45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
It doesn't though Eric. It "proves" it's working from your point of view and those who don't like him. Is that good for the majority of the US or in line with their requirements though?
The selection process is all part of the system. Unless a holistic look is taken at it all I don't see even the selection part changing.
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.The selection process is all part of the system. Unless a holistic look is taken at it all I don't see even the selection part changing.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus. Trump and his cohorts wouldn't know "consensus" if it jumped up and smacked them in the face. They have tried to bully and threaten and force their new laws through and they have failed at every attempt - which is exactly as it should be.
The hope that Trump's incessant tweets, which he thinks means he can "go over the head of Congress" and make law by populism, is plainly not working. He thought this technique would scare and cowe the Congress into bowing to his will. It seems they are far from doing that - which is excellent news.
And I mean here REPUBLICAN congressmen. Trump thought that the way to get them to do his bidding was to frighten them into submission,. Well, that hasn't worked.
He MAY start acting like a true leader and President in time, but that time is rapidly running out and so far there are no signs that his spots are changing.
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
Eric Mc said:
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
You are being willfully ignorant about how Obama operated, he did much by executive order because democracy was against him, the difference was that the MSM was complicit/silent in his case, instead of whipping up protests and promulgating fake news as with Trump.There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
No, not being wilfully ignorant. Probably ACTUALLY ignorant regarding how Obama ran his Presidency.
And if Obama behaved like that, then he was wrong too.
But this thread is about Trump and how he is succeeding or failing - so my comments are about that.
If you want to discuss Obama's failings as a President, start a thread on that subject.
And while you're at it, start threads on Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, Roosevelt etc etc.
And if Obama behaved like that, then he was wrong too.
But this thread is about Trump and how he is succeeding or failing - so my comments are about that.
If you want to discuss Obama's failings as a President, start a thread on that subject.
And while you're at it, start threads on Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, Roosevelt etc etc.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Eric Mc said:
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
You are being willfully ignorant about how Obama operated, he did much by executive order because democracy was against him, the difference was that the MSM was complicit/silent in his case, instead of whipping up protests and promulgating fake news as with Trump.There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
Why is it so common to see someone who supports the administration resort to the logical fallacy of whataboutism?
Eric Mc said:
As for the simple people - it was fear felt by the REPUBLICAN Congressman of the effects on "simple people" of Obamacare repeal that ensured that the repeal attempt failed utterly.
Not strictly speaking true. It was the rejection by the "Freedom Caucus" that meant the bill could not pass and they rejected it because it didn't go far enough, in their opinion, in removing state intervention in the health sector. It was also measures brought in to try and placate them that turned a few Republican moderates off the bill.
The fact that instead they will have the continuation of Obamacare just goes to show that the problem with "ideological purity" is that you end up in permanent opposition, even if your own party is nominally in power.
roachcoach said:
Your post would be great if we were talking about Obama.
Why is it so common to see someone who supports the administration resort to the logical fallacy of whataboutism?
If it highlights dual standards at play then it's fair enough IMO (as someone who does not support the current administration - just an interested observer in it and commentary about it).Why is it so common to see someone who supports the administration resort to the logical fallacy of whataboutism?
roachcoach said:
Murph7355 said:
It doesn't though Eric. It "proves" it's working from your point of view and those who don't like him. Is that good for the majority of the US or in line with their requirements though?
Not so much. the republicans control both houses, the fact he can't get them on board to exercise their majority suggests, nay, clearly states that his policies are deeply divisive if the representatives cannot get behind them.So, yes, it sounds a lot like it is working.
I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the failed heathcare proposal, but when you have big hitting republicans making public statements saying "I can't vote for this due to concerns of the impacts on my constituents" that is the very definition of checks and balances to my mind.
With divisions like that running across various lines, it seems a little harsh or even unfair to lay the blame for all of it at Trump's door. His "incompetence" merely seems to be highlighting it.
Maybe this is all the result of what happens in a society with huge gaps - the trick being to clearly and correctly articulate what the gap separates. "Haves" and "have nots" is way too general.
Murph7355 said:
roachcoach said:
Your post would be great if we were talking about Obama.
Why is it so common to see someone who supports the administration resort to the logical fallacy of whataboutism?
If it highlights dual standards at play then it's fair enough IMO (as someone who does not support the current administration - just an interested observer in it and commentary about it).Why is it so common to see someone who supports the administration resort to the logical fallacy of whataboutism?
roachcoach said:
Murph7355 said:
It doesn't though Eric. It "proves" it's working from your point of view and those who don't like him. Is that good for the majority of the US or in line with their requirements though?
Not so much. the republicans control both houses, the fact he can't get them on board to exercise their majority suggests, nay, clearly states that his policies are deeply divisive if the representatives cannot get behind them.So, yes, it sounds a lot like it is working.
I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the failed heathcare proposal, but when you have big hitting republicans making public statements saying "I can't vote for this due to concerns of the impacts on my constituents" that is the very definition of checks and balances to my mind.
With divisions like that running across various lines, it seems a little harsh or even unfair to lay the blame for all of it at Trump's door. His "incompetence" merely seems to be highlighting it.
Maybe this is all the result of what happens in a society with huge gaps - the trick being to clearly and correctly articulate what the gap separates. "Haves" and "have nots" is way too general.
I don't think it's been handled well at all.
It's got parallels to me with a backbench revolt in the commons - it is the job of the leader to quell that, or reach across the chamber to make up the numbers.
As I said I don't know the details of the bill so can't offer fair comment on its specifics however the way in which the bill was tried to be passed was always a huge gamble on his part (I said that before it died) and it has backfired fairly badly for him and his handling of that failure has also reflected badly on him for me. Railing at the minority opposition party for opposing him? Honestly?
Whether or not it is the case, his communications in tone and content portray a severe emotional immaturity to me and worse they are thoroughly divisive - apportioning blame seemingly without regard to all and sundry.
So is it 100% his fault? Absolutely not, however something I've always held to be true that failure is not the test of someone, it is how they deal with that failure and to me, he is not dealing with that very well at all.
Eric Mc said:
I'm glad you recognise the Trump healthcare policy was "hashed up".
It kind of describes most of the administration's approach to everything.
As I keep noting it's important to look at the why as much as the who. It kind of describes most of the administration's approach to everything.
All of which seems far from being as simple as you seem to think it is from your posts.
But at the end of the day a policy attempt failed. Or rather it was withdrawn before it could officially fail. More subtlety I guess.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Eric Mc said:
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
You are being willfully ignorant about how Obama operated, he did much by executive order because democracy was against him, the difference was that the MSM was complicit/silent in his case, instead of whipping up protests and promulgating fake news as with Trump.There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
rscott said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Eric Mc said:
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
You are being willfully ignorant about how Obama operated, he did much by executive order because democracy was against him, the difference was that the MSM was complicit/silent in his case, instead of whipping up protests and promulgating fake news as with Trump.There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
Escapegoat said:
rscott said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Eric Mc said:
No, it proves that a President cannot act as a dictator - no matter what his policies are and that is important whether I agree or disagree with those policies.
There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
You are being willfully ignorant about how Obama operated, he did much by executive order because democracy was against him, the difference was that the MSM was complicit/silent in his case, instead of whipping up protests and promulgating fake news as with Trump.There is a process by which law is enacted and that system relies to large extent on consensus.
astounding isnt it.Murph7355 said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm glad you recognise the Trump healthcare policy was "hashed up".
It kind of describes most of the administration's approach to everything.
As I keep noting it's important to look at the why as much as the who. It kind of describes most of the administration's approach to everything.
All of which seems far from being as simple as you seem to think it is from your posts.
But at the end of the day a policy attempt failed. Or rather it was withdrawn before it could officially fail. More subtlety I guess.
As ever, cock-ups are usually a combination of factors. In the case of the Trump administration, these can be can boiled down to -
total unfamiliarity with how Washington actually works
having himself surrounded by a team who are equally at sea in the world of Washington politics
poor team leadership skills
a tendency to try to bully
an inability to accept responsibility
a tendency to blame other for his mistakes
sundry other multiple severe personality disorders in the person of Trump himself which compound matters
EVERY policy he has tried to get through has failed - not just one. It is a litany of disaster.
Trump. The classic Narcissist. In his small minded world, which is also true for all narcissists, any attention is good attention.
He is also surrounded by 'yes' men and women, he is very much like those horrifically bad X factor contestants where the family will tell them over and over again how AMAZING he is, when the reality is that he is an embarrassment.
He may well have some good ideas however he will never get time to implement them when he is constantly trying to win the election...even though he 'won' it. Although, like the good narcissist that he is, because he didn't win the popular vote he is now trying to win it retrospectively. Bless him.
He is also surrounded by 'yes' men and women, he is very much like those horrifically bad X factor contestants where the family will tell them over and over again how AMAZING he is, when the reality is that he is an embarrassment.
He may well have some good ideas however he will never get time to implement them when he is constantly trying to win the election...even though he 'won' it. Although, like the good narcissist that he is, because he didn't win the popular vote he is now trying to win it retrospectively. Bless him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff