The Politically Correct

[ok doser]

Surprising enough for you to vote for him in 2020?

what if trump in 2020 is not only the best choice, but the only good choice?

 

[Town Heretic]

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been mostly flat on the year, actually down a bit. This is a notable change versus the last eight years. There could be any number of causes, but it coincides perfectly with the GOP tax cut taking effect. Most Presidents aren't as responsible for the health of the economy overall as people like to believe, but that and the tariffs he's introduced at least haven't helped the economy by any metric I've seen. It's hard to name anything he's done other than be lucky to follow Obama's roaring economy.

The market is driven by speculators who have seen Trump as a pro-business ally. His trade policy is endangering that response. And I'm simply speaking from a position of someone who lives among larger fish investors and hears what their response to him has been, though I think that anecdotal has largely played out in the numbers. They're worried about this turn and it is impacting things. The roaring economy reminds me of the way both parties respond to economic upturns and downturns.

Something of a mixed bag. It removes some of the protections for civil servants, which on the one hand could help to clean up problems in an inefficient agency like the VA, but it could also make it easier to pursue politicized attacks against them.

It seems to me that you're naming the intended good on one hand and the potential abuse on the other. But that's true for most measures of government. I'd say the good remains and keep an eye on the latter.

These passed Congress unanimously. There aren't a lot of Presidents who wouldn't sign them, and if they didn't the votes certainly exist for an override.

Okay. What does that have to do with the president supporting the measures? I'm asking if we only credit the person who writes a good bill? Seems like a peculiar litmus, though it serves the urge to simplify and demonize that is all the rage (either) in the body politic these days.

At what cost?

That's a great response to someone, anyone, who suggests the good done by the president outweighs the harm he's inflicted. It's not really an answer to someone noting flowers among the cowpaddies and that some of them were nurtured by it.

The courts have started to act, but the problem is, if you separate a bunch of families, speaking a bunch of different languages, and don't keep track of whose children you're sending where, how can you possibly reunite them? Meanwhile, separate cases are winding their way through the court systems, and parents are getting deported without their children in some cases.

It's a nightmare and a disgrace. A lot of Republicans feel that way about it, which is partly why the practice that sponsored it was ended.

Refugees have a legal right under international and American law to apply for asylum. It is illegal to prevent them from doing so. Some of these parents apparently are still being told that they can get their children back by signing a voluntary removal order, waiving their right under the law. It's a monstrous choice to present to a parent.

Agreed.

That law is really just mostly restating what NASA already does.

You mean empowering it do to that, which is important and good.

It's not that it isn't important, but it's not exactly revolutionary

So we only credit the good when it's revolutionary?

and Bridenstein is the very first NASA administrator with no background in any of the areas that the agency works in. As a member of Congress, he was a climate change denialist. He hasn't turned out to be Scott-Pruitt-at-the-EPA bad, but...I doubt how comprehensive his grasp of it is. NASA has been doing public/private stuff forever. It's always been intended that work done at NASA would feed commercial industries, and in turn feed back into NASA.

The quote I noted wasn't his, it was Lightfoot's, the fellow who took over until Bridenstein's confirmation. Lightfoot, I think it's safe to say, has that background. He was the number two for the outgoing head of NASA.

Maybe, but it's hard for me to get past the treason.

Treason is a charge until it is sustained in a Court. Else you're no different than the people who call Hillary a felon because they're convinced she is...and that's also part of what got us here today.

 

[ok doser]

The irrationality and vitriol towards trump from anna, rusha and rex provides a clear explanation of why more rational parts of the electorate held their noses and voted against the candidate they supported

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is solely responsible for the terror these babies and children are living through and the fact remains, he is enjoying their pain.

Just like Obama did!

 

[ok doser]

Just like Obama did!

nononono

bammy dint enjoy it, he wept tears of blood when he was forced to do it against his will

trump is evil and eats live puppies

 

[annabenedetti]

How isn't it a plus if he supports it? How isn't it?

Because it's rote politics. There's nothing special about it.

That's not what I wrote, so no. I said that conservatives should be pleased. I'd rather have a moderate voice on the Court, but if it has to be someone more ideologically entrenched at least let him be an able jurist. And that he is.

So when you said he was "a brilliant jurist and a solid appointment" you weren't pleased?

A Trump presidency, which is largely ruining our image abroad and alienating and dividing at home.

Yet he's due praise because he corrected only under duress what he created, after harm was inflicted and hasn't been repaired yet?

Most Americans aren't responsible for that election. So I suppose we are, if only by a few million at last count.

I'd say those who didn't vote or voted third party have a hand in responsibility. I say that knowing you advised voting for neither, and I disagreed with you then and still do, however seeing responsibility isn't "demonizing the other."

And I'd suggest that many who voted for him haven't been satisfied by him, though if he gets sustained economic growth the left had better be prepared to do more than rend garments and demonize, however satisfying that might be for them. They'd better get ready for a serious challenge on the issues.

Yes, of course they have to have a cohesive plan. But they've done their job in exposing the lies, the corruption, the Russia connections, the blows to the rule of law, our foreign policy, our standing in the world, our friends and allies. Trump and his base call it all "fake news."

I don't think recognizing that we've had a substantial decrease in illegal immigration as something in the plus column is the same as praising Trump or agreeing in sum with how we got it.

You said: His election and subsequent attention significantly impacted illegal immigration, which is a good thing and that "his policies have a hand in that." And you said it without qualification.

"We" should avoid the zealot's mistake

You say "we," but somehow it doesn't really feel like an "we."

and the urge to over simplify

Not necessarily. Occam's razor is a useful thing, TH.

and demonize the other, anna. That's what got us here to begin with.

Who am I demonizing, TH? And how?

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you surprised enough to consider voting for Trump in 2020?

 

[ok doser]

the irony is that trump is a better president than hillary ever would have been

 

[Idolater]

...The courts have started to act, but the problem is, if you separate a bunch of families, speaking a bunch of different languages, and don't keep track of whose children you're sending where, how can you possibly reunite them? Meanwhile, separate cases are winding their way through the court systems, and parents are getting deported without their children in some cases.

Refugees have a legal right under international and American law to apply for asylum. It is illegal to prevent them from doing so. Some of these parents apparently are still being told that they can get their children back by signing a voluntary removal order, waiving their right under the law. It's a monstrous choice to present to a parent....

A bit off topic, but do we know how much the black market for illicit drugs in America indirectly drives the conditions in all the Central and South American countries, and Mexico, from which all these people are fleeing? My guess is that it is a significant cause of the trouble. In effect, are we reaping what we've sown, regarding enabling these black markets to operate in these other countries?

 

[ok doser]

Refugees have a legal right under international and American law to apply for asylum.

They also have an approved process by which to do so


...which doesn't involve illegally crossing the border

 

[Town Heretic]

Because it's rote politics. There's nothing special about it.

I'll say the same thing I did to rex, in essence. When did it have to be "special" to be a good?

So when you said he was "a brilliant jurist and a solid appointment" you weren't pleased?

I was pleased that we didn't get worse, which isn't really the same thing. So that's not really a yes or no question for me.

Yet he's due praise because he corrected only under duress what he created, after harm was inflicted and hasn't been repaired yet?

Quote me praising him on that point or address the question to someone who did.

I'd say those who didn't vote or voted third party have a hand in responsibility.

I'd say there were two awful choices and anyone who voted their conscience did what they were supposed to do and bear the responsibility for their vote and nothing else.

Yes, of course they have to have a cohesive plan. But they've done their job in exposing the lies, the corruption, the Russia connections, the blows to the rule of law, our foreign policy, our standing in the world, our friends and allies. Trump and his base call it all "fake news."

So we agree on the point that was being discussed and you've added a few things I tend to agree with as well. It still won't win the election if the economy continues to improve absent a clear and convincing vision by the Democrats that they can

You said: His election and subsequent attention significantly impacted illegal immigration, which is a good thing. That's not a negative, TH.

Did I say it was a negative? I also wrote: The last figure I saw had illegal immigration down about 27%, which is a good thing. I think his presence and policies have a hand in that.

You say "we," but somehow it doesn't really feel like an "we."

It seemed a fair return of serve.

Not necessarily. Occam's razor is a useful thing, TH.

Occam's isn't an over simplification either, anna.

Who am I demonizing, TH? And how?

When we can't credit the good those we largely oppose do, when we only rally around the sound of our agreement and question the intent of those who don't, then what else are you doing but piling wood on the bonfire of a dangerous mentality?

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you surprised enough to consider voting for Trump in 2020?

It's a question I'd only entertain from someone with reason to ask it, someone who'd missed the year I hammered at the notion of electing any person that wanting in character to the nation's highest office, or the steady complaints I've made about the damage he does to the institutions of government. That sort of thing.

There's no reason for me to answer it for you though, your having nothing like that excuse. If I have to line up and agree with you and rex on every point, if being capable of recognizing a public good along with the public damage can sponsor that inquiry in anything like a serious fashion then nothing I could say to answer it would satisfy.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'll say the same thing I did to rex, in essence. When did it have to be "special" to be a good?

At the risk of beating a dead horse: Because so much of what Trump is and has done is disastrous, the simply normal and rote expectation fulfilled has become notable. I don't see that as a positive.

I was pleased that we didn't get worse, which isn't really the same thing. So that's not really a yes or no question for me.

Quote me praising him on that point or address the question to someone who did.

Did I say it was a negative? I also wrote: The last figure I saw had illegal immigration down about 27%, which is a good thing. I think his presence and policies have a hand in that.

Now I'm to the point that I'm not going to beat the dead horse. You see things in the plus column that surprised you in a positive way. You offer them as positives, while making sure you've stopped before the point that it becomes praise. Have I got that about right? If so, we can agree to disagree on how our perceptions differ.

It seemed a fair return of serve.

:chuckle: Fair enough.

Occam's isn't an over simplification either, anna.

Or perhaps one person's simplification is another's over-simplication. Perception is key.

When we can't credit the good those we largely oppose do, when we only rally around the sound of our agreement and question the intent of those who don't, then what else are you doing but piling wood on the bonfire of a dangerous mentality?

A rather unsubtle shift from "we" to "you" in that sentence.

You may not be able to stay above the fray forever, TH. At some point more may be required of you.

It's a question I'd only entertain from someone with reason to ask it, someone who'd missed the year I hammered at the notion of electing any person that wanting in character to the nation's highest office, or the steady complaints I've made about the damage he does to the institutions of government. That sort of thing.

There's no reason for me to answer it for you though, your having nothing like that excuse. If I have to line up and agree with you and rex on every point, if being capable of recognizing a public good along with the public damage can sponsor that inquiry in anything like a serious fashion then nothing I could say to answer it would satisfy.

Nowhere have I ever said or implied that you had to line up and agree with me. And my asking the question isn't a mark of disloyalty, nor is my unwillingness to agree that it's a positive that Trump would do the barest minimum of what his job requires make me a zealot "piling wood on the bonfire of a dangerous mentality."

 

[ok doser]

Anna - can you say something positive about your president?

 

[Town Heretic]

At the risk of beating a dead horse: Because so much of what Trump is and has done is disastrous

Separate issue and not one we disagree on.

the simply normal and rote expectation fulfilled has become notable. I don't see that as a positive.

The good is the good, no matter who does it. I'm not weighing in on the man's soul, only noting that there has been good on his watch and some of what he has done constitutes that public good.

Now I'm to the point that I'm not going to beat the dead horse. You see things in the plus column that surprised you in a positive way.

Just about anything positive surprised me, really. :chuckle: With Trump I didn't trust his rhetoric, so I couldn't say with much certainty what he'd do or how.

You offer them as positives, while making sure you've stopped before the point that it becomes praise.

Because it isn't about a valuation of him or even his presidency at this point.

Have I got that about right? If so, we can agree to disagree on how our perceptions differ.

Sounds like a plan I can get behind.

:chuckle: Fair enough.

Or perhaps one person's simplification is another's over-simplication. Perception is key.

I'd happily argue that the distinction isn't subjective and can be reasoned out together provided there's the will for it.

A rather unsubtle shift from "we" to "you" in that sentence.

Just testing the mic.

You may not be able to stay above the fray forever, TH. At some point more may be required of you.

There's a dangerous supposition in that too, anna. You don't get to decide for me what's in or out of the fray, don't get to determine that a position contrary to your own can't be as engaged or meaningful, or determinative of the outcome in a positive fashion. I mean that as gently as you can read it.

Nowhere have I ever said or implied that you had to line up and agree with me.

When you say you can't vote a third party without being responsible for harm done by those who voted otherwise, when you decide I'm not in the trenches because we don't dig in the same spot, you're doing exactly that. You're just doing it in a less direct way.

And my asking the question isn't a mark of disloyalty

Which isn't a word I considered, used, or implied.

, nor is my unwillingness to agree that it's a positive that Trump would do the barest minimum of what his job requires

Which is, again, your perception and valuation, not necessarily an objective truth.[/quote]

make me a zealot "piling wood on the bonfire of a dangerous mentality."

I think that when you make a couple of the statements you've made, when your context skews your perception strongly enough that you can feel reasonable asking that question to me once, let alone repeating it, you're not seeing your ground as clearly as you believe.

 

[ok doser]

You may not be able to stay above the fray forever, TH. At some point more may be required of you...

At some point he'll be required to join the whiny demonization of trump as evidenced by you and rusha and rex?

or else what?

 

[annabenedetti]

At some point he'll be required to join the whiny demonization of trump as evidenced by you and rusha and rex?

or else what?

I do believe I saw a pig fly by.


Now why in the world would you be compelled to step in on TH's behalf?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

TH is a dear friend, and along with that friendship is our shared acknowledgement that we don't see eye to eye in all things, your old "minion" schtick notwithstanding.

If TH agrees, he and I can continue to work through this via PM, without your "help."

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd happily argue that the distinction isn't subjective and can be reasoned out together provided there's the will for it.

I'm game, if it's via PM from here forward. :e4e:

 

[ok doser]

I'm game, if it's via PM from here forward. :e4e:

Because having discussions via pm is a great way to ensure that tol dies :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

I do believe I saw a pig fly by.

And it can type! :shocked:

Now why in the world would you be compelled to step in on TH's behalf?

Same reason he likes cheese, I'm guessing.

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

He makes entirely rhetorical posts, so that seems fair.

TH is a dear friend, and along with that friendship is our shared acknowledgement that we don't see eye to eye in all things, your old "minion" schtick notwithstanding.

Your lips to God's ears. Always made that effort a funny one.

If TH agrees, he and I can continue to work through this via PM, without your "help."

:thumb:

Because having discussions via pm is a great way to ensure that tol dies :thumb:

Well, entertaining [redacted] like you hasn't helped much.

 

[ok doser]

Well, entertaining [redacted] like you ...

I'm glad you find me entertaining :banana:

 

[rexlunae]

They also have an approved process by which to do so


...which doesn't involve illegally crossing the border

They do have an approved process, that's true. It's called the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967. It...

1. Permits refugees to flee from danger, even across borders.

2. Protects refugees from punishment for illegal entry. (Article 31)

3. Prevents refugees from being deported back to danger (nonrefoulment).

4. Protects the rights of refugees in various ways, generally guaranteeing that they be granted status equivalent to other aliens. Which kinda precludes arresting them and taking away their kids.

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html

Part of the reason refugees are crossing the border illegally is that the Trump administration has slowed down admission at the port of entries, causing them to have to either wait for weeks along the border in the heat, or cross the border between ports of entry. This is fundamentally against their rights as refugees.