Petition seeks to prevent Trump from speaking in The Hall of Presidents at Disney's Magic Kingdom

Jeff said:

There is not a "no harm, no foul" argument to be made.

I have nothing new to bring to the conversation, nothing to add and not a single thing to say.

I just want the record to show that I unconditionally disagree with that statement.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

The media isn't part of our government. It's PROTECTED from our government. It cannot be shut down, despite Trump's cries of 'fake news.'

I'm less worried about it being directly "shut down" (whatever that even means) than I am about journalists being denied access (and thus page views, and thus existence) for reporting things Glorious Supreme Tangerine deems "fake news". The threat has already been made, so it's not as if the fear is unfounded.

Jeff said:

I think that ship has long since sailed.

Well... of course you're going to say that. I mean 4 weeks into the Presidency you've already made up your mind and nothing anyone else says is ever going to change that. So why bother?

djDaemon said:

I'm less worried about it being directly "shut down" (whatever that even means) than I am about journalists being denied access (and thus page views, and thus existence) for reporting things Glorious Supreme Tangerine deems "fake news". The threat has already been made, so it's not as if the fear is unfounded.

Then you don't understand the context of the world we live in. There are still countries that exist in 2017 where people (press as well) are killed for having a dissenting view of thier government.

Really, Rob? I mean, objectively, can you call anything a success that we've seen a month in? We've never seen anything like this, ever, in all of American history. People looking for equivalence are engaging in the worse kind of cognitive dissonance.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

Then you don't understand the context of the world we live in. There are still countries that exist in 2017 where people (press as well) are killed for having a dissenting view of thier government.

Yes, for one example, that would be the closest pal of Our Glorious Leader executing people for dissent. Doesn't bode well for dissent here in the US, esp. when Stephen Miller goes on air and says our authoritarian leader "will not be questioned." That's NOT the America I've known for close to 50 years...

HeyIsntThatRob? said:
This makes it impossible for Trump to make up a law, or decide that pink is now brown.

Yes, but ... according to various polls, a majority of Trump supporters believe there was a massacre in Bowling Green, and there was an attack in Sweden Saturday last ... So, yes, he can't make up a law. But he can, clearly, proclaim that it did not rain on him while he was giving his Inaugural speech, when we have video showing it did, and people will believe him. He could declare pink is the new brown and his supporters would believe him.

With a President who tells outright lies that people will believe, surrounded by incompetent, inexperienced people with overt agendas, yes, I worry. I can take a deep breath and think that the checks and balances built into our government will protect us from the excesses of the Trump administration ... but there's that nagging doubt, that Trump represents a serious threat to our country.

Jeff said:

Really, Rob? I mean, objectively, can you call anything a success that we've seen a month in?

No, he's been wildly unsuccessful.

We've never seen anything like this, ever, in all of American history.

How can you possibly even make that claim? Andrew Jackson killed someone in a duel. We've had close to a dozen of our leaders who did questionable even outright unconstitutional things during their presidency.

People looking for equivalence are engaging in the worse kind of cognitive dissonance.

Who is doing this? I see both sides doing it.

Look, I'll concede that when you first met me 15 years ago I was an uber Conservative. But don't mistake me as a Trump supporter or even as someone who would have remotely entertained the notion of voting for him. However, you run the risk of losing any credibility when you oppose and scrutinize every action of a president that has a letter next to their name, but completely praise the actions and overlook the bad actions of another. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I think Gonch's point and my point is that you cannot make these claims about Trump being the worst president we've ever seen and ignore the context that we had 43 other leaders before him.

It takes years, even decades to see the realization of visions and policies that were enacted during a president's term. Eisenhower's Interstate system enacted in the 50's wasn't even complete until the late 80's/early 90's. Did it make him the best/worst president? Pollution is up, neighborhoods were split/destroyed, but I can drive from one side of the country to another in about two days.

The fact is, we won't know. And four weeks into a presidency you can't really make any kind of declaration, unless you're a partisan. I'm a wait and see kind of guy on this one, and have been for a while.

~Rob

rollergator said:

Yes, for one example, that would be the closest pal of Our Glorious Leader executing people for dissent. Doesn't bode well for dissent here in the US, esp. when Stephen Miller goes on air and says our authoritarian leader "will not be questioned." That's NOT the America I've known for close to 50 years...

And that has to do with the US how? Again, Trump can't unilaterally kill anyone for having dissent. We have laws in place that prohibit our government from doing that. What Russia does to its own citizens while horrible and should be stopped, has no impact here.

Yes, but ... according to various polls, a majority of Trump supporters believe there was a massacre in Bowling Green, and there was an attack in Sweden Saturday last ... So, yes, he can't make up a law. But he can, clearly, proclaim that it did not rain on him while he was giving his Inaugural speech, when we have video showing it did, and people will believe him. He could declare pink is the brown and his supporters would believe him.

With a President who tells outright lies that people will believe, surrounded by incompetent, inexperienced people with overt agendas, yes, I worry. I can take a deep breath and think that the checks and balances built into our government will protect us from the excesses of the Trump administration ... but there's that nagging doubt, that Trump represents a serious threat to our country.

So polls illustrate how dumb and believable people are when they fully support their leader no matter what they say without any scrutiny. What else is new? We see this on both sides of the aisle.

And the President doesn't lie, they're just 'alternative facts' :) But in all seriousness, I think the threats that people make up are completely overblown and we've seen it for years. I remember when Bush ran for re-election in 2004 that the draft was coming back if he was re-elected. In 2008 Obama was going to take our guns away and so on and so forth.

None of it happened, but while your fears are justified, please understand that there are protections in place to protect our freedoms and hopefully his Dopiness doesn't get us nuked. Kapeesh?

I worry that the protections built into our government aren't adequate to contain our President. As noted, I'm pretty sure we'll survive the Trump presidency, but still ..

HeyIsntThatRob? said:
And that has to do with the US how? Again, Trump can't unilaterally kill anyone for having dissent. We have laws in place that prohibit our government from doing that. What Russia does to its own citizens while horrible and should be stopped, has no impact here.

So because Trump hasn't killed anyone we shouldn't be concerned that he's engaging in attacks on the press that are similar to those who have killed those in opposition? That's an awfully binary view in my opinion. Should we be marching with pitchforks on DC? No, but an equally-extreme reaction would be to view this as the same old stuff we've always seen.

So polls illustrate how dumb and believable people are when they fully support their leader no matter what they say without any scrutiny. What else is new? We see this on both sides of the aisle.

But not to this extreme. Yes, politicians have long skewed or cherry-picked facts and data points to further their agenda. And in some cases they've lied. But can you name any previous administration that has engaged in this brazen an attack on the press, or this level of willingness to lie?

I remember the good old days when The Man either used actual terrorist attacks to justify rolling back civil rights. This administration just makes them up. SAD!!!

And the President doesn't lie, they're just 'alternative facts' :) But in all seriousness, I think the threats that people make up are completely overblown and we've seen it for years. I remember when Bush ran for re-election in 2004 that the draft was coming back if he was re-elected. In 2008 Obama was going to take our guns away and so on and so forth.

Except in this case people aren't inferring outlandish consequences based only on the party involved. People are taking what Trump's administration actually says and does and getting freaked out. Though to be fair, most of the reaction is based on what he says, rather than what he does.

djDaemon said:

..... for reporting things Glorious Supreme Tangerine deems "fake news". ......

A' tee hee. I think that ranks up there with Salmon Satan and Mango Mussolini.

If you think "The massacre in Bowling Green/Atlanta/Sweden" is too far away from "we have always been at war with Eastasia", then you're forgetting that apathy is what tends to lead to a dictatorship.

djDaemon said:

So because Trump hasn't killed anyone we shouldn't be concerned that he's engaging in attacks on the press that are similar to those who have killed those in opposition? That's an awfully binary view in my opinion. Should we be marching with pitchforks on DC? No, but an equally-extreme reaction would be to view this as the same old stuff we've always seen.

Listen, if you want to waste my time by changing your argument I'm not going to debate you. You wanted a definition of shutting down the press. I gave you what our laws protect. The president has his first amendment rights to criticize the press as well and we've seen presidents from both sides do this. There's nothing binary about it.

But not to this extreme. Yes, politicians have long skewed or cherry-picked facts and data points to further their agenda. And in some cases they've lied. But can you name any previous administration that has engaged in this brazen an attack on the press, or this level of willingness to lie?

How about Clinton and the 'vast Right wing conspiracy'? Or the 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'? Again, both sides do this and the people who whole heartedly support 'their guy' and are suddenly oblivious to the past lose any credibility.

I remember the good old days when The Man either used actual terrorist attacks to justify rolling back civil rights. This administration just makes them up. SAD!!!

Yep, I miss the good old days when people got killed.

Except in this case people aren't inferring outlandish consequences based only on the party involved. People are taking what Trump's administration actually says and does and getting freaked out. Though to be fair, most of the reaction is based on what he says, rather than what he does.

At least you decided to concede a little. I think GoBucks summarized what Trump's appeal was. People are tired of the politicking, where they run on doing this, that and the other thing, but end up accomplishing nothing. So they went with an outsider. I'm just not ready to decide if Trump is terrible for the country or not, especially after 4 weeks.

"I did not have sex With that woman" ("oh, with, maybe I did and I'm admitting it now") is a much different thing than "it was a sunny at my inauguration, and there were three terrorist attacks" that didn't happen.

Again, people are focusing on policy and position. None of that matters. Gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, immigrants, civil rights, all of that goes back and forth between tow parties.

The danger that people are concerned over are the complete lack of safety and discretion (Remember Benghaz! But please don't pay attention to my unsecured galaxy 3, or make comments about how sensitive info is being discussed at my country club) in his administration on display, the fact that he admitted to sexual assault on camera, the fact that racists and Nazis think hes a ok, the fact that he refuses to show there are no conflicts in interest with Russia, the fact that he's thinks Putin is just swell, the fact that he has EFFING BANNON AS AN ADVISOR, the fact that he's got his people making up fake terror attacks, which he does as well, and blames and undermines any media critical if him, and doesn't show any restraint on twitter, where he's posted mysonginistic things about women? Those are all verifiable non-politics as usual actions, Rob. Those aren't what I'd say are good signs of things to come.

But all the straight, white, middle class men and women who won't be affected by his policies keep yelling that it's gonna be okay. You're right, for you, it's gonna be fine. You have all of your rights secured.

Now how on Earth can I respond to that? Yes, I'm a straight, white, middle class man. Does that invalidate everything I just said? I'd rather leave the demographics out of this, because we all have our right to an opinion here.

If I spent the time, I could go through Reagan's, Bush 41's, Clinton's, Bush 43's, and Obama's cabinet picks, gaffes, lies, speeches, people who support/oppose them, etc. And guess what I'm going to find?

The exact same thing we are discussing now. This is the point that several others are trying to make. We've seen this song and dance before. We're going to find questionable people, actions, and decisions on all of our leaders and our perception is that it caused some giant horrible reaction, yet if you go into the future will people remember it?

When, in any if those presidencies, dis you see a president appoint self proclaimed racists to their cabinet? Bannon doesn't hide what he is. When did any of those president's refuse to turn over their tax returns, that could potentially show conflicts if interest? Never. When did those president's come into office and say what you saw with your own eyes was wrong? Find examples.

And you can refuse to talk about demographics, the reality is that when you get into the politics side of it, all of those things people are scared of like defunding programs they're using yo survive, ease of getting into the country, or who they can marry are simply things you already have the right to do, unquestionably, that could change for immigrants, people of color, or LGBTQ individuals. You have your rights. So telling everyone they have no reason to worry, it's gonna be okay? It's Like being white and telling someone of color they don't have the right to feel they way they do if you've never experienced racism. It's like telling a woman they shouldn't be concerned about sexism. IU ts like telling a gay couple that they shouldn't worry about marriage equality.

If you haven't been a victim of discrimination and your rights aren't being threatened, it's not cool to keep saying "it's not that bad, it's gonna be fine". It just isn't.

Okay, let's break this down. Let's start on gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in the US for almost two years.

My questions to you.

-Who said it was Legal?
-What can Trump do to make it illegal?

I legitimately want to have an intelligent debate on this. My perception is that you have a legitimate fear that the progress made over the last 10 years will be erased. I'm convinced that while discrimination exists, that we will not see a step backwards in the legalization of gay marriage.

This isn't a 'trust me, everything's cool'. I have my own legitimate concerns about our future as a country. But gay marriage is one I don't have a concern about. Not because I'm straight, but because we have progressed as a whole that we recognize that love shouldn't be legislated based on religious values.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

If I spent the time, I could go through Reagan's, Bush 41's, Clinton's, Bush 43's, and Obama's cabinet picks, gaffes, lies, speeches, people who support/oppose them, etc. And guess what I'm going to find?

The exact same thing we are discussing now. This is the point that several others are trying to make. We've seen this song and dance before.

It sure doesn't seem like we have. I'll copypasta my list here, and I would ask you to please point out other administrations who have said or done all of the things below. I'm sure you can find several who have done some of them. I'm sure you can find one or two that have done most of them. But can you find one that has done all of them? And if so, did they do all of these things in their first 100 days?

• Colluding with a hostile nation to win the election (Yeah, I know, but if the IRS scandal is tagged to Obama with smoke but no fire...).
• Appointing family members to his administration.
• Appointing a white nationalist and propaganda publisher as his adviser. And then later to the NSC (by accident).
• Having vast and completely unprecedented conflicts of interest, going so far as to essentially funnel tax money into his hotel(s) and resort.
• Using his first press conference to basically have an administrative temper tantrum about the size of his, err... inauguration crowd. And flat-out lying in the process.
• Having his counselor justify their compulsive, pathological lying by coining the term "alternative facts".
• Labeling news agencies that report negative things about the administration as "fake news". Immediately before taking a question from Breitbart...
• Threatening to limit access of news agencies that report things the administration doesn't like.
• Fabricating a terrorist attack to justify banning a religious group.
• Fabricating a vast voter fraud conspiracy with absolutely no evidence, in an election he won.
• Telling judges that any forthcoming terrorist attack will be blood on their hands, simply because those judges understand the Establishment Clause.

Gay marriage isn't likely to be rescinded. Not abortion rights. But they've already rolled back protections on trans students at schools. Did you know about that? Also, there was an issue where Betsy DeVos refused to sign off on Jeff Sessions order reversing Obama administration guidance On trans students bathroom rights. She wanted language in there protecting them from being bullied. Sessions refused. Regardless.ofnwhere you stand on the bathroom issue, noones should be bullied. So that's a start. Not giving basic human rights is scary.

Just like how so many states allow someone to be fired for being gay. Do you see that getting better under the current admin, when even the last one didn't make it better?

On top.if all if that, I have to think that people in the past who ended up in countries where rights were taken away sat around and said "nah. Can't happen here."

I will never say our goverment can't do this or that. Thousands of years if history beg to differ.