Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Hell, even if Trump himself is a centrist, he's filling positions of power with decidedly non-centrist individuals, who he will likely expect to do most of his work.

Indeed. If Trump actually wanted to try "unite the country" and bring some calm to an otherwise incredibly chaotic and uncertain situation he'd start off with appointing people who were at least tolerable to liberals, let alone tolerable to moderate republicans.

The way he's been acting since the election has done nothing but increasingly divide the country. Considering how incredibly chaotic and unprepared Trump is to actually become president now that he's won has not exactly endeared him to either foreign governments let alone the American politicians he will be working with.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an "ape".

"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Local mayor Beverly Whaling responded with "just made my day Pam"

I wonder if it's acceptable to feel superior to these two examples of salt of the Earth Trumpism, or would that be elitist?

[Captain_Swoop]

I see Whaling has stepped down as Mayor.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I see Whaling has stepped down as Mayor.

There was further down for her to go?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Let's assume this is what she did. Sure "ambition" isn't necessarily a bad thing. But not if it's ambition that sacrifices values. In one's private life, one might make all sorts of sacrifices, with no impact or relevance to others. But in a public arena, especially a political arena, the decisions that one makes inform people about what is important to you. In this case, the perception is that she stayed in a loveless marriage for personal gain, in particular for political gain.

That "perception" was a fictional construct. No one but the individuals involved know why they made the decisions they did. That you seemingly think (thought, too?) the worst of her, without anything but your guessing about the quantity of their love, says not a little about you.

Once again, she was considered largely sympathetic (apart from rabid right, who would fault her for the papier mache Christmas ornament she made in 4th grade) at the time. Had she left Bill she would've very possibly advanced her career. Well, except for the people who would say, Can you believe she divorced? Why, she's ruthless and will clearly do anything if it puts her first!

Quote:

This seems to indicate that Hillary is perfectly willing to use people for her personal benefit, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice values that most americans hold dear if it benefits her to do so. That runs contrary to what most people (in my opinion) look for in a leader. It's one thing for them to have differing values... it's another thing for them to have no values. It speaks to a particular type of ruthlessness.

Yeah, starting with "This seems to" and continuing right through "ruthlessness," the above is really very weak gruel. Watch:

Her divorcing Bill seems to indicate that Hillary is perfectly willing to sacrifice anything, including her marriage (an institution that most Americans hold dear and sacred), for her personal benefit. Quitting when the going got tough -- that runs contrary to what most people look for in a leader. No consideration for family and devotion. No values save for ruthless ambition.

Quote:

I'm not seeing that as a "damned if you do".

I've just demonstrated it. People who were predisposed to dislike her would've disliked her whatever her choice.

Quote:

My personal opinion is that if she had divorced him, or at least spoken out in some fashion, it would have strengthened her relationship with female voters. It would speak well of her character as well as her experience. It would indicate some degree of principle, rather than ambition without values.

You may be right, but you can't know.

On a related note, with Trump, a man who has demonstrated for decades he has no morals, you can.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an "ape".

"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Local mayor Beverly Whaling responded with "just made my day Pam".

Ms Whaling is mayor of the town of Clay, which has a population of just 491.

It has no African American residents, according to the 2010 census. In Clay County as a whole, more than 98% of its 9,000 residents are white.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37985967

Not about racism at all.

And the noted from a tanglehaired piece of **** in slippers and a ratty housecoat.

[Stacko]

Transition of power grinds to a halt for no discernable reason.

Quote:

On Tuesday morning, for example, the Obama administration alerted the press that it had not yet received a memorandum of understanding signed by Pence, which would legally allow the old and new administrations to begin discussions on how to hand off critical government functions. That document still hadn’t arrived by 4:30 p.m., and only later in the evening did a White House official confirm it had been received. The official noted that the language signed by Pence was identical to a memo signed by Christie, making the holdup all the more peculiar.

The disarray has left agencies virtually frozen, unable to communicate with the people tasked with replacing them and their staff.*Trump transition team officials were a no-show at the Pentagon, the Washington Examiner reported. Same goes for the Department of Energy, responsible for keeping the nation’s nuclear weapons safe, where officials had expected members of the Trump transition team on Monday. Ditto for the Department of Transportation. Over at the Justice Department, officials also are still waiting to hear from the Trump team.

WSJ reports another fringe bigot. Frank Gaffney, has been added to the dysfunctional transition team.

[sts60]

Bbbbut he's a businessman! He knows how to run things!

As an American, I find this absolutely humiliating.

[TragicMonkey]

Savvy businessman Trump is deliberately fostering a facade of incompetence and not knowing what the hell he's doing, in order to lull the wily Russians and Chinese into a false sense of security. It's working, too. Putin had to get a shot of muscle relaxers to the back of his head because he's been laughing so hard for a week straight that he was getting headaches. He may have to go on oxygen if the laughter interferes with his breathing.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by sts60

Bbbbut he's a businessman! He knows how to run things!

As an American, I find this absolutely humiliating.

C'mon man, this guy is an organizational genus! Now that the incompetent bureaucratic elites have been vanquished, the hard nosed businessman has things running with entrepreneurial efficiency. It's morning in America.

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by sts60

Bbbbut he's a businessman! He knows how to run things!

As an American, I find this absolutely humiliating.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Savvy businessman Trump is deliberately fostering a facade of incompetence and not knowing what the hell he's doing, in order to lull the wily Russians and Chinese into a false sense of security. It's working, too. Putin had to get a shot of muscle relaxers to the back of his head because he's been laughing so hard for a week straight that he was getting headaches. He may have to go on oxygen if the laughter interferes with his breathing.

Maybe they're being extra cautious under their new head of national security transition. His ability to find corrupting influence by Muslims makes the Red Scare seem mild. Gaffney believes Obama is a Muslim, that David Patraeus submitted to Sharia Law, accused Herman Cain of meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, was banned by CPAC for his wild conspiracy theories and published a book accusing Grover Norquist of being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Stacko

Maybe they're being extra cautious under their new head of national security transition. His ability to find corrupting influence by Muslims makes the Red Scare seem mild. Gaffney believes Obama is a Muslim, that David Patraeus submitted to Sharia Law, accused Herman Cain of meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, was banned by CPAC for his wild conspiracy theories and published a book accusing Grover Norquist of being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

I've said this several times this election cycle, and I'll throw it out just once more: are we absolutely sure this isn't all a huge prank, and Ashton Kutcher isn't going to walk out with Trump at a press conference for the reveal?

[Stacko]

The transition team is mulling a Muslim registry.

Quote:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped write tough immigration laws in Arizona and elsewhere, said in an interview that Trump's policy advisers had also discussed drafting a proposal for his consideration to reinstate a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.

Kobach, who media reports say is a key member of Trump's transition team, said he had participated in regular conference calls with about a dozen Trump immigration advisers for the past two to three months.

Trump's transition team did not respond to requests for confirmation of Kobach's role. The president-elect has not committed to following any specific recommendations from advisory groups.

[Hlafordlaes]

I don't know about Trump, but the Right makes for horrible governance. One leading ideologue, Bill O'Reilly, is openly in favor of feudalism:

Quote:

O'Reilly tackled the theme of loyalty. Without naming Kelly, O'Reilly said, "If somebody is paying you a wage, you owe that person or company allegiance.

Employers own the conscience, and therefore command the choices of their employees. Republican, and only Republican presidents become Commanders in Chief, and all criticism is treasonous and disloyal to whatever troops are in action. Basically, versions of this prevail all across corporate America. The corollary, "only following orders" is now legit as thought, and excuses all actions.

My, how the mighty have fallen. New address for the White House: Sunset Blvd.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It's a good discussion, not a "all Trump voters are racist Morons" rant,which we are getting way to many of here.

The trouble is that it appears that one of the reasons why Trump was successful was that he pandered to the "racist moron" demographic during the campaign.

If we're going to discuss whether "Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president" then we need to consider the campaign promises and rhetoric and then compare and, where appropriate, contrast to his subsequent deeds.

If he follows through on some of his more extreme campaign promises then IMO he will be a terrible president because he will be instrumental in fueling xenophobia and racism and in rolling back hard-won civil rights. If he waves away the more extreme campaign promises then he's cheapened yet further the democratic process.

So far his core team appointment, his post-election actions and ongoing rhetoric indicates that the large majority of his campaign rhetoric is indeed still part of his core policy aims:

• Repeal Obamacare
• Privatise medicare
• Privatise social security
• Allow states to remove civil rights from their citizens
• Build a wall
• Exclude Muslims and/or subject them to extraordinary checks
• Abandon his Western allies and get into bed with (his suspected financial backer) Putin
• Take nepotism to another level by having several family members in security-sensitive key positions

....and I'm sure there are many more

None of these give me hope that he won't be so terrible and OTOH the endorsement his post-election actions have received from white supremacists only bolster that view.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yeah,having a model who has done borderline porn as first lady is really classy.

That is only if you view porn/sex as degrading. I personally do not. So the first lady is as classy as the previous one in my view , when it comes to jobs.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Stacko

The transition team is mulling a Muslim registry.

They could go with forced wearing yellow david star red crescent symbol on the clothes.

Is this the onion ?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, but it would be foolish to believe that it's only about the votes.

Otherwise NY and California could heavily bias elections, and the states in the middle would barely count. I don't think they'd like not being represented.

ANd as the only real american's their votes need to be worth more. Blue staters really are only 3/5ths americans anyway.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't understand what you mean here. Please elaborate?

That I blame trump voters not everyone in those areas.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yeah, I care about that too. If people with whom I'm personally interacting start saying such things, they'll get the same lecture I'm doling out to you guys.

You can't do that, that is elitist. You have to listen to their problems with the mexicans. Just because they start spouting racism is not a reason to call them on it. That will never get them to come around.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

ANd as the only real american's their votes need to be worth more. Blue staters really are only 3/5ths americans anyway.

I'm not sure whether this is meant to be sarcasm. In a federal republic you have two basic possibilities: either your more populous provinces or states will dominate policy, or the least populous ones will have disproportionate power. Both have justifications and both have downsides.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Ah, yes. "If you don't understand my perspective, then there's no point in explaning it." No. That I don't understand your perspective is THE ONLY case in which there is a point in explaining it, and using this sort of argument simply highlights the fact that you CANNOT explain it. It's intellectually lazy.

Yeah, you might have a point there if this is where I *started*. But I've actually been trying mighty hard to explain this, repeatedly, for several pages. At this point, I've run out of ways to explain that there's a difference between disagreeing with someone, telling them they are incorrect, and refusing to accept their viewpoint as valid... and simply being an arrogant jerk. This is second grade learnings here. I shouldn't have to argue people into a corner for them to understand common decency.

Insisting that the willful refusal to understand basic human courtesy and dignity is my fault, and that I'm "intellectually lazy" because I'm not going to continue explaining it over and over and over again is empty rhetoric. I expect better of you.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You can't do that, that is elitist. You have to listen to their problems with the mexicans. Just because they start spouting racism is not a reason to call them on it. That will never get them to come around.

*Sigh* Once again, there is a difference. Here, let me give you an analogy that you *might* understand, although at this point I'm not sure that your perspective will allow it.

In one case, you would be speaking out against a known terrorist that actually did blow up a van full of schoolchildren. In the other case, you would be speaking out against all people of middle eastern descent, because some of them might be terrorists.

Can you grok that there is a difference there?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yeah, you might have a point there if this is where I *started*. But I've actually been trying mighty hard to explain this, repeatedly, for several pages.

And you've had counter-arguments thrown at you. I hope you're not saying that you've been the only one trying to make an actual point.

Quote:

At this point, I've run out of ways to explain that there's a difference between disagreeing with someone, telling them they are incorrect, and refusing to accept their viewpoint as valid...

And I've been asking, several times: what if their point ISN'T valid? What then? It's been shown several times that merely telling someone that they are wrong, which is the right thing to do in this instance, is seen as amounting to:

Quote:

simply being an arrogant jerk.

...so what is one to do in this scenario? If you ignore the person altogether you're being rude. If you pretend to agree you're dishonest. If you try to educate them you're elitist. If you ridicule their unwillingness to learn and listen then you're a jerk. There's no way to win because the people you're engaging with are irrational. The problem is that you've been trying to discuss with them from a position of reason and facts, which is in a different universe from their position altogether.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I like cake

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

And I've been asking, several times: what if their point ISN'T valid? What then? It's been shown several times that merely telling someone that they are wrong, which is the right thing to do in this instance, is seen as amounting to:



...so what is one to do in this scenario? If you ignore the person altogether you're being rude. If you pretend to agree you're dishonest. If you try to educate them you're elitist. If you ridicule their unwillingness to learn and listen then you're a jerk. There's no way to win because the people you're engaging with are irrational. The problem is that you're been trying to discuss with them from a position of reason and facts, which is in a different universe from their position altogether.

Very well said. It appears that the only way Emily's Cat thinks that "the left" can appeal to the blue collar segment of the population who voted against their own self interest is to be dishonest, or to be "perfectly willing to sacrifice values that most americans hold dear if it benefits [them] to do so."

(and yes, I know that Emily's Cat was referring to divorcing one's spouse as the value most Americans hold dear, rather than honesty)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

And you've had counter-arguments thrown at you. I hope you're not saying that you've been the only one trying to make an actual point.

And I've been asking, several times: what if their point ISN'T valid? What then? It's been shown several times that merely telling someone that they are wrong, which is the right thing to do in this instance, is seen as amounting to:

...so what is one to do in this scenario? If you ignore the person altogether you're being rude. If you pretend to agree you're dishonest. If you try to educate them you're elitist. If you ridicule their unwillingness to learn and listen then you're a jerk. There's no way to win because the people you're engaging with are irrational. The problem is that you've been trying to discuss with them from a position of reason and facts, which is in a different universe from their position altogether.

This is also why I've repeatedly said that responding to a specific individual for that person's specific actions/behaviors is fine.

But I don't think it's fine to insult and demean an entire group of people based on a stereotype and assumptions. That's called prejudice.

[Emily's Cat]

Emily's Cat's Rules for being a decent human being:

• Always try reason and respect first
• Refrain from insulting people whose perspective you're trying to change
• If the behavior of an individual merits a negative response, respond to that specific individual based on their specific actions
• Avoid applying negative stereotypes and prejudice against groups of people

These don't seem particularly difficult to me. These were elementary school teachings, folks. Hell, it's part of the MA here: attack the argument not the arguer. Granted, that rule specifically applies to other members of ISF, but the concept is spot-on for the rest of the world at large.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

But I don't think it's fine to insult and demean an entire group of people based on a stereotype and assumptions. That's called prejudice.

Ok, this raises an interesting (for me) question: what if the assumptions are true? Is it still prejudice? Is it still uncalled for?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Emily's Cat's Rules for being a decent human being:

• Always try reason and respect first
• Refrain from insulting people whose perspective you're trying to change
• If the behavior of an individual merits a negative response, respond to that specific individual based on their specific actions
• Avoid applying negative stereotypes and prejudice against groups of people

These don't seem particularly difficult to me. These were elementary school teachings, folks. Hell, it's part of the MA here: attack the argument not the arguer. Granted, that rule specifically applies to other members of ISF, but the concept is spot-on for the rest of the world at large.

I still don't know how you'd deal with the people we've been talking about. Let me post my point again:

What if their point ISN'T valid? What then? It's been shown several times that merely telling someone that they are wrong, which is the right thing to do in this instance, is seen as amounting to being a jerk. So what is one to do in this scenario? If you ignore the person altogether you're being rude. If you pretend to agree you're dishonest. If you try to educate them you're elitist. If you ridicule their unwillingness to learn and listen then you're a jerk. There's no way to win because the people you're engaging with are irrational. The problem is that you've been trying to discuss with them from a position of reason and facts, which is in a different universe from their position altogether.

I would really like to know how you'd handle someone like this in a way that is not dishonest and doesn't appear to them to be condescending or elitist or otherwise a deal breaker. How do you turn them around to your "side"?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Emily's Cat's Rules for being a decent human being:

• Always try reason and respect first
• Refrain from insulting people whose perspective you're trying to change
• If the behavior of an individual merits a negative response, respond to that specific individual based on their specific actions
• Avoid applying negative stereotypes and prejudice against groups of people

These don't seem particularly difficult to me. These were elementary school teachings, folks. Hell, it's part of the MA here: attack the argument not the arguer. Granted, that rule specifically applies to other members of ISF, but the concept is spot-on for the rest of the world at large.

This is good advice in general, but seems to be poor advice with regard to the recent election. Trump did the exact opposite of every item on your list, yet he won. Clinton followed your advice, with the possible exception of calling racists, sexists, homophobes, etc "deplorable," and she lost.

[Stacko]

China tells Trump climate change isn't a hoax it invented.

Quote:

China couldn’t have invented global warming as a hoax to harm U.S. competitiveness because it was Donald Trump’s Republican predecessors who started climate negotiations in the 1980s, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said.

U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in initiating global warming talks even before China knew that negotiations to cut pollution were starting, Liu told reporters at United Nations talks on Wednesday in Marrakech, Morocco.

Ministers and government officials from almost 200 countries gathered in Marrakech this week are awaiting a decision by President-elect Trump on whether he’ll pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change. The tycoon tweeted in 2012 that the concept of global warming “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” China’s envoy rejected that view.

“If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s,” Liu told reporters during an hour-long briefing.

Explaining 2016 to future generations is going to be awkward.

[Belz...]

What future generations?

[Delphic Oracle]

Human beings tend to prioritize self-preservation over most other considerations. This is why there is a segment of people who may very well be bigots that have voted Democrat for decades. They believed Democrats would protect them from ruin (maybe through economic policy, may be through social programs). They've now lost that argument or at least it has become unclear which side can and thus prejudices and biases now become the thumb on the scale.

ETA: Is there ever going to go anywhere besides hurling judgement and condemnation? Let's say they are all 100% bigots? What are we going to do? Call them bigots and watch the world burn? We won't win without them and if we don't win, patting ourselves on the back for being enlightened/accepting/altruistic does...what, exactly?

[Minoosh]

Quote:

"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Melania's naked pictures were pretty classy. Barack and Michelle might also look good peeled but I absolutely draw the line at Donald.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by fuelair

And the noted from a tanglehaired piece of **** in slippers and a ratty housecoat.

You're describing me on the days I don't teach. Except for the **** part I hope.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Stacko

The transition team is mulling a Muslim registry.

I saw that on Huffington Post. The thing he's talking about went into effect after 9/11 and ended in 2011, per HuffPo. So it lasted 3 years into Obama's administration.

ETA: I am not defending the guy, but if you read further down in the Reuters story it confirms that.

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Human beings tend to prioritize self-preservation over most other considerations. This is why there is a segment of people who may very well be bigots that have voted Democrat for decades. They believed Democrats would protect them from ruin (maybe through economic policy, may be through social programs). They've now lost that argument or at least it has become unclear which side can and thus prejudices and biases now become the thumb on the scale.

ETA: Is there ever going to go anywhere besides hurling judgement and condemnation? Let's say they are all 100% bigots? What are we going to do? Call them bigots and watch the world burn? We won't win without them and if we don't win, patting ourselves on the back for being enlightened/accepting/altruistic does...what, exactly?

Turnout was way down this year which seems to be a better problem to address than trying to figure out how to win back voters swayed by the Republican's platform of white primacy without losing minority voters.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Melania's naked pictures were pretty classy. Barack and Michelle might also look good peeled but I absolutely draw the line at Donald.

Matter of taste, I suppose. I agree that a full-growed woman ought to be able to pose for such pictures, but I can't agree that this set of pictures has much to do with classiness.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

You're describing me on the days I don't teach. Except for the **** part I hope.

No, I was referring to the Clay County "ladies". Period!!!!!