2016 Democratic Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

What exactly will it take for people to not make excuses for Trump? Like if someone saw a direct deposit receipt from a donor that said "Quid Pro Quo for Political Actions" on it, is that sufficient?

 

No one is making excuses here. He's an awful person and I fully expect him to be an awful President. However I refuse to go down the extreme path that SS and others are going down.

[southsider2k5]

What exactly will it take for people to not make excuses for Trump? Like if someone saw a direct deposit receipt from a donor that said "Quid Pro Quo for Political Actions" on it, is that sufficient?

 

Selling a Senate seat apparently.

[bmags]

This is ridiculous. A sitting president should not be involved with anything that is not the government position. No non-profit boards, no positions in the stock market, nothing. It has served us decently well for years and there is no reason to allow Trump, the least trustworthy of all of them, to be the one to say "well it might not be so bad".

 

Is it going to be widespread corruption? No, but you put enough dents in the glass you end up with a kleptocracy where business may see the benefit of a trump alliance with the business he pushes toward them. It may happen anyway due to policy preferences, but you don't want it to happen because of fear of reprisal or hope of special treatment. You try to NOT make that happen, not just throw it out and say "hey might not be so bad".

[Jenksismyhero]

you do this same dumb thing in every argument. stop it. it's not clever, it's not effective, it's just annoying and dumb.

 

Then stop freaking out over every little thing about Trump and making a mountain out of a mole hill as you have done since the election.

 

[bmags]

What exactly will it take for people to not make excuses for Trump? Like if someone saw a direct deposit receipt from a donor that said "Quid Pro Quo for Political Actions" on it, is that sufficient?

 

It obviously needs to be in an email.

[lostfan]

Selling a Senate seat apparently.

He's going to prison? Yesssssssssssss

 

Wait, Pence would be president. Noooooooooooo

[southsider2k5]

He's going to prison? Yesssssssssssss

 

Wait, Pence would be president. Noooooooooooo

 

[StrangeSox]

No one is making excuses here.

 

Bulls***. You're doing nothing but making excuses for him.

 

He's an awful person and I fully expect him to be an awful President. However I refuse to go down the extreme path that SS and others are going down.

 

Bulls***, again. There's nothing extreme in pointing out the obvious potential conflict of interest here. There's nothing extreme about pointing out the effect of an incoming President calling out individual private citizens has on the willingness of people to continue to speak up.

[StrangeSox]

Then stop freaking out over every little thing about Trump and making a mountain out of a mole hill as you have done since the election.

 

This is the same dumb bulls*** tactic, though. Saying "yeah, there actually is a potential conflict of interest for the sitting President to have business ties to a major media corporation" isn't "freaking out."

 

I don't know what else you're referring to aside from your inability to understand how the President targeting individual citizens chills speech from yesterday, but if it's about his cabinet picks, they've all been steaming piles of dogs*** who have awful policy positions or are completely unqualified, sometimes even by their own admission.

Edited December 9, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

This is ridiculous. A sitting president should not be involved with anything that is not the government position. No non-profit boards, no positions in the stock market, nothing. It has served us decently well for years and there is no reason to allow Trump, the least trustworthy of all of them, to be the one to say "well it might not be so bad".

 

Is it going to be widespread corruption? No, but you put enough dents in the glass you end up with a kleptocracy where business may see the benefit of a trump alliance with the business he pushes toward them. It may happen anyway due to policy preferences, but you don't want it to happen because of fear of reprisal or hope of special treatment. You try to NOT make that happen, not just throw it out and say "hey might not be so bad".

 

Trump receiving a royalty check from a reality show is less serious than Clinton and her husband receiving millions of dollars through their foundation from s***ty countries and/or the people in power on Wall Street. In a perfect world should the President have zero conflicts? Absolutely. I don't believe it's realistic in 2016 given what it takes to get elected.

[StrangeSox]

Trump receiving a royalty check from a reality show is less serious than Clinton and her husband receiving millions of dollars through their foundation from s***ty countries and/or the people in power on Wall Street. In a perfect world should the President have zero conflicts? Absolutely. I don't believe it's realistic in 2016 given what it takes to get elected.

 

Clinton had pledged to shut down the foundation if she was elected.

[lostfan]

It's just kind of funny though, we just had a whole ass summer where Clinton was being ripped for innuendo about what she might do because of all her connections here and there and then Trump turns around and literally does those exact things he blasted her for, and the collective reaction is basically "yeah, but..."

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the same dumb bulls*** tactic, though. Saying "yeah, there actually is a potential conflict of interest for the sitting President to have business ties to a major media corporation" isn't "freaking out."

 

Yeah, but then you go further and claim he will then control NBC and its coverage of him. THAT is the overreach and an extremist "freak out." Just like yesterday when you argued that responding to someone over twitter with his army of supporters means he's going to freeze speech in the future.

 

[caulfield12]

Candidates for office and then being the President and doing nothing to even acknowledge the possible conflicts are two clearly distinct issues...

[Jenksismyhero]

It's just kind of funny though, we just had a whole ass summer where Clinton was being ripped for innuendo about what she might do because of all her connections here and there and then Trump turns around and literally does those exact things he blasted her for, and the collective reaction is basically "yeah, but..."

 

I never made those arguments. I think it's impossible for any President to be totally conflict free. You have to sell your soul for that position, you have to curry favors, you have to do all sorts of shady s*** to get elected.

 

The fact that Clinton was going to close her foundation doesn't mean she doesn't still owe favors to people she took money from.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, but then you go further and claim he will then control NBC and its coverage of him. THAT is the overreach and an extremist "freak out." Just like yesterday when you argued that responding to someone over twitter with his army of supporters means he's going to freeze speech in the future.

 

See, that's the thing with this bulls*** tactic. I didn't claim either of those things. Those are your inflations, or being charitable, misreadings of what I was saying.

 

Trump having business deals with a media company that will be covering his Presidency is a potential conflict of interest because it can influence their coverage decisions. That's what I said, that's what the article claufield posted said, and that's what you rejected out of hand.

 

Trump targeting individual citizens who dare to point out his lies gets those people and their children harassed and threatened. That sort of behavior will almost definitely make other people less likely to speak up in the future, fearing a similar reprisal. That's a common authoritarian tactic to stifle dissent.

 

Notice that both of those positions fall short of the "freaking out" histrionics you frequently try to ascribe to people you're arguing with rather than addressing what they're actually saying. They aren't the extreme positions you keep mischaracterizing them as.

Edited December 9, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

For a foundation that verifiably used that money for worthwhile charitable initiatives.

 

You are asking leniency on a man who used his foundation for business expenses, political contributions and pushing himself into high profile events and taking credit.

 

A lot of regulation is not about preventing the most innocuous common scenario, its' about removing traumatic tail-risks.

 

Most of the cribs in a recall that you bought will not collapse. A small percentage will, but that will kill a child. We bring them ALL back.

 

This is the same. There are reasons we do this, you are willing to throw out all of the things that we did for good reason because you think people are hyperventilating, but we aren't THAT far removed from a world where many western countries spun out of control in this very way.

[Jenksismyhero]

See, that's the thing with this bulls*** tactic. I didn't claim either of those things. Those are your inflations, or being charitable, misreadings of what I was saying.

 

Trump having business deals with a media company that will be covering his Presidency is a potential conflict of interest because it can influence their coverage decisions. That's what I said, that's what the article claufield posted said, and that's what you rejected out of hand.

 

Trump targeting individual citizens who dare to point out his lies gets those people and their children harassed and threatened. That sort of behavior will almost definitely make other people less likely to speak up in the future, fearing a similar reprisal. That's a common authoritarian tactic to stifle dissent.

 

Notice that both of those positions fall short of the "freaking out" histrionics you frequently try to ascribe to people you're arguing with rather than addressing what they're actually saying. They aren't the extreme positions you keep mischaracterizing them as.

 

You're saying it COULD happen and then pointing to what history has shown us about authoritarian regimes. You're implicitly saying Trump is following that same path, not that he COULD. If it's not a legitimate fear of yours there's little reason to point it out.

[lostfan]

You're saying it COULD happen and then pointing to what history has shown us about authoritarian regimes. You're implicitly saying Trump is following that same path, not that he COULD. If it's not a legitimate fear of yours there's little reason to point it out.

I see the argument you're making here, and it's not really without merit, but here's the thing - this even being a discussion with Trump is itself unprecedented, at least for modern presidents. This isn't normal and we are pushing back against normalizing it.

[StrangeSox]

You're saying it COULD happen and then pointing to what history has shown us about authoritarian regimes. You're implicitly saying Trump is following that same path, not that he COULD. If it's not a legitimate fear of yours there's little reason to point it out.

 

It is a legitimate fear of mine, and I do think Trump presented himself and behaves as an authoritarian. That is still not the "freaking out" position you keep trying to ascribe to me where I've said that Trump will "freeze speech" or that he'll control NBC's news coverage of him or that he's inevitably the next Hitler. But if I'm right about him being an authoritarian, everyone who continually makes excuses for his actions only makes it that much easier for him to grab and hold on to power.

 

Have a little bit of nuance in your world view. It's about influence and pressures, not binary yes/no positions.

 

edit: ezio with a solid way of putting it:

 

I see the argument you're making here, and it's not really without merit, but here's the thing - this even being a discussion with Trump is itself unprecedented, at least for modern presidents. This isn't normal and we are pushing back against normalizing it.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Is Trump becoming a true authoritarian the most likely course of his presidency? No. Being a bad president is. Being a good president is also a possibility.

 

But just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you open up the putin toolbox for him and say "Hey, be good with these. I trust you".

[lostfan]

Is Trump becoming a true authoritarian the most likely course of his presidency? No. Being a bad president is. Being a good president is also a possibility.

 

But just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you open up the putin toolbox for him and say "Hey, be good with these. I trust you".

It's the exact reason we have civilian control of the armed forces and things like that.

[StrangeSox]

It's the exact reason we have civilian control of the armed forces and things like that.

 

Which it should be noted that Trump is staffing traditionally civilian positions like Sec. Defense with former generals, though Mattis does appear to be one of the few non-crazy/awful picks so far.

[Jenksismyhero]

Is Trump becoming a true authoritarian the most likely course of his presidency? No. Being a bad president is. Being a good president is also a possibility.

 

But just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you open up the putin toolbox for him and say "Hey, be good with these. I trust you".

 

See, right there you're putting these two examples in a Putin category. That's the extreme position i'm calling out as BS. Trump responding to an individual on Twitter is not even remotely in the same realm as what Putin does. Trump getting a royalty check (IF that even happens!) is not the same as him using the government to advance his own business interests, let alone a way in which he can control the media Putin-style.

Edited December 9, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[bmags]

Presidents of the United States shouldn't criticize private citizens for criticizing them (there are actually few scenarios where this is okay, one of the reasons why Obama invited the police officer who arrested HLG to the white house after)

 

Presidents shouldn't have jobs or positions in private or non profit sector while sitting president.

 

These are good rules. It's up to you to answer why you think Trump should be allowed to do this instead of spending all of your time trying to police everyones language criticizing things that should be criticized.