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

I do think it's important to note how this Administration is viewed by the prior GOP officeholder. If it really was "business as usual" - then I'd expect Bush to suggest as much. He's doing pretty much the exact opposite.

P.S. Reports from WH Staff indicate that Bush's statements are driving Bannon to distraction (and likely, even heavier drinking than is his custom).

Meh. The Republican establishment has never liked Trump. It's not that it's not "business as usual," but rather that it's that it's not "Republican business as usual" that's the issue.

Same reason the DNC pushed Bernie out.

I'm still waiting on the Women's and LGBT rights evidence that Trump has taken them away. If you're going to cite defunding of planned parenthood, I have this to say. First, my own mother said, "Well, the government has no right to tell me what to do with my body. (referring to the government deciding if she can have an abortion)". This I agree with. However, they do have the right NOT to pay for it. Want it done? Pay for it or get it covered by insurance is my view. My POV really is, if you don't want children, don't have unprotected sex to begin with, then you don't have to worry about paying for an abortion.

So, it's the same-old same-old in terms of how we should react to this "so-called presidency" - but it's completely different because they're "draining the swamp" to bring in bigger alligators....hmmm.

As far as "paying for abortion" - the Hyde Amendment went into effect in 1976....so, 40 years without taxpayers putting money toward abortion services....and counting.

djDaemon said:

You can beat the "Trump is no different, therefore the reaction to him is just as unjustified"

Pro tip: When you use quotes, you're implying that I said that. This is not my argument. No where have I said that the reaction to Trump is unjustified. What I'm saying is the reaction we are seeing is nothing new.

Because I can't find anything to back up the claim that Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton = etc

And you won't find anything saying Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton = etc. Just like we as enthusiasts can't find something that says CP = SFMM = Carowinds = SFGAdv, yet they all have pretty darn close experiences to each other.

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

Well I've been arguing the reactions. Not the actions of what Trump and the cabinet is doing. I think you are trying to be in the business of being right.

We obviously misunderstand each other. I'm not disqualifying the claims of what Trump and his cabinet are doing. I see them, too. Some of them are pretty terrible, I also saw my friends and media on the right make crazy claims about Obama and his cabinet and how unprecedented their actions were. Same with Bush, same with Clinton. And as the granularity of information becomes more available the higher the level of scrutiny we are going to see (hence your list).

Even if I did create a list, would it change your mind? Most likely not.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:
No where have I said that the reaction to Trump is unjustified. What I'm saying is the reaction we are seeing is nothing new.

If it's not new, but is justified, then why even argue about it? Do you see why people think you're drawing up an equivalency argument?

Do you think the criticisms against past administrations were unjustified then?

Well, actually... to my knowledge, President Trump hasn't done anything that is new. He has delivered executive orders and he has repealed prior legislation. He has assigned his cabinet and he has nominated supreme court justices. So have other presidents before him. What's different (not new) is the who and what of those actions. Offering an executive order to protect transgender students in schools was unprecedented when Obama did it. Offering an executive order to reverse it was unprecedented when Trump did it. And where Trump has tried to deliver executive orders and appoint people where he isn't allowed... the system stopped him...eventually.

I get that people are scared. And when people are scared they tend to reach for the familiar. No one is going to find that in Trump's administration. Fortunately, a lot of what Obama did in office was unprecedented, too. It was just more in line with the belief systems of many here. And therein lies the point that I think folks are trying to make. That President after President after President have used the means given to them by the position to conduct the role they were elected into. No different. But some Presidents are agreed with by some and some are disagreed with by others... and that pendulum often swings in cycles.

I completely understand disagreeing (adamantly even) with President Trump's positions and actions. But I keep coming back to the fact that worrying about them and spreading fear about them and framing the future in terms of ruins or other extreme ways and especially in labeling those who disagree with you is not helping (and I'm not accusing anyone...I'm generalizing to make a point.) It actually just creates more fear.

So it's not different, but different? Y'all keep losing me when you suggest that intent doesn't matter.

I'm 75% sure that the checks and balances of our Constitution mitigate the risk, but I'm not going to sit here and believe that the inability to pass toxic legislation precludes a person in that position to cause extraordinary harm by his words alone. Trump did not invent hate, but he has empowered those who practice it by fanning flames that we've been trying to extinguish our entire history. Whether it's toppled headstones or shooting Indian immigrants, I'm not OK with it.

If you don't believe there is a connection, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I'm not going to standby and ignore it. If it's dramatic to you, so be it. I'll speak up, keep calling my congresscritters, donate to advocacy agencies, whatever it takes.

You keep losing me when you can't separate action with anger and fear. I said two pages ago the best course of action is to get into action. But no. I don't agree with all of the extreme emotion. It doesn't do anyone any good. And that kind of reacting from all sides leads to the affect you speak about. We, the people, will cause our demise long before our leadership does.

You want to call it apathy. I call it emotional intelligence. We can disagree.

Emotional intelligence, in the classic psychology context is barely a thing because it's impossible to measure and no studies have successfully proven any correlation between whatever it's supposed to be, and leadership or the ability to obtain it. History in fact argues that it's the extreme emotions that motivate the actions of people in negative (racism) and positive (civil rights advocates) situations.

Maybe it's ironic, but anti-Trump fear and anger is borne out of love for women, minorities, immigrants and anyone marginalized by his rhetoric. Fear is a useful tool to obtain power, but also useful to motivate resistance. It's not going to change any minds, and in a case where there is a very clear morally correct outcome (not hating on people affected by the "-isms"), I honestly don't care. If standing for something that comes from fear and anger makes me emotionally unintelligent, so be it. We'll have to disagree.

Carrie J. said:
...to my knowledge, President Trump hasn't done anything that is new. He has delivered executive orders and he has repealed prior legislation. He has assigned his cabinet and he has nominated supreme court justices. So have other presidents before him.

Well, yes, but...

Was I a fan of Reagan, or either Presidents Bush? No. But when they signed an executive order, they were aware of what they were signing. They had experience in government.

We have, in Trump, someone who signs EOs, unaware of what he's signing; someone who has put an avowed Leninist in charge of the government; someone who lies like most people breathe -- constantly; I could go on, at length.

That Trump is exercising the powers of the presidency is indeed not unprecedented. It's the man in the office, and the man that tells him what to do, that's unprecedented.

slithernoggin said:

... It's the man in the office, and the man that tells him what to do, that's unprecedented.

NPR Thought Cheney was Unprecedented

Salon Said Cheney Took Control of Bush's Foreign Policy

Fox News Claimed Bush had to Take Back Power From Cheney ;)

My point that I've been trying to make, that others have tried to make is that we've seen this before. Whether its accusing a President of being like Hitler, or that the president has had control over him by someone else in office. The level of precedence isn't really relevant. Furthermore, there are protections in place for private citizens' rights' to be protected.

So now I went out of my way to cite facts... Is it really going to change your opinion?

We can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that. But if you make accusations like 'Worst President we've ever had' or 'I'm concerned that the progress we've made so far is going to be erased' understand that there are others out there who simply don't think the same way as you do. Hell, we don't even agree which coaster or park is the best.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

Well I've been arguing the reactions. Not the actions of what Trump and the cabinet is doing.

OK, so your argument is simply that people reacted negatively to previous administrations just as they are to this administration. Cool, I completely agree.

Carrie J. said:

Well, actually... to my knowledge, President Trump hasn't done anything that is new.

Which previous administrations fabricated several terrorist attacks in an effort to further their agenda? Which previous administrations threatened to ban journalists for reporting negative (though factual) things about the administration? Which previous administrations employed (and later appointed to the NSC) a propaganda journalist? Which previous administrations colluded with a hostile foreign entity to win the election?

As I've said, I am sure there are examples of previous administrations doing one or two of the above, but all of the above (and more)? It feels unprecedented.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:
....that others have tried to make is that we've seen this before.

I think where I'm not seeing eye to eye with you fine folks is that you seem to be saying Presidential transitions have happened repeatedly, and the persons involved are, to a degree, irrelevant. The process works regardless of the individuals.

And I'm looking at a man who clearly has no interest in the actual work of being President, and the man in charge, with a declared intent regarding the federal government, (respectively, Trump and Bannon) and I see a situation unlike any we've seen before.

Look, I won't lie. I despise Cheney. But unlike Trump and Bannon, he had experience in government. If I need to have renovation work done on my house, I'll hire the contractor with a proven record, even if I don't care for the contractor personally, and not the manager of the local Accenture office who has no relevant experience.

We have Bannon, with no legal experience and no governmental experience, setting policy for the country, writing executive orders, guiding the President ... hopefully he'll act responsibly, but, given his stated opinions about the government, you'll forgive me for having doubts.

And I think this situation is, indeed, unprecedented.

But if you make accusations like 'Worst President we've ever had' or 'I'm concerned that the progress we've made so far is going to be erased' understand that there are others out there who simply don't think the same way as you do.

I don't believe I've made any such accusations. Trump isn't a good President, but time will tell if he is a worse President than, say, Nixon. I'm not so much concerned that progress made so far will be erased (for the record, though, the Trump administration has already been busy doing so) as I am that Bannon will manipulate the powers of Trump's office in ways dangerous to America.

Of course I understand that there others out there who aren't right, er, who don't think the same way I do :-)

rollergator said:

As far as "paying for abortion" - the Hyde Amendment went into effect in 1976....so, 40 years without taxpayers putting money toward abortion services....and counting.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fac...ment-money

This article disagrees

extremecoasterdad said:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fac...ment-money

This article disagrees

From the article (emphasis mine):

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for "medically necessary" abortions. In those cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone.

These cases seem to fit what you consider to be appropriate justification for abortion:

extremecoasterdad said:

My POV really is, if you don't want children, don't have unprotected sex to begin with, then you don't have to worry about paying for an abortion.

People who were raped, molested, or who have a medical need for an abortion aren't people who made poor decisions.

djDaemon said:

OK, so your argument is simply that people reacted negatively to previous administrations just as they are to this administration. Cool, I completely agree.

I would like to point out that this is the comment I initially made that got me dragged into the whole conversation.

I think that at this point we all agree on this.

Where we seem to disagree is whether it's a justified reaction or the same back and forth where those who tend to lean towards the side out of the office hate what the side in the office does...often to a hypocritical state.

And here's why this conversation has - and will - keep going in circles in perpetuity:

Both sides seem to think their view is justified while the other is being totally unreasonable. In the 9 pages of conversation since I made that comment all we've done is try to prove it to each other.

The cycle continues...

Yeah, but this is different.

Prove it.