.
Incidentally, as for this new-found respect you have for exercising the right to vote, one political party is particularly keen on undermining that right for poor people and minorities using every trick they can come up with, from the old “literacy tests” to intentionally onerous voter ID laws, gerrymandering, intentionally inconvenient locations and hours of polling stations, misleading mailings, and every other trick in the book. Can you guess which party that is? Wouldn’t it be wonderfully ironic if this party dedicated to voter suppression was the party that you support?
Where are you coming up with the inaccurate assertion that my respect for voting is “new-found”? Anyways, on the actual subject of the thread no one needs the OP’s forgiveness.
“Held accountable” how?
Sorry, I just assumed from your history of apparently being a Republican supporter that it would be difficult to also support universal voting rights for the poor and minorities, whom Republicans have been doing their damndest to disenfranchise for 150 years. But perhaps you disagree with your fellow Republicans on this particular issue.
Maybe by doing just what we’re doing here. Maybe by dispensing with banalities like “no one needs the OP’s forgiveness” and instead engaging in a frank and fact-based exposition of the damage that these voting decisions have wrought, maybe by helping to expose the self-serving corruption that these people have enabled and communicating it far and wide. Maybe if it results in a little bit of public shaming of the deplorables, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Most honest media, to their credit, have been doing this for some time, which is why Trump hates them, and ominously refers to a free press as “the enemy of the people”, even as he abuses his power to attack his enemies and thwart investigations of his activities.
I have two contradictory reactions to OP’s questions. Hoping not to exceed the SDMB word limit, I’ll divide this post into three sections: (A) American Democracy, (B) Post-rational “Democracy”, (C) Stupidity and Hatred.
(A) “Democracy is the worst form of government …” Ask the average voter about the relevant issues, or what they can really expect from candidates, and the extent of ignorance is mind-boggling. Many Americans can’t remember whether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa, or how to find Canada on a map. To expect them to make a wise electoral choice is asking too much.
In the representative democracy of the olden days, the hoi polloi was insulated from their ignorance by opinion-makers. We read local newspapers, and respected the paper’s editor because our kid played for the same Little League team as the editor’s kid and we knew him personally. The editor, in turn, was invited to some of the “smoke-filled rooms” and had an idea what was going on. Candidates tended to be competent people whose politics conformed to some party consensus. Electing a clown or the town drunk was rare.
Was there corruption in the olden days? Sure! But ordinary political goals applied. Tammany Hall, whatever its faults, had to serve its constituents. And the Kansas City political machine produced Harry S Truman, whom historians judge to be one of the best Presidents ever.
(B) But by 2016, the GOP political machine appeared to have collapsed completely. The “cigar smokers” and newspaper editors were allied almost unanimously against the sociopathic blowhard. Only a few of the most vile politicians and opinion-makers supported him.
But what opinion-makers they were! Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, David Duke, Jeff Sessions — a panoply of haters. During the American era, Trump’s candidacy would have been laughed down by newspaper editors, etc. But today those editors are shutting down their printing presses and applying for menial jobs. National politics today is informed by which lies are exciting enough to get lots of revenue-generating clicks. Entire villages in Albania abandoned their figtree orchards when they found that posting lies on Facebook paid better. By experimentation they found that lies about Hillary Clinton paid well; the more outlandish the lie the better it paid. Hillary ran a child sex-ring out of the basement of a pizza shop? Why not! Trump’s National Security Adviser, or at least the Adviser’s son, even bought into that lie! One Trumpist showed up with an assault rifle to rescue the child sex-slaves and was surprised to learn the pizza shop didn’t even have a basement.
Were some Americans this stupid 100 years ago? Maybe. But they would never have been presented with the opportunity to vote for Trump; the informed opinion-makers, with their cigars or printing presses, would have stopped Trump. But today, the power of the Internet has amplified the shrill voices of Alex Jones and Sean Hannity, who are motivated only by hatred and/or greed. And the village half-way around the world that found a way to get pennies-per-click for outrageous lies. And Vladimir Putin — the world’s wealthiest man in some accountings — is laughing at how easily Western democracy is crumbling.
So. Do I blame Trump? America has many thousands of criminals more despicable than Trump. Offer the Presidency to one of them and they’d take it. Do I blame those who voted for Trump? God must love the stupid people; he made so many of them. Do I blame the news producers at CNN who cover trivia while American democracy crumbles before their eyes? They’re under orders to improve their ratings.
If “the World-Wide Web” is the problem, do I blame its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee? He’s certainly aware that his invention is used for evil and is fighting to reduce the influence of kleptocrats over the Internet.
So, it is the system that has failed. The “Age of Information” has transmogrified into the “Age of Disinformation.” I wish I had a solution to offer. I don’t.
(C) So, stupidity and hatred have been around as long as there have been Homo sapiens. The dolts and bigots who support Trump shouldn’t be singled out for blame. Yet, in practice, when I listen to their whines and rants, it is hard to forgive them.
Obviously there are no whiners, ranters, imbeciles or bigots at SDMB. Yet still I find myself not entirely able to agree with some of the pro-Trump comments.
Some Trumpists are delighted that SCOTUS is becoming more conservative. I wonder what they think that means and why they think it is good. Are they happy that
- Efforts to reduce the financial power of the super-rich in politics have been overturned?
- Republican efforts to gerrymander and to suppress Negro votes have been ratified?
- Efforts to overturn convictions of innocent defendants are rejected?
- Polluters now have the upper hand against ordinary humans when the cleanness of air and water is litigated?
Do the Trumpists who are delighted with the latest Scotus appointments even know what the issues are? Can they think beyond Guns and Baby Killing?
What do you think of Trump’s appointments? DeVos, Pruitt, Bolton, Whitaker, Carson, Ross, Miller, Zinke? Is it the GOP view that the more incompetent and corrupt the top official, the better? Incompetence helps reduce governance, and Starves the Beast?
Is it good to have a fraudster in the White House? If he can fool thousands into attending “Trump University” he can fool Putin and the Saudis to bend to American wishes? Tax cuts for the rich are what the poor need — it will trickle down? Despoiling the earth and its climate are unimportant — the End Days are nigh?
I am not entirely certain you’ve given sober thought to these questions.
So you are not entirely certain that the Trumpists will provide intelligible responses in this thread?
Fuck the Trumpistas. They do not deserve forgiveness. Like the suckers they are, they do not deserve an even break.
A Trump voter, I could forgive, a current Trump supporter, not a chance. I’m completely surrounded by them at work, and if I talk to them, regardless of the subject of the conversation, I can’t get past the fact that this person I’m talking to actually supports this shit, and while I don’t say anything, it’s like talking to someone with a booger hanging our of their nose, or bad breath, or a piece of food in their teeth. I’m completely distracted by it. And while I can carry on the conversation, I can not get it out of my mind. I don’t understand my fellow man. I used to think I did, but now I know I don’t.
I don’t agree with others that there is strong evidence of Trump being controlled by Russia, but to paint these things as evidence of Trump’s animosity toward Russia is wrong. They are evidence of Trump’s animosity towards Europe (and Germany in particular). It fits his decades long pattern of saying anything to annoy people, businesses, or countries he doesn’t like, with no meaning behind the words other than to annoy.
If Trump actually held animosity toward Putin, he wouldn’t be so conplmentary towards him (especially in the context of having nothing nice to say about Merkel etc).
Agreed, and I am not sure why this type of thread is allowed on this board. It is a clear personal attack to anyone on the right.
Further, the left whines about “divisiveness” but suggests that those whom they disagree with politically need “forgiven.”
My next thread: Can Obama supporters ever be forgiven?
Thanks for clarifying.
My OP was in reference to Trump and his enablers, nothing more.
Please elaborate - why do you equate an ‘attack’ on Trumpists as an attack against “anyone on the right”?