TRUMP JUST SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER LETTING HIM PURGE THOUSANDS OF FEDERAL WORKERS FOR DISLOYALTY

[DaShuckster]

He has to play the "game".

Good grief. It was HIS game for crying out loud! HIS Administration wrote the rules. And it was TRUMP HIMSELF who began flaunting and ridiculing the very guidelines that his own Administration put forward to slow the virus.

The lack of any semblance of logic or common sense from the anti-mask crowd here is frustrating. It's natural to look at our country from different perspectives but the Right's increasing resistance to science (apparently, it's an anti-authority thing) is troublesome to say the least.

 

[Crazyhole]

Good grief. It was HIS game for crying out loud! HIS Administration wrote the rules. And it was TRUMP HIMSELF who began flaunting and ridiculing the very guidelines that his own Administration put forward to slow the virus.

The lack of any semblance of logic or common sense from the anti-mask crowd here is frustrating. It's natural to look at our country from different perspectives but the Right's increasing resistance to science (apparently, it's an anti-authority thing) is troublesome to say the least.

Referring to someone as anti-mask is basically the same as someone calling you a haz-mat suit advocate. It's a strawman you love to envision because it gives you an easy target. Literally everyone on this board has worn a mask when required. Doubting their effectiveness is not the same as rejecting them, but you do you.

 

[Boosted87]

Tell me when Trump used the US Government to lock up journalists for questioning him like his predecessor or a time where he said that he was going to write legislation through executive fiat, then did it and dared everyone to stop him, or how his followers are stifling free speech in our universities, our workplaces, our public squares, and across social media. Social pressure is fine for your example but they’re stifling legitimate viewpoints on economics, the nuclear family, and a great number of other things that are perfectly reasonable. Then we can talk about a rise in authoritarianism.

You all go to great lengths to paint Trump and Republicans as the worst Kind of evil that has ever walked the Earth. Yet you ignore actual actions. You’ve screamed authoritarian for more than four years, but Trump has again and again shown that he won’t overreach. With immigration, which is an Executive power and not a judicial power, he abides by the court and resubmitted his order again and again and again. For COVID, rather than push an unconstitutional national lockdown, he deferred to the power of the states as he should’ve. COVID was the perfect excuse for an authoritarian power grab yet it was not Trump that used that opportunity.

Maybe you all should start looking inwards and see that the people actually acting on things that you’re so afraid of Trump doing are largely on the left side of the aisle.

It's hard to distill my full theories on Trump without writing a novel. But you're absolutely correct in that there's a HUGE difference in Trump-the-Authoritarian-wannabe vs Putin-the-Authoritarian. To put it simply, I think Trump is jealous of leaders who have those powers, but does not have the patience or interest to try and attain them.

I think a better way to frame this is by asking what kind of threat that a demagogues poses. The simple definition of a demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument."

The Founders were especially worried about demagogues. They knew the power of irrational populist appeal and the risk it posed to self government. Washington told Lafayette that the primary reason he attended the convention in 1787 was to prevent a demagogue form gaining power. The word "demagogue" is all over the letters and writing of the founders. Hamilton warned of them over and over.

So for me, it's incredibly frustrating to see really smart people fall for this. So much of the work the Founders put into framing the Constitution was specifically to protect us from this exact type of leader. To make it hard for them to gain power and - if in case they did - to limit the power they would hold.

Trump has spent 4 years convincing you not to trust your fellow Americans. That voter fraud is rampant. The FBI is part of the deep state. That he can only lose the election if the other guys cheat. That his enemies are corrupt and should be in jail. Constantly claiming he's a victim. Publicly saying the courts should be involved in the election. He is the antithesis of George Washington.

The founders knew that otherwise smart and rational people would fall for this, which is why they feared it so much. Yet here we are. I'm on a message board seeing smart and rational people support a demagogue, rationalizing it all away.

 

[sk8knight]

Boosted: Man the QB really laid an egg today.
sk8: Obviously since you didn't mention how poorly the D played you are assigning 100% of the loss to the QB.

I don't blame Trump for the underlying issues. As Americans, we all need to take responsibility for where we are as a country. If Trump was going out everyday trying to bridge the divide - and was failing at it - I'd be fine with that. It's a super hard problem.

A POTUS who tries and fails at least doesn't actively make it worse than it would otherwise be. A POTUS who actively participates can amplify the problems and accelerate the decline more than any other individual.

I like you but Come On, Man!

It's a bad analogy but if it weren't the truth would be more like this:
Boosted: Man the QB laid an egg
Boosted: This QB is terrible and killing the team
Boosted: This QB has caused every single loss this year
Boosted: This QB is the a disgrace to the organization and the team would've won every game handily except for his terribleness
Boosted: This QB is the worst QB in history and anyone who supports him is terrible
...
Boosted: This QB is so bad that football is going to end and all the players will be forced to dance ballet for a living in Moscow.
Sk8: You do realize that the QB isn't the only reason that the team sucks, right? Why don't you ever call out the receivers that can't catch, the OL that can't block, the defense that can't catch a cold, the coaching that sucks, and the front office that is historically horrible?
Boosted: Of course, everyone is responsible for losing to some degree. But that QB really sucks and I'm going to continually rail only at him about it because he is the king of the suckies.

 

[Crazyhole]

I like you but Come On, Man!

It's a bad analogy but if it weren't the truth would be more like this:
Boosted: Man the QB laid an egg
Boosted: This QB is terrible and killing the team
Boosted: This QB has caused every single loss this year
Boosted: This QB is the a disgrace to the organization and the team would've won every game handily except for his terribleness
Boosted: This QB is the worst QB in history and anyone who supports him is terrible
...
Boosted: This QB is so bad that football is going to end and all the players will be forced to dance ballet for a living in Moscow.
Sk8: You do realize that the QB isn't the only reason that the team sucks, right? Why don't you ever call out the receivers that can't catch, the OL that can't block, the defense that can't catch a cold, the coaching that sucks, and the front office that is historically horrible?
Boosted: Of course, everyone is responsible for losing to some degree. But that QB really sucks and I'm going to continually rail only at him about it because he is the king of the suckies.

Lol, nicely done. Its almost as bad as Trigeek screeching about how objective he is while criticizing everything republican and praising everything Democrat. At some point its beyond obvious.

 

[sk8knight]

It's hard to distill my full theories on Trump without writing a novel. But you're absolutely correct in that there's a HUGE difference in Trump-the-Authoritarian-wannabe vs Putin-the-Authoritarian. To put it simply, I think Trump is jealous of leaders who have those powers, but does not have the patience or interest to try and attain them.

I think a better way to frame this is by asking what kind of threat that a demagogues poses. The simple definition of a demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument."

The Founders were especially worried about demagogues. They knew the power of irrational populist appeal and the risk it posed to self government. Washington told Lafayette that the primary reason he attended the convention in 1787 was to prevent a demagogue form gaining power. The word "demagogue" is all over the letters and writing of the founders. Hamilton warned of them over and over.

So for me, it's incredibly frustrating to see really smart people fall for this. So much of the work the Founders put into framing the Constitution was specifically to protect us from this exact type of leader. To make it hard for them to gain power and - if in case they did - to limit the power they would hold.

Trump has spent 4 years convincing you not to trust your fellow Americans. That voter fraud is rampant. The FBI is part of the deep state. That he can only lose the election if the other guys cheat. That his enemies are corrupt and should be in jail. Constantly claiming he's a victim. Publicly saying the courts should be involved in the election. He is the antithesis of George Washington.

The founders knew that otherwise smart and rational people would fall for this, which is why they feared it so much. Yet here we are. I'm on a message board seeing smart and rational people support a demagogue, rationalizing it all away.

Do you not see the irony that your argument against Trump can be applied in spades to Democratic leadership and membership since Reagan? Reagan was the worst, then Bush 41 was going to take away all freedoms, then Bush 43 lied and people died and was an idiot, then Trump. That all Republicans are evil rich people who hate all diversity and created a country that only exists to further white supremacy? That the free market system is to be abolished because it is evil and unfair and racist. And a thousand other demagogueries perpetuated by the Democrat party so they could demonize good people and scare others into voting them into power. People on the right have been enduring this for decades. Democrats just got their own medicine with Trump for 4 years and they want to tear down the world because of it.

What a charmed and privileged life you Democrats lived for so long because Republicans didn't play your own games against you until Trump came around and just didn't GAF.

 

[DaShuckster]

The people getting infected are wearing them.

That's bullshit.

 

[Ucfmikes]

That's bullshit.

I know people who it’s happened to moron

 

[Cubs79]

Trump has talked about a lot of things that he’s changed his mind on. He thinks out loud way too much. But thoughts aren’t actions. So answer the question. What policies enacted by the Trump administration have a negative effect upon you?

As for regulations, cool you went and googled an answer to my question and you think that makes you intelligent. How about the list of the business-stifling regulations Obama passed in relation to the list Trump has repealed since you’re such a Google master and a condescending ass at that.

On second thought, don’t bother. Just stay in your bubble and think that people need Government to force them to do the right thing and that Trump is the evilest evil that ever eviled, except for Senator Cotton because he’s got an eyepatch which makes him even eviler than Trump.

This is such a weird type of move. You asked me a question, I answered, then you respond by criticizing and insulting me for answering the question you asked to begin with. My bad for answering I guess.

Also, Tom Cotton doesn't wear an eye patch, but other than that, good talk.

 

[Boosted87]

Do you not see the irony that your argument against Trump can be applied in spades to Democratic leadership and membership since Reagan? Reagan was the worst, then Bush 41 was going to take away all freedoms, then Bush 43 lied and people died and was an idiot, then Trump. That all Republicans are evil rich people who hate all diversity and created a country that only exists to further white supremacy? That the free market system is to be abolished because it is evil and unfair and racist. And a thousand other demagogueries perpetuated by the Democrat party so they could demonize good people and scare others into voting them into power. People on the right have been enduring this for decades. Democrats just got their own medicine with Trump for 4 years and they want to tear down the world because of it.

What a charmed and privileged life you Democrats lived for so long because Republicans didn't play your own games against you until Trump came around and just didn't GAF.

I actually think what you've said above reinforces my point. Our political discourse is always filled with demagoguery. That's normal. What's not normal is for it to occupy the Resolute Desk. I think you're wrong to say that it's left exclusive. The right has been screaming "socialism" at every turn for decades. The left didn't nominate Sanders, so the narrative is that Biden is "puppet for the socialist left." Clinton was put through the ringer. I don't mean this as a tit for tat - just that your historical narrative is seen through a partisan lens, not a neutral one.

The key difference here is that no leftward demagogue found themselves at the head of the ticket and sitting in the Oval Office. I was a registered Republican for ~18 years until the 2016 cycle. Believe me - if the roles were flipped and we had a Trump-like personality from the left in the Oval Office, I'd be making these exact same arguments.

 

[sk8knight]

This is such a weird type of move. You asked me a question, I answered, then you respond by criticizing and insulting me for answering the question you asked to begin with. My bad for answering I guess.

Also, Tom Cotton doesn't wear an eye patch, but other than that, good talk.

Yeah, I was thinking of Crenshaw. Figured he was the scary one as he’s more Trump-like than most.

I was looking for the things that you knew because they affected you or something you do and had an impact. You still have yet to tell me how anything the Trump administration has had a negative impact on your life. I insulted you because you did the equivalent of a “let me google that for you” and then basically told me to get educated.

Even with all of that, you haven’t answered my question at all. If the answer is nothing, then we can explore that facet. If there are actual things, those are interesting for discussion. You threw some abstract stuff out about groups you think were affected but they aren’t you and that isnt the discussion point that I would like to pursue with you.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Crenshaw is the man

 

[sk8knight]

I actually think what you've said above reinforces my point. Our political discourse is always filled with demagoguery. That's normal. What's not normal is for it to occupy the Resolute Desk. I think you're wrong to say that it's left exclusive. The right has been screaming "socialism" at every turn for decades. The left didn't nominate Sanders, so the narrative is that Biden is "puppet for the socialist left." Clinton was put through the ringer. I don't mean this as a tit for tat - just that your historical narrative is seen through a partisan lens, not a neutral one.

The key difference here is that no leftward demagogue found themselves at the head of the ticket and sitting in the Oval Office. I was a registered Republican for ~18 years until the 2016 cycle. Believe me - if the roles were flipped and we had a Trump-like personality from the left in the Oval Office, I'd be making these exact same arguments.

Clinton caused his own problems with Lewinsky and Paula Jones but didn’t have anywhere near the acrimony as Trump has had. And yes, Obama’s rhetoric was extremely demagogic in the WH.

 

[Boosted87]

I like you but Come On, Man!

It's a bad analogy but if it weren't the truth would be more like this:
Boosted: Man the QB laid an egg
Boosted: This QB is terrible and killing the team
Boosted: This QB has caused every single loss this year
Boosted: This QB is the a disgrace to the organization and the team would've won every game handily except for his terribleness
Boosted: This QB is the worst QB in history and anyone who supports him is terrible
...
Boosted: This QB is so bad that football is going to end and all the players will be forced to dance ballet for a living in Moscow.
Sk8: You do realize that the QB isn't the only reason that the team sucks, right? Why don't you ever call out the receivers that can't catch, the OL that can't block, the defense that can't catch a cold, the coaching that sucks, and the front office that is historically horrible?
Boosted: Of course, everyone is responsible for losing to some degree. But that QB really sucks and I'm going to continually rail only at him about it because he is the king of the suckies.

LOL. I do think we've stumbled on to the greatest terrible analogy or whatever in board history. Maybe a simpler one is to say that Trump is the head coach. He has a bigger impact on the direction of the program than anyone else. Four years in, I don't like the direction and I'm trying to explain why I think the HC is the problem.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

@sk8knight and @Boosted87 Yall need to get it back together, starting to get a little shaky. Maybe switch topics? I like yall going back and forth. Maybe start a pod? Thanks

 

[Cubs79]

Yeah, I was thinking of Crenshaw. Figured he was the scary one as he’s more Trump-like than most.

I was looking for the things that you knew because they affected you or something you do and had an impact. You still have yet to tell me how anything the Trump administration has had a negative impact on your life. I insulted you because you did the equivalent of a “let me google that for you” and then basically told me to get educated.

Even with all of that, you haven’t answered my question at all. If the answer is nothing, then we can explore that facet. If there are actual things, those are interesting for discussion. You threw some abstract stuff out about groups you think were affected but they aren’t you and that isnt the discussion point that I would like to pursue with you.

I have answered your questions, you just wont accept my answers. And I didn't do the equivalent of "let me google that for you" at all. I literally posted you a direct link to all of Trumps environmental/EPA policies, orders etc. I wasn't going to type out thousands of words, when you could easily go through the link. If you were honestly interested, I gave you everything you needed, but the reality is that you aren't really interested in the topic, you are just interested in insulting me, so have at it. I promise I don't care if you like me or not. But at this point there is no reason to continue sidetracking the thread with this dumbass back and forth.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is such a weird type of move. You asked me a question, I answered, then you respond by criticizing and insulting me for answering the question you asked to begin with. My bad for answering I guess.

Also, Tom Cotton doesn't wear an eye patch, but other than that, good talk.

According to his wife, he does wear an eye patch on role play night. She's got a thing for pirates.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

According to his wife, he does wear an eye patch on role play night. She's got a thing for pirates.

Is she a QoS?

 

[Crazyhole]

Is she a QoS?

Lol. I had never heard that term before it came up here the other day. I always just referred to them as "size queens".

 

[_glaciers]

First - hat tip to a great write up.

Here's the key though. What made the Nazi's "right wing" are the same thing that make modern day Neo-Nazi's "right wing" - extreme nationalism, nativism, and tendencies towards authoritarianism. There's a reason the modern version of Nazism exists as a fringe element of the right today - not the left.

We don't look back and talk about how horrible Nazi Germany was because of all the schools and roads they built. They still build roads and schools just like we do. That part of the platform isn't what was dangerous. Countless democracies build roads and schools and don't end up committing mass murder and starting wars.

Ironically - Trump also loathes free speech. Why do you think he sues so many people who criticize him? Why do you think he calls the press "the enemy of the people"? He leads chants of "lock her up" and publicly calls on his officials to investigate his political rivals.

Government regulating speech is bad. Social pressure to regulate speech is how it's supposed to work. Should a kindergarten teacher be allowed to express their support for NAMBLA on Facebook without consequence? Free speech right?

It's messy - but using social pressure to decide what's OK to say and what isn't, is FAR superior to government regulating said speech. It's not illegal to be Nazi and say horrible things. But no one has to hire you or be your friend. That's NOT "thought control". That's society regulating speech in a free-market like feedback system.

I hear what you're saying, but "Nationalism" and "National Socialism" are worth making a distinction over.

Every country and its citizens practice Nationalism. Have you ever worked with Hispanics? I have. They're some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet, and also some of the most proud of their country. They are incredibly proud of their flag and their culture. By and large, their culture is great, and honestly more right-wing than i think most people know; they take pride in the nuclear family, highly religious, certainly supportive of 2A, and view childbirth as a very sacred thing. So why aren't they vilified as Nazi's?

As far as the authoritarianism, until President Trump is trying to expand his power or diminish the power of Congress, that's simply a weak argument. Isn't the common criticism that Trump "didn't get anything done that he tried to?" You can't have both of those be true.

It's a pretty big elephant in the room to ignore Antifa/BLM riots and demands, then pretend "right-wing authoritarianism" is a legitimate threat because you saw some drunk guy do a Nazi salute once.

I don't agree on President Trump "loathing" free speech either. He's signed executive orders specifically to protect free speech, and we've never had a President whose speech has been criticized as heavily as his own.

Is he (or more accurately, his campaign) suing outlets like NYT and WaPo for libel and slander? Yes, but stating falsehoods as fact in order to generate an emotional response has been illegal for a pretty long time. Those same news publications are being taken to the cleaners by the Catholic High School kid for trying to ruin his life.

 

[Crazyhole]

I hear what you're saying, but "Nationalism" and "National Socialism" are worth making a distinction over.

Every country and its citizens practice Nationalism. Have you ever worked with Hispanics? I have. They're some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet, and also some of the most proud of their country. They are incredibly proud of their flag and their culture. By and large, their culture is great, and honestly more right-wing than i think most people know; they take pride in the nuclear family, highly religious, certainly supportive of 2A, and view childbirth as a very sacred thing. So why aren't they vilified as Nazi's?

As far as the authoritarianism, until President Trump is trying to expand his power or diminish the power of Congress, that's simply a weak argument. Isn't the common criticism that Trump "didn't get anything done that he tried to?" You can't have both of those be true.

It's a pretty big elephant in the room to ignore Antifa/BLM riots and demands, then pretend "right-wing authoritarianism" is a legitimate threat because you saw some drunk guy do a Nazi salute once.

I don't agree on President Trump "loathing" free speech either. He's signed executive orders specifically to protect free speech, and we've never had a President whose speech has been criticized as heavily as his own.

Is he (or more accurately, his campaign) suing outlets like NYT and WaPo for libel and slander? Yes, but stating falsehoods as fact in order to generate an emotional response has been illegal for a pretty long time. Those same news publications are being taken to the cleaners by the Catholic High School kid for trying to ruin his life.

Excellent point about his lawsuits for libel. An authoritarian doesn't sue, they shut you down. Its another example of how he shows respect for the system.

 

[Crazyhole]

Clinton caused his own problems with Lewinsky and Paula Jones but didn’t have anywhere near the acrimony as Trump has had. And yes, Obama’s rhetoric was extremely demagogic in the WH.

Obamas dog whistle was as loud as a fog horn.

 

[Boosted87]

I hear what you're saying, but "Nationalism" and "National Socialism" are worth making a distinction over.

Every country and its citizens practice Nationalism. Have you ever worked with Hispanics? I have. They're some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet, and also some of the most proud of their country. They are incredibly proud of their flag and their culture. By and large, their culture is great, and honestly more right-wing than i think most people know; they take pride in the nuclear family, highly religious, certainly supportive of 2A, and view childbirth as a very sacred thing. So why aren't they vilified as Nazi's?

As far as the authoritarianism, until President Trump is trying to expand his power or diminish the power of Congress, that's simply a weak argument. Isn't the common criticism that Trump "didn't get anything done that he tried to?" You can't have both of those be true.

It's a pretty big elephant in the room to ignore Antifa/BLM riots and demands, then pretend "right-wing authoritarianism" is a legitimate threat because you saw some drunk guy do a Nazi salute once.

I don't agree on President Trump "loathing" free speech either. He's signed executive orders specifically to protect free speech, and we've never had a President whose speech has been criticized as heavily as his own.

Is he (or more accurately, his campaign) suing outlets like NYT and WaPo for libel and slander? Yes, but stating falsehoods as fact in order to generate an emotional response has been illegal for a pretty long time. Those same news publications are being taken to the cleaners by the Catholic High School kid for trying to ruin his life.

So I view this through what I call Maslow's Hierarchy of Political Needs. The top of that pyramid is the stuff you argue about in normal times. Marginal tax rates, how much a farm subsidy should be, bla bla. The boring stuff. If you're arguing about that, then your democracy is doing great.

At the bottom of the pyramid is your core values - the right to vote - free speech - the rule of law - etc. These are foundational. Forget for a second which side you're on and recognize that these are the things we're arguing over. Is free speech being suppressed? Are voting rights receding? Does POTUS respect the rule of law?

I'd argue that when you've reached that point, something unusually dangerous is afoot. Perhaps we'd agree on that premise, even if we disagree where the threat is coming from.

So with Trump, this is a walks and talks like a duck question. He fired Comey over the Russia investigation. He tried to fire Mueller (McGhan refused). He fired Sessions because Sessions did the ethical thing and recused himself. He's fired 5 IG's over the space of two months just this year. He's threatening to fire Wray, Esper, Haspel, and even voicing his displeasure with Barr.

The pattern is obvious. Trump demands loyalty to him personally above all else. That is hallmark authoritarian. A pure loyalists as Chief of Staff makes sense. But not at AG. Do you think he's "joking" when he publicly pressures Barr to investigate his rivals? What happens when there's a Micheal Cohen like AG that will do whatever the boss wants? Do you think that's what Trump wants at DOJ? I think he'd LOVE that.

Plenty of conservatives see this pattern too. Jeff Flake just endorsed Biden. Mike Fasano - Former GOP majority leader of Florida House - endorsed Biden.

They aren't endorsing Biden because they agree with his policies. They're endorsing Biden because they recognize how damaging Trump is to the country. They recognize that we need a stable foundation above all else, and Trump's presidency is fundamentally destabilizing.

Pro-Tip: If virtually every academic/historian type is already writing how damaging Trump's presidency has been, that's not going to change. Historians in 50 ye

 

[Crazyhole]

The pattern IS obvious. Trump fires people that he feels are moving too slowly or not doing their job at all.

 

[sk8knight]

So I view this through what I call Maslow's Hierarchy of Political Needs. The top of that pyramid is the stuff you argue about in normal times. Marginal tax rates, how much a farm subsidy should be, bla bla. The boring stuff. If you're arguing about that, then your democracy is doing great.

At the bottom of the pyramid is your core values - the right to vote - free speech - the rule of law - etc. These are foundational. Forget for a second which side you're on and recognize that these are the things we're arguing over. Is free speech being suppressed? Are voting rights receding? Does POTUS respect the rule of law?

I'd argue that when you've reached that point, something unusually dangerous is afoot. Perhaps we'd agree on that premise, even if we disagree where the threat is coming from.

So with Trump, this is a walks and talks like a duck question. He fired Comey over the Russia investigation. He tried to fire Mueller (McGhan refused). He fired Sessions because Sessions did the ethical thing and recused himself. He's fired 5 IG's over the space of two months just this year. He's threatening to fire Wray, Esper, Haspel, and even voicing his displeasure with Barr.

The pattern is obvious. Trump demands loyalty to him personally above all else. That is hallmark authoritarian. A pure loyalists as Chief of Staff makes sense. But not at AG. Do you think he's "joking" when he publicly pressures Barr to investigate his rivals? What happens when there's a Micheal Cohen like AG that will do whatever the boss wants? Do you think that's what Trump wants at DOJ? I think he'd LOVE that.

Plenty of conservatives see this pattern too. Jeff Flake just endorsed Biden. Mike Fasano - Former GOP majority leader of Florida House - endorsed Biden.

They aren't endorsing Biden because they agree with his policies. They're endorsing Biden because they recognize how damaging Trump is to the country. They recognize that we need a stable foundation above all else, and Trump's presidency is fundamentally destabilizing.

Pro-Tip: If virtually every academic/historian type is already writing how damaging Trump's presidency has been, that's not going to change. Historians in 50 ye

We’re arguing about it because one side has been accusing Trump of attacking those things since before he was even sworn in and launches stories about it every single day even if there is no new story. The problem is that Trump has never attacked your “survival” needs.

Then there is the perspective of his political rivals actually doing dirty things and you being more worried about Trump wanting an investigation than you are about getting rid of the corruption. I guess the lesson here is to run for President if you’re dirty because you’ll never be touched.

Again, you assume the conclusion and then work your logic to reach that conclusion. There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons for firing each of those individuals and investigating the Biden family. But you only accept the one that leads to Trump being a horrible person and a threat to all that is good in this world.

 

[Boosted87]

We’re arguing about it because one side has been accusing Trump of attacking those things since before he was even sworn in and launches stories about it every single day even if there is no new story. The problem is that Trump has never attacked your “survival” needs.

Then there is the perspective of his political rivals actually doing dirty things and you being more worried about Trump wanting an investigation than you are about getting rid of the corruption. I guess the lesson here is to run for President if you’re dirty because you’ll never be touched.

Again, you assume the conclusion and then work your logic to reach that conclusion. There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons for firing each of those individuals and investigating the Biden family. But you only accept the one that leads to Trump being a horrible person and a threat to all that is good in this world.

You can argue that I'm got a predetermined judgement on Trump and I'm searching for evidence to justify that conclusion. Conversely, I can argue that you're ignoring a pattern of behavior and rationalizing it away.

 

[_glaciers]

So I view this through what I call Maslow's Hierarchy of Political Needs. The top of that pyramid is the stuff you argue about in normal times. Marginal tax rates, how much a farm subsidy should be, bla bla. The boring stuff. If you're arguing about that, then your democracy is doing great.

At the bottom of the pyramid is your core values - the right to vote - free speech - the rule of law - etc. These are foundational. Forget for a second which side you're on and recognize that these are the things we're arguing over. Is free speech being suppressed? Are voting rights receding? Does POTUS respect the rule of law?

I'd argue that when you've reached that point, something unusually dangerous is afoot. Perhaps we'd agree on that premise, even if we disagree where the threat is coming from.

So with Trump, this is a walks and talks like a duck question. He fired Comey over the Russia investigation. He tried to fire Mueller (McGhan refused). He fired Sessions because Sessions did the ethical thing and recused himself. He's fired 5 IG's over the space of two months just this year. He's threatening to fire Wray, Esper, Haspel, and even voicing his displeasure with Barr.

The pattern is obvious. Trump demands loyalty to him personally above all else. That is hallmark authoritarian. A pure loyalists as Chief of Staff makes sense. But not at AG. Do you think he's "joking" when he publicly pressures Barr to investigate his rivals? What happens when there's a Micheal Cohen like AG that will do whatever the boss wants? Do you think that's what Trump wants at DOJ? I think he'd LOVE that.

Plenty of conservatives see this pattern too. Jeff Flake just endorsed Biden. Mike Fasano - Former GOP majority leader of Florida House - endorsed Biden.

They aren't endorsing Biden because they agree with his policies. They're endorsing Biden because they recognize how damaging Trump is to the country. They recognize that we need a stable foundation above all else, and Trump's presidency is fundamentally destabilizing.

Pro-Tip: If virtually every academic/historian type is already writing how damaging Trump's presidency has been, that's not going to change. Historians in 50 ye

That's a smart approach you're taking, but i just don't connect the dots of suppressing free speech cuz he told a few papers to f*ck themselves, in lieu of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Reddit disenfranchising anyone going against the grain. I can bring up countless examples if you like, but I don't really think that's debatable at this point.

You're also using the term loyalty a little disingenuously. He's no firing people because they didn't help him make money he's firing people because performance expectations aren't met. Didn't we all agree before 2016 that most politicians are liars spewing sugar-coated words to avoid having to deliver on any promises they made? What other avenue is there to try to enact change? Give them a write-up? No, Trump brought a gun to a sword fight, and he's been fending off people trying to stab him in the back for 4 years now.

Now I don't know your view on police, but if its so easy to be convinced that a group of Government officials like them have been soiled because of decades of corruption, is it really that difficult to extend that to the DOJ, FBI, and politicians in general?

 

[ChrisKnight06]

You're also using the term loyalty a little disingenuously. He's no firing people because they didn't help him make money he's firing people because performance expectations aren't met. Didn't we all agree before 2016 that most politicians are liars spewing sugar-coated words to avoid having to deliver on any promises they made? What other avenue is there to try to enact change? Give them a write-up? No, Trump brought a gun to a sword fight, and he's been fending off people trying to stab him in the back for 4 years now.

Now I don't know your view on police, but if its so easy to be convinced that a group of Government officials like them have been soiled because of decades of corruption, is it really that difficult to extend that to the DOJ, FBI, and politicians in general?

So I was going to post something along this lines. It's similar to the comment in a thread last night about acknowledging the existence of "the swamp". If you agree the Swamp exists and have some insight in to how bad it is then I would imagine it's very easy to justify the firing of a lot of career public servants, those who don't seem to be impactful in their jobs. If you don't see the mess that exists then it's easier to see what Boosted is saying and think he's an authoritarian. I don't follow this shit night and day but I'm very much of the belief that these bureaucrats are most definitely part of the problem and only serve to preserve and increase the power of themselves and their friends. Do I have some incredible insight in to it? No... it just seems logical.

But b/c I don't have this incredible insight in to the failings of each and every one of these individuals I sometimes do get concerned each time I see another article about some other high ranking official being fired. This is part of what makes this man so damn frustrating but at the same time I like to feel I'm very aware of all of these dynamics and don't allow my opinion to sway too far in either direction regarding him.

 

[Cubs79]

So I was going to post something along this lines. It's similar to the comment in a thread last night about acknowledging the existence of "the swamp". If you agree the Swamp exists and have some insight in to how bad it is then I would imagine it's very easy to justify the firing of a lot of career public servants, those who don't seem to be impactful in their jobs. If you don't see the mess that exists then it's easier to see what Boosted is saying and think he's an authoritarian. I don't follow this shit night and day but I'm very much of the belief that these bureaucrats are most definitely part of the problem and only serve to preserve and increase the power of themselves and their friends. Do I have some incredible insight in to it? No... it just seems logical.

But b/c I don't have this incredible insight in to the failings of each and every one of these individuals I sometimes do get concerned each time I see another article about some other high ranking official being fired. This is part of what makes this man so damn frustrating but at the same time I like to feel I'm very aware of all of these dynamics and don't allow my opinion to sway too far in either direction regarding him.

He is hiring and firing people he chooses though. It would be one thing if he got rid of a lot of Obama carry overs, which happens in all administrations, but many of the people he ends up firing, are people he chose. But when he hires people like Bolton, Sessions, Preibus, Mulvaney, Flynn, etc etc, he was hiring people he knew were part of the "swamp". Not to mention current people like Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, etc. The whole "draining the swamp" is nothing but a slogan that Trump has not made any sort of concerted effort to actually do. Even the judges. The judges are Federalist Society approved candidates that Mitch McConnell then gives to Trump, so I dont think bending over backwards for a career politician like McConnell, who works closely with a conservative Think Tank that was very involved with the Bush administration, is in anyway draining the swamp. I dont think there has been a president in recent memory who has had this many issues with people he hired. Which only means 1 of 2 things. Either he isnt hiring good people, which is on him. Or, the people he hires realize they cant work with him once they start their jobs. Neither of those things are a good look for Trump.

 

[sk8knight]

You can argue that I'm got a predetermined judgement on Trump and I'm searching for evidence to justify that conclusion. Conversely, I can argue that you're ignoring a pattern of behavior and rationalizing it away.

That is always a possibility and I appreciate your viewpoint. I just don’t agree with it. Which is perfectly fine because we both realize where we are and how we got here.

 

[UCFBS]

When USPS and VA employees can embezzle funds and no one gets reprimanded (and definitely not fired), even as Sanders runs the show and has to admit he is powerless, that tells me a lot about federal employment and federal monopolies in the VA and USPS, respectively.

Sorry, but 'Finally!' is how I feel too. But I fully expect Vanity Fair, like Slate, to demonize it.

 

[UCFBS]

Yeah, let's relish stupidity and irresponsibility!

There's plenty of that on the left too. And I'm not just talking protests.

Also, the impromptu camera shots are really getting to people as well. Unless you want to claim those are 'deep fakes'?

 

[ElprofesorJuan]

He is hiring and firing people he chooses though. It would be one thing if he got rid of a lot of Obama carry overs, which happens in all administrations, but many of the people he ends up firing, are people he chose. But when he hires people like Bolton, Sessions, Preibus, Mulvaney, Flynn, etc etc, he was hiring people he knew were part of the "swamp". Not to mention current people like Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, etc. The whole "draining the swamp" is nothing but a slogan that Trump has not made any sort of concerted effort to actually do. Even the judges. The judges are Federalist Society approved candidates that Mitch McConnell then gives to Trump, so I dont think bending over backwards for a career politician like McConnell, who works closely with a conservative Think Tank that was very involved with the Bush administration, is in anyway draining the swamp. I dont think there has been a president in recent memory who has had this many issues with people he hired. Which only means 1 of 2 things. Either he isnt hiring good people, which is on him. Or, the people he hires realize they cant work with him once they start their jobs. Neither of those things are a good look for Trump.

When USPS and VA employees can embezzle funds and no one gets reprimanded (and definitely not fired), even as Sanders runs the show and has to admit he is powerless, that tells me a lot about federal employment and federal monopolies in the VA and USPS, respectively.

Sorry, but 'Finally!' is how I feel too. But I fully expect Vanity Fair, like Slate, to demonize it.

I agree with you that more needs to be done about internal problems within the VA and USPS. I Also think competent people must be appointed. Dejoy the Postmaster-General has Investments in other Companies that compete with USPS. Many appointed to this administration are in the same predicament. I just want to see good picks. Or we get the same corruption you are trying to stop. I was waiting for a Slate, Vanity Fair rebuttal 2 pages ago so I can list 6 other News Articles, and also post all administration fired and Post why picking these new Individuals was bad...Sadly no one said anything so I never posted. I like to think ahead on rebuttals. Oh Well.. Pleasure chatting with you.