Not really, no. Both of those are well-taken critiques. I think I started imagining two, wrote “couple,” and ended up offering three but failed to edit myself. That was an error on my part. And you’re right about “emanate,” for which I don’t really even have an excuse. It was simply not the right word.
I suppose we can start with the assumption that Trump had a master plan, and skillfully executed it. If he did, then your reasoning makes some sense to me.
If Trump had no real plan at all, and acted like a capricious asshole because he’s a capricious asshole, then I don’t think any argument about his “plan” is well-grounded.
I would just like to point out that there is no actual law against being an asshole on the SDMB, therefore Bricker is entirely in the right here. No laws were broken; therefore it is allowed.
It doesn’t need to be a master plan, requiring real intelligent and foresight. It’s simply betting that there are more stupid, hate filled, scared, and divisive Republicans than there are intelligent, calm, and rational Republicans. When he started running, it was a joke, mostly because no one believed he could win by pandering to those kinds of people. But he was right all along, and he knew the Republican base better than they did.
But this contradicts your earlier thought that some of the people who voted for Trump somehow thought his governing would be different than his campaigning, which would require some kind of belief that Trump does have a plan rather than just is a capricious asshole. I don’t think a Republican voter gets to say that sure Trump’s a caparicious asshole, but somehow he knows what he’s doing and will be better as President.
By the way, whatever happened to all those “honest Conservatives/Republicans” with their “Never Trump!” movement? Have they had their Come to Donald moment, and repented their sinful ways?
Someone should follow Bricker around posting the non-douchebag version of his posts:
Doucehbag version of Bricker:
BigAppleBucky summarizes Guliani’s comment as Guliani thinking “Trump can do anything.”
Guliani’s actual comment was that the ethics and conflict of interest laws do not apply to the President.
Is Guliani’s statement true?
Is BigAppleBucky’s summary précis of Guliani’s comment a fair one?
Undouchified version of Bricker’s comment:
Conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS and Veep.
I guess the downside to de-douchifying Bricker’s posts is that he doesn’t get to whinge about how mean everyone is when they point out that he’s being a douchebag. And by this point we should all realize that, as the bear said to the hunter, "You’re not doing this for the hunting, are you?”
My point that “Conflict of interest laws do not apply,” is unfairly summarized as “Guiliani says Trump can do anything,” seems to be lost by your proposed filter.
Is there a friendlier, less assholish way I should have pointed that out?
See, you’re focusing on the fact that the laws don’t apply.
I’m focusing on the fact that Guliani didn’t say “Trump can do anything.”
Suggestion for less assholic way to point out what you said.
“BigAppleBucky says, ‘Giuliani thinks Trump is allowed to do anything.’
That is a misleading and inaccurate reflection of what Giuliani’s tweet says.”
There is the other way of looking at how this goes down, not just that guliani issaying that these laws do not apply to him, but that guliani will find a way to get other laws not to apply to him.
In that perception, guliani is in fact enabling trump to do anything. This may not be correct, of course, and guliani may not be able to open up every law to trumps whim, but it does create a negative perception if one of the first things out of the new whitehouse is decrees of laws that do not apply to the new president elect.
Just saying, if you are going to assure us that our fears are unfounded, then starting with the actual concern, rather than concentrating on the literal formulation of that concern would be a good starting point.
Nixon famously told David Frost, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Now, do Bricker and/or Rudolph Giuliani want to look to Richard Nixon as their model for appropriate presidential behavior?
You’re a grown man: I suspect if you really wanted to say something in a less assholish manner you could figure out a way without my input. Or just go ahead and be confrontational (god knows that’s usually my choice), but then don’t be all indignant when people call you an asshole. You want to be rude and not get called on it, which probably isn’t going to happen, at least not in the Pit.
Well, then he won’t be on Wall Street any more! Besides which, after he elevated the King of Blightbart, Steve Bannon the Pork Cannon, to Presidential Elite status, what’s left to say or do?
They can’t repeal it without 60 Republican senators.
The POTUS can TRY to direct prosecutorial discretion, I doubt Trump could get very far even if he wanted to.
He can try, but what does he do if Mexico declines?
He will have a hell of a time crafting a law that meets strict scrutiny.
Making medicare benefits means tested, turns it into a welfare program. Premium support medicare already sort of exists as medicare part C.
You mean if the RMB is undervalued. Tariffs are an appropriate response to currency manipulation.
One country (even one as big as the USA) backing out of the deal does not really undercut the deal too much. It will be about as effective as the US embargo of Cuba except in this case, the Cuba in question is far away and has oil that everyone wants.
With who? The old people on medicare that voted for him?