I think that reining in some of the worst excesses of the EPA sounds like a wonderful idea. I’m unconvinced that your hyperbole about '68 LA or present-day Beijing are relevant.
I mean, it kind of is. A physical wall as a solution to border security issues is such a stupid and nonfunctional idea, and deporting all muslims so craven and contrary to civil rights that it’s hard to come up with a rationale other than blatant racism.
Is it your belief then that Trump only wants to rein in some of the EPA’s worst excesses? If so then we have a disagreement on what a President Trump would do while in office. I believe that Trump would use the opportunity to dismantle the agency and let coal and oil companies pollute to their heart’s content.
Do you think there are areas of our border where some sort of physical barrier makes sense?
It’s my belief that that’s the extent of what a President Trump might succeed at doing on the EPA front.
Gotta admit, I’ve got no idea exactly what Trump would do. There is a chance he could be disinterested and hands off, and delegate to competent folk, while continuing to manage his businesses and self promote. Don’t see him getting a ton of legislation passed. And as much as I disrespect the man, I can’t guarantee that he wants to ruin our environment to allow other folk to get rich.
I suspect that despite his bluster, he would fail to engage in largescale military adventurism, or casual nuclear diplomacy. Congress can put a big break on prolonged military actions.
I could imagine him being more bluster than action, willingly allowing political stalemates to continue, selling the story that “If only those incompetent people would let him have his way…”
What I am pretty confident of, is that he would be an absolute embarrassment in his use of the “bully pulpit” and in international dealings. If the world didn’t have enough reason to dislike America, his smirking countenance would certainly tilt things in that direction. If America were to elect a leader like that, we would well deserve our reputation as boorish, egotistical, ignorant…
Who is it that would stop Trump from enacting his plans? A Supreme Court that would likely break 5-4 in his favor after he appoints Scalia’s successor? A House increasingly being dragged to the right by the Freedom Caucus? Paul Ryan as a speaker of the House that will probably follow along with conservative Republicans under a Trump administration? Mitch McConnell, who would be a fool to let a minority leader Schumer obstruct him in a Senate that would likely be something like 54-46 Republican in the event of a Trump victory?
Which excesses are these?
The mission is implicit in the fact that (a) an informed populace is an essential prerequisite to a functional democracy, by the very nature of what democracy is; you can’t have a particularly successful society if a majority goes around making monumentally stupid decisions either because they don’t know important facts or because what they think they know is flat-out wrong, and (b) it falls to the media to keep people informed about the issues because that has always been their purpose and there is in any case no one else to do it.
Your observation about people wanting to be entertained is true, but given half a chance most people also want to be informed because information is interesting and fun, whether it’s about scientific discovery or about events in government and society. And, when it comes to democracy, being informed is also a serious civic responsibility. The point I’m addressing is typically satisfied in most advanced nations through a robust and well-funded system of public broadcasting and in some cases, as in Sweden I believe, even subsidizing print media in the public interest. The US, ruled as it is by capitalistic principles in the extreme, has per capita by far the worst funded public broadcasting system of any advanced nation on earth.
Except that so many Trump supporters manifestly are angry, and while “ignorant” as a label can be associated with an elitist kind of contempt, it is also manifestly true if some of the predominant beliefs can be shown to be false or unsupportable. We’re talking here about Trump – to paraphrase an old joke, how do you know when Trump is lying? Because his mouth is moving.
I was just listening to an interesting piece on CBC Radio while I was out. Trump has taken to reading a poem called “The Snake” at some of his rallies. It’s a poem by the late writer, musician, and civil rights activist Oscar Brown Jr., about a woman who feels sorry for a snake out in the freezing cold, takes it into her house and cares for it, and then the snake bites her. When she expresses shock at this, the snake smiles an evil grin, and says “you knew what I was when you took me in.” The poem was later turned into a song, recorded by Brown and other artists.
The Donald is now reciting this as a parable about the dangers of immigration, and in the process getting all confused about the fact that it was a poem and later a song by Brown and giving the credit to some other artist who just simply recorded it later. But that’s not the only thing he got wrong. CBC interviewed one of Brown’s daughters, who was furious and dismayed at how terribly her father’s work was being misinterpreted. Far from being a parable warning against immigration, the poem by this civil rights activist was much closer to being a warning against hateful bigoted demagogues like Trump. You know what he is, American voters, the poem is effectively saying, yet you’re still empowering him to be your president.
When Bill Maher began his interview with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway last Friday, he was being only slightly hyperbolic when he said to her, “you are enabling pure evil”. Trump is of course not really “pure evil”, he’s just an opportunistic hayseed completely lacking any sort of moral compass or the slightest knowledge of the world or anything in it except how to defraud people.
Well, aside from poisoning the Animus River with millions of gallons of toxic sludge, here is a (thankfully former) high-ranking EPA official likening his enforcement philosophy to the ancient Romans who would crucify people in newly-conquered lands to intimidate the populace. Not exactly the mindset I want from government officials.
There are probably many additional examples we could discuss, but lets start with these.
Wow. That is some kind of irony.
There’s a youtube video on it, but don’t watch if you have delicate sensibilities (not a joke, it shows some really graphic scenes).
Outliers, mostly. In terms of what Americans want, getting rid of or hamstringing the EPA does not seem to be one of them. On balance, it is a net positive.
Yeah, probably. Although I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion about whether the optimal amount of physical barriers is more or less than we already have.
Do you think that’s what Trump is advocating? That there are areas of our border that need a physical barrier? My impression was that he has always been talking about a wall across the entire southern border.
Um, yes. My understanding is that he believes “there are areas of our border that need a physical barrier,” namely, “the entire southern border.”
Did I misunderstand your comment?
The comment I responded to asked me whether there was any area on our border where a physical barrier was appropriate. It’s a facile question, and not particularly relevant to whether Trump’s “plan” of building a wall across the entire southern border is sensible.
So I asked for clarification. Does he think his question is relevant?
Because if, as you and I both agree, Trump thinks we should build a wall across the entire southern border, that’s absurd and foolish and unworkable. And anyone with a basic grasp of logic and reality can (and has) explained why.
Gotcha. 
As some pundits have said, if this election is about Trump, he loses. If this election is about Hillary, she loses. I think there is a lot of truth to that idea.