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

Jeff said:

Out of 231 million eligible voters. Almost half stayed home. That feels like a whole lot of silence and apathy to me. Yes, it's been lower, but that's still pretty sad.

I don't think that is sad. The choices were remarkably terrible.

I think its sad that the democrats actually thought they could ignore the YUGE Bernie movement. I didn't vote and I wouldn't vote for Hillary today even. The DNC really pissed off a good section of people with the whole Bernie thing. One friend was so upset she actually voted for Trump just so Hillary wouldn't win. I didn't go that far, but none of my friends who were Bernie supports then voted for Hillary.

One female friend actually thought the "grab em" comment was funny. I was baffled.

Gator, can I assume that the Democratic Party leadership doing everything in their power to ensure that Hillary got the nomination (borderline, if not fully, rigging the electoral process), essentially committing an offense against the US electoral process of a magnitude that, in my opinion, is far more worrisome than that of what the Russians did, was not a deal-breaker for you the way it was for so many on the right?

I have to say, I had hoped that after putting up with eight years of shenanigans from the right, I had hoped the left would be more gracious in defeat, but I'm so disappointed to find that that wasn't the case.

I would clarify first that I am a registered Republican, but I did not vote for Trump in the primary or general election. I went third-party. Why? Because I actually agree with a lot of the criticism from the left about Trump being woefully unfit for the office he now occupies, but I also couldn't in good conscience support Hillary, with her party's leadership tampering with the election in their own way and also on some moral issues that are just as serious to me as those of Trump. I know the candidate I voted for would likely not have made a good president due to a glaring lack of experience, but at least I could respect the man for who he was.

However, a point is reached, with alarming regularity, where I can no longer agree with a lot of my left-leaning friends, and I'm seeing it in this thread, too. Here are the arguments that irritate me:

1) Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist/mysoginist, or is at least okay with such things. This only works if Hillary is a pillar of moral excellence, and she isn't. I know a lot of people who marched to the polls on Election Day, frustrated that their attempts during the primary to thwart Donald getting the nomination were unsuccessful. However, they believed that despite his flaws, he would nominate good, upstanding men and women to cabinet posts, and they would have a good influence on him and steer the country in the right direction.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen, but I don't fault people for having malfunctioning crystal balls. Anyway, to make the claims above about them and their morals is highly offensive to me, because it is blatantly ignorant. The comments Donald made upset a lot of people who wound up voting for him as much as it did those who didn't, but clearly, those who make such claims have no desire to actually take a minute to actually understand and get to know the people who voted for Trump. Are we going to really sit here and claim that Vater is some closet racist? Rob? Certainly not! They've been here forever and I would like to think we know them well enough to know they're good people. I'd also like to think that countless others who voted for Trump aren't okay with plenty of the things that he's said or done. However, they're also able to make the distinction that just about every one of us has said or done things that were reprehensible. I'm not condoning his actions any more than I would condone my own, but what it comes down to is policy, and plenty of people in the middle or on the right don't much care for some of the policy the left would like to implement, and that drove them to vote for Trump.

2) Anyone who voted for Trump is okay with Russia tampering with an election. To this I say, the Democrats were tampering with the election in their own way and Russia caught them. I'm not at all okay with Russia getting involved, but I take serious issue with a party doing everything it can to rig part of the electoral process, and I don't think they have any right to cry foul over who exposed them. If they wanted to avoid Russia's interference, they should have owned up to their own mistakes as soon as they made them or better yet, they just shouldn't have rigged the process. Again, I'm not okay with it, but both sides made mistakes, so don't call one out without acknowledging the other.

3) Republicans were vicious in their attacks against us for the last eight years, so we're going to justifiably give it back to them. I don't have much to say about this except that by doing to Republicans what they did to you, you're forfeiting your opportunity to take the moral high ground. It's also this mentality that causes people to dig in their heels, and all it does is perpetuate the mentality that we're enemies of each other instead of two sides of the same coin. The differences between Republicans and Democrats should be embraced, but few people seem to see it that way.

I say these things not to attribute the negativity solely to Democrats, though, because let's face it: Trump is our president. That material writes itself, though. This is where the right needs to hold its leadership accountable, because the extreme portions of the right could damage this country severely.

If ever there was a chance for a third party to gain real traction, 2016 was it. That it didn't happen has to be very comforting to the dem and repub parties.

djDaemon said:

But have we seen a situation as extreme as this before? That's what I keep coming back to.

Until someone can point to a historical example of this happening before, any suggestion that the checks and balances will make everything OK - and thus make any reaction to Trump a silly, partisan overreaction - is at least somewhat presumptuous.

But so far no one has been willing or able to provide examples of why any reaction to Trump is an overreaction.

Because it hasn't happened before...but that doesn't mean anything.

Side tangent:

There's this thing about discussing/debating/arguing with Buzzers where intangible things MUST be defended with numbers or facts or data. (and yes, given the subject at hand, I understand how insane this sounds, but stick with me....)

Sometimes you just have to look at situation and make a call. I'd hate to be married to some of you guys (feeling is mutual, right?) because making a decision or assessing a situation just HAS to be excruciating.

"Let's look at the numbers, run statistical analysis, adjust for irrelevance, compare to previous similar situations, create a trendline..."

For ****'s sake. I get that data is a tool. It attempts to quantify. Analyzing past experience can create understanding for future events. But sometimes that's not the best approach - or even an available one. Intuition, a more vague "understanding" of things, excercising judgement skills - these are thing I tend to rely on much more often. So I find the opposite approach a bit frustrating at times.

No. This situation has never been exactly like this before. So what? How do you handle any new situation? Curl up in a ball and cry if there's nothing to dircetly compare it to? And even still, with things as complex as the government, world affairs, national affairs, the presidency and such, would a similar example really offer comfort? I don't think it would. There's no guarantee all the chips fall into the same places. There's no guarantee they don't. And it's irrelevant anyway because the comparison can't be made.

So what's the answer? To asses the situation and make an educated guess. That's what we're doing. We can't provide examples because - as you have pointed out - there's no precedent to compare it to. So you look at all the pieces and try to see how it goes together. This is life. The intangible that makes everything so awesome and great. Some are good at it (that person that always seems to be lucky or in the right place at the right time) and some suck miserably (that sad sack that can never seem to catch a break). It's the ability that some people seem to have that makes you trust their opinion or the ability that some lack where you find yourself always thinking they're full of ****. It's ok if there's no direct comparison or numbers or data to quantify a situation. Nate Silver can go to hell.

We can't cite a historical example because - again, as you yourself point out - it's doesn't exist, yet you demand one as proof or validation:

All I (and presumably the others) can offer you is personal insight. Personal opinion. Our completely human assessment of the situation. Looking at everything before me, I see no reason to fear. I have no degree or officially appointed expertise or previous experiences or data sets. I can only use tools like my life experience, intelligence and common sense.

The deeper beauty is that this all exists in shades of grey. Our opinions and conclusions likely do too and the final results likely don't fit totally into either of ours outcome range - which is to say that's it's most likely that when this is all said and done no one is really "right" or "wrong" - I mean what does it take for you to say, "See, this happened. We were right to be worried!" and does it fall outside of my comfort range? And vice versa.

It's complex. That's why we can continue to discuss this ad nauseum and really get nowhere. But no one is going to be able to give you examples and/or data that doesn't exist.

Jeff said:

Out of 231 million eligible voters. Almost half stayed home. That feels like a whole lot of silence and apathy to me.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...and perhaps, in a certain kind of way, a louder one than those that dutifully marched to the polls and continued to play into the crap they're fed.

Jeff said:

Is racism and misogyny right?

Nope, and still all the way on page 13, no one has said or even suggested it is. Where we differ is the ability to separate the person from the job. There are lots of ****ty people in the world doing important things.

If I'm in an accident and the only one that can save me is a known child molester, I'm hoping that person puts their disgusting, kiddy diddling, SVU, dun DUNNNN, hands all over me and brings me back from the light.

Jeff said:

Carrie J. said:
It seems that you're more interested in making people wrong than in helping them see what you think is right. How's that been working out for ya?

Is racism and misogyny right? Do I have to make that wrong, or is it, in fact, wrong?

:-) Has anyone seen my point? Jeff missed it completely and now it seems to be running amok. :-) Making people wrong and making behavior wrong are in fact two very different things. And it seems the lines have gotten quite blurred in these conversations. To illustrate my meaning, I have a story that I hope to keep brief.

I attended a workshop a couple of years ago that focused on making a difference in your life and in the world. And during it, the instructor spoke about being a part of a PSA initiative that had the purpose of ending child domestic violence. Really noble, right? And the video clip focused in on a child that was crying and then panned out and had a voice over that spoke to all the ways people could get help if they were abusing children, etc and was really well done. And when it aired not a single person called the hotline. Not one. And this group was baffled. But fortunately for them, they didn't fixate on judging people and assuming that people who abuse children are evil and wrong and therefore don't want help and so there's nothing that can be done. They hit the drawing board again and changed the PSA. It started the same way as the first with the child crying, but then it switched to a scene involving massive chaos in a household...the parents are trying to get dinner on, the pot on the stove is boiling over, the phone is ringing, the dogs are barking, the family is all over the kitchen and the child is screaming for attention and then the voice over came on and spoke to the idea if anyone has ever experienced that kind of frustration that there is help available, etc. And the phones rang off the hook. It was a huge success. People were getting the help they needed because this group didn't make them wrong.

You can choose to think that's all crap. I get it. But right, wrong, or otherwise, declaring people as such has never inspired anyone to act or think differently than they do today. You can bathe in your own self-righteousness or you can meet people where they are and show them a new way.

djDaemon said:

But I would love to be wrong, which is why I keep asking the "eh, no biggie" crowd for examples of this happening before. I want to feel better about this whole thing. But so far no one has been willing or able to provide examples of why any reaction to Trump is an overreaction.

I honestly don't know if there are any examples from the past and even if there were, that they would help you to feel better. In a 13 page thread, often all of expressed opinions start to run together, but I'm not really of the mind that this is business as usual like some others. I'm just of the mind that worrying about it is futile. And I find comfort in knowing that the system up to this point has been working to protect us the way it's designed to do.

Beyond those two things, I just love that folks are finally speaking about what motivated them to vote or not the way they did. My sense is that the opposition to Trump has been so strong and so emotionally charged, that most of the folks who voted for him have been staying quiet for fear of being lumped into a characterization. But when we lift the judgment for even a second, it gives people room to talk about what really was the thinking behind their vote/non-vote. And that's where change and advancement begins.

Lord Gonchar said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...and perhaps, in a certain kind of way, a louder one than those that dutifully marched to the polls and continued to play into the crap they're fed.

This all day.

In the end, if you really think and believe that everything is terrible now that Trump is president, that this is totally new, unprecedented and easily have the sources and friends who confirm it, you might want to diversify your friends and sources.

Eight years ago, my friends and media I followed on the far right were doing the same thing some of you are doing now.

And guess what they are doing now?

Just about the same thing some of you did over the last 8 years.

It's all nothing new. That's the circle of life... or politics.

Carry on.

But how do we know it's nothing new. What if it is something new? How would we tell the difference? Is it something we can only see in hindsight, standing in the ruins?

Lord Gonchar said:

Nate Silver can go to hell.

Don't get me wrong, I know science has a limit, but "gut feeling" isn't going to stop the ice caps from melting. There are some things which are strictly black and white, strictly right and wrong (accuracy wise, not morally).

ApolloAndy said:

Don't get me wrong, I know science has a limit, but "gut feeling" isn't going to stop the ice caps from melting. There are some things which are strictly black and white, strictly right and wrong (accuracy wise, not morally).

I'm not sure what the means because I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite, actually.

A better analogy would have been that we don't need numbers or data to see the ice caps are melting. If you can cite them, fine, but without the availability of those things we can still see it...and it's no less true because we don't use a number or statistic to show it.

I suppose I was reacting more to the logical (or illogical) extension that many take your argument to: "Data is 'confusing' (i.e. I don't like what the experts say), so I just ignore it."

Lord Gonchar said:

We can't provide examples because - as you have pointed out - there's no precedent to compare it to.

...

All I (and presumably the others) can offer you is personal insight. Personal opinion. Our completely human assessment of the situation. Looking at everything before me, I see no reason to fear. I have no degree or officially appointed expertise or previous experiences or data sets. I can only use tools like my life experience, intelligence and common sense.

So what this distills down to (through my admittedly cynical and unfairly-reductive filter) is basically "the objective view is not as important as my subjective view". Which seems to be a pretty accurate description of a "bubble".

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

In the end, if you really think and believe that everything is terrible now that Trump is president, that this is totally new, unprecedented and easily have the sources and friends who confirm it, you might want to diversify your friends and sources.

You can beat the "Trump is no different, therefore the reaction to him is just as unjustified" drum all you want, but until you can point to previous administrations acting in similar ways to this administration, your argument rings completely hollow.

There was a nice piece at TPM a week or so ago. The gist: the people at the top of the administration, with their hands on the 'levers of power', Steve Bannon and Steven Miller*, are people with stated goals of tearing down the government. Can our system, our checks and balances, survive such a situation? His conclusion, most likely, but it's still unusual.

For example: Bannon and Miller have stocked the Cabinet with people having no experience relevant to their position, and who are often deeply opposed to the very missions of their departments.

The White House has nearly 500 empty positions that require Senate approval (under secretaries, deputy staff, etc) that it is not moving on; so far, they're content to leave those positions empty indefinitely.

They're creating a Cabinet filled with inexperienced folks, with no immediate support at the senior staff level. That worries me.

*Not including the President here is deliberate.

But how do we know it's nothing new. What if it is something new? How would we tell the difference? Is it something we can only see in hindsight, standing in the ruins?

The country elected a president who had not held any prior elected office position. First since Eisenhower. Only a handful of others in the country's history. And at this point, there is much more of an established political machine (with many people in politics having been there for their entire adult lives) than there was 50, 100 or 150 years ago. As such, of course there are things that are new with this administration (to a lesser degree there are things new with every administration).

But I think the more important question is whether the newness is new in a bad and meaningful way. At one point, everything was new. Some of it good. Some of it bad. Most of it a mix of the two. Typically, whether newness is good or bad takes time to determine (what sounds good on paper often is the opposite in action and vice versa) and is in the eyes of the beholder. And the law of unintended consequences is a big issue (especially in politics).

In terms of the federal government, two of the three branches are slow to act (by design). Those are the two branches that serve as the governmental checks and balances against the president. Trump saw that with the 9th Circuit and the travel ban. Decision was released when the court was ready not when Trump wanted a decision (and not the decision he wanted to boot). Trump stepped in front of the 535 cats of Congress for the first time last night. Lets see how that goes. Though we already know he faces a lot of opposition. From both sides of the aisle. And unlike Trump TV, he cannot fire Congress.

djDaemon said:

You can beat the "Trump is no different, therefore the reaction to him is just as unjustified" drum all you want, but until you can point to previous administrations acting in similar ways to this administration, your argument rings completely hollow.

You have a remarkable ability to cite all these different sources to back up your claim. Why don't you look at other sources that oppose your claims for a change?

I've already told you, I'm not wasting my time to come up with 'facts.' I'm not going to search through Facebook from eight years ago and I don't have the GonchBack abilities. The only memorable analogy is rollergator invoking Bannon's name. Guess what? The right leaning news invoked Timothy Gietner's name in the same fashion eight years ago.

The examples could go on and on. It goes along with my message of diversifying your sources.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

Why don't you look at other sources that oppose your claims for a change?

Because I can't find anything to back up the claim that Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton = etc. That could be a result of being in my bubble, which is why I'm asking those making the claim (you, in this case) to talk me off the ledge by providing examples. I'm not trying to be argumentative for argumentativeness' sake. I am looking for perspective.

I've already told you, I'm not wasting my time to come up with 'facts.'

Right. You're certain of your conclusion, and you're willing to argue in favor of your conclusion, but you're unwilling to back up your conclusion with anything more than "because I say so". That's not very conducive to a constructive conversation.

I'm not going to search through Facebook from eight years ago and I don't have the GonchBack abilities.

I'm not looking for examples of people's reactions to Obama/Bush/Clinton/etc. I grant that those reactions existed. I'm looking for examples of previous administrations acting similarly to the Trump administration. Because those examples would demonstrate your claim, which seems to be that the reaction to Trump is unwarranted.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

...I don't have the GonchBack abilities.

Only Gonch has Gonchback abilities :-)

The right leaning news invoked Timothy Gietner's name in the same fashion eight years ago.

I'm afraid I can't buy into the idea that Gietner, a, well, Wall Street hack and Bannon, an avowed Leninist, are equivalent.

sirloindude said:

Gator, can I assume that the Democratic Party leadership doing everything in their power to ensure that Hillary got the nomination (borderline, if not fully, rigging the electoral process), essentially committing an offense against the US electoral process of a magnitude that, in my opinion, is far more worrisome than that of what the Russians did, was not a deal-breaker for you the way it was for so many on the right?

• Worrisome? Yes, definitely. I remain a Berner despite having voted HRC. Far more worrisome than the Russians? Not in my book - esp. considering the investigation being opened into the Brexit vote, and the known influence on behalf of Marie Le Pen in France. Our intelligence agencies are concerned about the Russians having too many eyes and ears in this Administration, and I agree with them...

I have to say, I had hoped that after putting up with eight years of shenanigans from the right, I had hoped the left would be more gracious in defeat, but I'm so disappointed to find that that wasn't the case.

• "Gracious in defeat?" -Not exactly sure what that means, but if it means standing by and watching Rome burn, then no.

However, a point is reached, with alarming regularity, where I can no longer agree with a lot of my left-leaning friends, and I'm seeing it in this thread, too. Here are the arguments that irritate me:

1) Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist/mysoginist, or is at least okay with such things. This only works if Hillary is a pillar of moral excellence, and she isn't.

• "Pillar of moral excellence?" The Pope already has a job, AFAIK. She certainly isn't anything NEAR what 30 years of GOP investigations have purported to show. The course we were on seemed extremely secure compared to the daily chaos going on now.

2) Anyone who voted for Trump is okay with Russia tampering with an election. To this I say, the Democrats were tampering with the election in their own way and Russia caught them. I'm not at all okay with Russia getting involved, but I take serious issue with a party doing everything it can to rig part of the electoral process, and I don't think they have any right to cry foul over who exposed them. If they wanted to avoid Russia's interference, they should have owned up to their own mistakes as soon as they made them or better yet, they just shouldn't have rigged the process. Again, I'm not okay with it, but both sides made mistakes, so don't call one out without acknowledging the other.

• Said before, I'm not OK with what happened in the Dem primaries. But don't call them "equivalent" - they're not.

3) Republicans were vicious in their attacks against us for the last eight years, so we're going to justifiably give it back to them. I don't have much to say about this except that by doing to Republicans what they did to you, you're forfeiting your opportunity to take the moral high ground. It's also this mentality that causes people to dig in their heels, and all it does is perpetuate the mentality that we're enemies of each other instead of two sides of the same coin. The differences between Republicans and Democrats should be embraced, but few people seem to see it that way.

• I don't believe in "the opportunity to take the moral high ground" - not when the opposition is doing everything in its power to do away with democratic (lower case 'd') principles. See: The NC governor and legislature fiasco.

I say these things not to attribute the negativity solely to Democrats, though, because let's face it: Trump is our president. That material writes itself, though. This is where the right needs to hold its leadership accountable, because the extreme portions of the right could damage this country severely.

• By all accounts, the "extreme portions of the right" are the ones with Trump's ear....Bannon is being ID'd by some within the White House as "RPOTUS."

djDaemon said:

So what this distills down to (through my admittedly cynical and unfairly-reductive filter) is basically "the objective view is not as important as my subjective view". Which seems to be a pretty accurate description of a "bubble".

No, I don't think so. The objective view (as you expect it) doesn't exist. The best we have is the subjective view...and just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's wrong.

And I'm owning up to the fact that it's a subjective view. Those claiming Big Bad Things™ are also offering a subjective view. (or existing in a similar bubble, if we must) We all are. Which, I guess, is what I was getting at with the shades of grey stuff near the end of that reply.