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

No. Not even close. And this is exactly where this coversation keeps going off the rails.

I'm comparing my reaction to Bernie to your reaction to Trump. They are the same. One is not more important than the other and we're doing the exact same thing in response to something that goes against what we believe or how we think things should be done.

So you're just talking about the reactions, without any context about what the reactions are to. Got it. That's totally worth arguing about.

Because the context of the reactions are the same - to those reacting.

You're not "more right" in your reaction because it's in response to something you feel strongly about or interpret in a certain way than someone else who sees things differently.

You keep trying to say it's different because of what you're reacting to. It's not.

Yes....

.... I see what you're saying. People on both sides react with outrage / scorn / calls to action / what have you when presented with actions of political leaders or candidates on the opposite side.

But....

.... Saying both sides react in the same way while ignoring what they're reacting to ... well, I lose you there. Donald Trump is not a typical President. He's out of his depth, he's reckless, he feels the powers of the Presidency "cannot be questioned" ... he scares me.

slithernoggin said:

... he scares me.

But he doesn't scare me and I'm hardly alone...and I'm not even a supporter.

Bernie Sanders scared me. He probably didn't scare you.

Yet we both made/make similar noise of outrage over what they say and do. And we both feel honestly and strongly enough to make that noise. That's what we do; oppose things we don't like. I maintain that it just seems different because your in it - you feel that way. This is bad. You know it. It's different. Totally different than when they were being unreasonable in their dislike for Obama...or Bush...or Clinton...or Sanders or whoever, right?

But it's not. It's exactly the same. They felt just like you do.

But at this point we're so far from the original post I made that it's a hilariously CoasterBuzzian conversation...and I need to circle back for a second:

Jeff said:

So you're just talking about the reactions, without any context about what the reactions are to. Got it. That's totally worth arguing about.

But you're the one that brought it here. Go back and look at the series of posts you jumped in on:

RCMAC mentioned the "Not My Hall Of Presidents" shirt. (A play on the "Not My President" Trump thing)

Shades said, "Must have been a republican. They did that "Not My President" crap first with Obama."

Raven-Phile posts a pic of NOFX with the dude wearing a "Not My President" shirt with Swastika-head Bush pointing out it happened even before.

I say, "It's all cyclical. We keep going back and forth like this." (and I suspect if the internet and especially social media were more prevalent much earlier, that we'd easily find the same being done towards Bill Clinton, but I digress...)

Then you swoop in...almost walking directly into the stereotypical reaction we're pointing out.

It was just a offhand observation. Look how we just keep doing the same crap back and forth at each other. But...

Two full pages with the holier than thou, learn your history, don't be so apathetic, this is different tirade...over my summing up the three posts that preceeded mine. If I hadn't made that post would you still have jumped in with the same thoughts towards Raven-Phile or Shades pointing out that their "Not My President" examples had no politcal or moral equivalency because it's different this time?

Seriously. In context, those three guys made those posts and I said verbatim:

"It's all cyclical. Everyone just switches sides and blames each other for what they just did."

I'm gonna recap again for effect (paraphrasing):

The "Not My President" thing is brought up indirectly. (referencing the left using the phrase in regards to Trump)
Shades says, "But the right did it first with Obama."
Josh says, "Oh did they?" And posts an example of it happening from the left even before with Bush.
I'm in with, "It's all cyclical. Everyone just switches sides and blames each other for what they just did."

Then you jump on the moral equivalency gas pedal and floor it for two pages questioning everything from my familiarity with history books to my level of apathy in an attempt to...what? Disprove my comment that we keep going back and forth doing the same things over and over? Even though it's clearly spelled out by three different posts before mine and all I did was jump in with the lazy summary as an excuse to post the Trey Parker clip I like?

I dunno. I enjoy the back and forth as much as anyone. But man, you jumped all over that and then somehow got to pointing out that it wasn't worth it to argue about. And, oddly enough, that's where I finally take offense. Don't try to pin your argument on me - I'm a fragile little snowflake.

You're right. 100%. It's not worth arguing about, but that's on you.

I just can't bring myself to agree that Donald Trump is the same type of President as, well, anyone that preceded him in the office.

I was no fan of Reagan, but I could go to sleep at night knowing he wasn't going to blow up the world; he understood his responsibilities. (And, oh, for the days when a President Reagan and a Speaker O'Neill could get together at the White House and work out a compromise to present to Congress over drinks.)

But Trump: he's dangerous. If you would like me to provide examples, I'm happy to do so. In short, though, a capricious President with no apparent understanding of the details of his job leaves me scared in a way that Bush or Reagan did not.

Saying that the reactions of either side to the serving President means that there is no difference between one side or the other, with no acknowledgement of the Presidents involved, is like saying that watching Meryl Streep as Julia Child in the good half of the movie 'Julie and Julia'* plunge her hand into a pot of boiling water and plunging my own hand into a pot of boiling water are the same thing since the reaction in either case is 'OUCH'.

Okay, I'll stop now.

* It would have been a much better movie if it had only been about Julia Child. Unlike the book, which is a great read, the Julie part of the movie was a dull portrait of a self-involved special snowflake.

slithernoggin said:

.... Saying both sides react in the same way while ignoring what they're reacting to ... well, I lose you there. Donald Trump is not a typical President. He's out of his depth, he's reckless, he feels the powers of the Presidency "cannot be questioned" ... he scares me.

That seems to be the intention of those "puppeting" Trump. I would be shocked if this continues for two more years without either a resignation, an impeachment, or a *severe* curtailing of civil liberties in the name of security.

Lord Gonchar said:
Then you jump on the moral equivalency gas pedal and floor it for two pages questioning everything from my familiarity with history books to my level of apathy in an attempt to...what?

You keep insisting "it's the same thing," and I'm explaining (or many of us are), with supporting evidence and context, why it's not. This part isn't that complicated.

Folks, Gonch is only saying that it's the same thing in terms of the reaction to the sitting president. He's not implying that Trump's actions are similar to those of the previous two presidents.

If anything, though, that's what so disappointing about society. I see it every day on Facebook. My liberal friends share posts from Occupy Democrats and my conservative ones post things from Positively Republican. Those two pages exist solely for the purpose of making their respective party seem infallible. Guess what? The Democratic Party tampered with the primary process by rigging it in favor of their chosen candidate and the Republicans, well, they elected Trump.

I think it's fine for us to fall on different sides of issues, but we, as a country, have managed to take things a step further and treat those on the opposing side of whatever argument as our enemies. This election is the perfect summation of that. Trump is to the Republicans what Sanders is to the Democrats: the far extreme of the party beliefs. This time, the Democrats lost. Who is to say what will happen with the next round?

My point is that what Gonch is talking about, in my opinion, is very much worth discussing: the embellishment and absurd reactions we seem to have to people who don't share our views. Our pointless exaggeration of just about everything is actually pretty harmful in the long run, and I only pray that both sides learn to come up with some decent candidates the next time around.

sirloindude said:
He's not implying that Trump's actions are similar to those of the previous two presidents.

And that's where I'm having a problem. Trump's actions are not similar to any previous President, leave aside the past two Presidents. Donald Trump is a President who believes he can demand that the Armed Forces commit illegal acts. Donald Trump is a President who believes that his actions cannot be questioned.

To suggest that reactions should be should be considered with no consideration of the person in the highest office in the land ... I can't go there.

And I would argue Obama was just as, if not more, dangerous than Trump. But you and others would argue that I'm wrong.

Gonch is right...same s***, different four years.

Oh, I agree that Trump's actions aren't similar to those of any other president. I'm a conservative and his actions during the campaign drove me to vote third-party during the election. You don't have to convince me that he's unqualified.

My point is that these reactions have been going on so long when they really shouldn't have (there's disagreeing with someone and then there's making that person out to be Satan just because they have a different take on things) that it makes it hard to take people seriously when they say, "But this time it's for real!" It may be that real this time, but so many of those reactions were wasted on both sides that it's hard to take it seriously when it's finally justified.

I'm not saying to withhold outrage over Trump and to avoid calling him on his mistakes. I certainly didn't vote for him. What I AM saying is that we need to stop making the other side out to be the enemy, because that's part of what got Trump elected in the first place.

How was Obama more dangerous than Trump? I keep coming back to this country having a history of Presidents who had, at least, a basic understanding of their duties as President, and Donald Trump, who does not. That's what makes me nervous.

sirloindude said:

Trump is to the Republicans what Sanders is to the Democrats: the far extreme of the party beliefs.

Total false equivalency. Bernie is a (relatively) principled leftist and self-described socialist. He pretty squarely represents the leftist wing of the Democratic party, with which he caucused even when he wasn't actually a Democrat.

Trump does neatly fit ideologically into the extreme right / conservative wing of the Republican party. Trump is, in many ways, a fundamentally different political creature who pretty freely seems driven primarily by

• Authoritarianism / facism
• Deregulation in the name of helping corporations
• Promotion of himself with disregard for process, procedure, precedent, ideology, logic, facts, or principles

Of course, you'll find elements of all of this across the GOP but Trump has synthesized it in a pretty unique way. It's unprecedented.

But that's nothing like what Bernie did. Bernie took pretty standard leftist talking points (lowering costs of education, single payer healthcare, getting money out of politics, environmental causes, social justice causes) and amplified them through a lot of smart strategy and tactics, but it's not as if he wasn't toeing a pretty standard Democrat line. Characterizing of Trump as a logical political figure of the traditional extreme right of the GOP just doesn't fit.

Yeah I don't get how Obama was more dangerous. The fact that after 8 years and there were no major crises, would seem to contradict that. It's one thing to not lije what a politician stands for, but us the country worse off now that Obama was president? Bush 2 wasn't that great of a president IMO, but the same could be said if him. And that's discount the economic issues that are mostly blamed on his administration.

That Trump has a top advisor that is a self described Lenonist helping him shape policy, as someone who factually has shown he has a problem with people who are if another color terrified me. All if his political promises do not.

And the fact that he thinks Putin is so great? And that it's coming out that some of his top security officials had tire to Russia make it harder to believe he doesn't.

Those two things aren't Politics as usual. They aren't a left or right issue. They're very precarious situations. Anyone that feels apathetic or accepting of Bannon? I question their morals.

Anyone that feels apathetic about Russia? I'd say go live there for a minute where freedom of religion, speech, and press are stifled.

As far as checks and balances? Thus far I've seen the courts be a check and balance, but just barely.

So I say let's see how it goes. Then if it all comes out okay, fine, chalke it up to partisan butthurt.

And if it doesn't? Honestly I don't want to have to tell anyone "I told you so" because at that point we're all likely screwed.

Tekwardo said:

chalke it up to partisan butthurt.

Tekwardo said:

So I say let's see how it goes. Then if it all comes out okay, fine, chalke it up to partisan butthurt.

Yeah, that's been my Facebook mantra since November, "We'll see." Every time someone says the sky is falling I suggest we check back in a year or two...or four. Luckily, I'm the master of the Gonchback - they even named it after me. ;)

But this conversation has shown me that's probably not good enough. Nothing will be. (and even that is part of the cyclical nature of this game we play)

In two years when we start to overcorrect this and give the Dems back the congress and they start blocking everything Trump does, it won't be the same awfulness the GOP did to Obama because this is different.

And when Trump leaves the White House and nothing changed, it still won't be the same because this was different.

The same way doing the exact same things you condemned the other side for doing the past 8 years is okay...because this is different. Totally not the same. I'm cereal, you guys. I'm super cereal.

When the DNC gets the White House in 2020 (or 2024 - anything is possible), it will all go back to how it was from 2008-2016 because the teams have switched sides and now it's suddenly not different anymore. But if anyone expresses their fears or wants to fight the established leaders, they will be accused of being unreasonable. (Comparing the feels towards Trump and the feels towards Bernie was already victim of this in this very discussion)

#notmypresdient will go back to being a dirty word.

And it goes both ways. Executive orders will revert back to being evil on the GOP side. They will demand the president be impeached over the silliest things. Flipflopping on issues will again beone of the worst things a leader can do.

#notmypresident will be a rallying cry of true patriots.

And so on and so forth.

But, by all means, don't stop the music. Keep dancing, keep dancing! We're all so good at it.

You assume a lot, and Vater just completely dodges the question entirely.

I agree with the left vs right. I really, really do. But let's assume for a second (since you assume it'll swing back) that the president and several of his cabinet picks are compromised and/or at the least susceptible To Russian blackmail. If that assumption, and not yours, turns out to be correct, then what? What if damages done are real, actual damages, and not the damages we see on TV that affect everyone else but us.

I can't think of a president that was linked to actually, possibly, seriously being involved with a potential hostile government, ever. That's what's different to me. And that he put such a dangerous man in Bannon as an advisor. Do you two think Bannon is a good or bad thing?

What Tek said. Three weeks into the Obama administration ... or the Bush administration ... or the Clinton administration .... or any administration, we weren't learning that the administration in power had been canoodling with the Russian government for over a year. We weren't learning that the President in power was blithely displaying national security materials to anyone in a restaurant with a smart phone.

Tekwardo said:

Yeah I don't get how Obama was more dangerous.

Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservatives, premature withdraw of troops from the Middle-East resulting in accelerated rise of ISIS, release of terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for known Army deserter (some of those released were linked to the deaths of Americans overseas)...etc.

And besides the scandals (not a smidgen of corruption), I think Obama and the left in general were and are the biggest threats to America. The new liberal is the old progressive, wanting government's hand in absolutely everything. Jeff said before that he finds my view an ideological extreme that isn't practical, and in a sense I kind of agree. Where I disagree is that my political views are damn near verbatim what's found in the constitution, with very few exceptions. But I'm also realistic enough to know that my so-called ideology will never, ever, neverneverevernever become reality, whereas I could see the US eventually devolve into a full-on socialist State. Hell, the framers predicted as much when they ratified the constitution, and we're getting closer to that by the day. But what I would like to see is to TRY, for frick's sake, to loosen up on the regulation, bureaucracy, and waste within the federal government. Even just a little? And give power back to the states where it rightfully (and constitutionally) belongs. But any of that rarely, if ever, happens. I don't expect it to happen now, either; Republican control of all three branches likely means jack, because the majorities in both parties are proponents of big government. More accurately, they're proponents of staying in power.

Yeah, Trump is in over his head, inexperienced, unqualified, has surrounded himself with highly questionable staff, etc. I get it. I voted for him, but only because I couldn't deal with what would essentially have been a third Obama term, or worse. Maybe Trump will prove to be more dangerous, but he's only been in office for 3 weeks (cue the cries of all the horrible, fascist, racist, oppressive things he's done so far, while very little, if anything, has actually been done...never mind, slither already beat me to it).

Vater just completely dodges the question entirely.

I'm at work and only had time to respond to one thing while I was in a meeting earlier, so I obviously chose to address the more important one first.