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

Tekwardo said:

You assume a lot...

I don't think that's quite the right word for what I'm doing, but I get what you mean. Yes, I'm talking a lot about things that haven't happened yet. I'm being quite presumptuous. But no more so than anyone looking at a situation and discussing what they believe it will lead to.

And I love accountability (which no one seems to conisider anymore), so PLEASE bookmark this somewhere and check back from time to time to compare that post (and the greater thread) with the reality of the situation as it plays out. It should be fun. We have widely varying opinions being shared here.

Do you two think Bannon is a good or bad thing?

I think the whole administration is a mess.

Well, the whole administration being a mess is something we can agree on.

It's that this particular administration being a mess beyond and above any other administration in the history of the country is where we part ways. I don't want to wake up and learn that Donald Trump has bombed another country in a fit of pique.

Vater said:

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.

While not a defense of those actions, I think it should be pointed out that what you list here is either not unprecedented or not something Obama did/started. Gun walking, prisoner exchanges, political power plays, etc., are, for better or worse, something that we're accustomed to to some degree.

What I think freaks people out about Trump are all the things he's done already that are (EDIT: I should say "seem" instead of "are") unprecedented:

• 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.

I could go on. I am admittedly in my "left" bubble over here, so I am perfectly willing to accept that other administrations have done a few of the things on this list. Or even that some of those things have reasonable explanations that I just don't get from inside my bubble. Hell, maybe Obama did a few of these things too. But can anyone point to another single administration doing all of the above? And if so, did they do it all in ~3 weeks? That is not a loaded question. If this really is the norm and I'm just ignorant to it, I would actually feel a hell of a lot better.

And maybe Gonch is right, and none of this stuff really has any import over the long term. I hope that's the case. But to point to the response to this administration and basically laugh it off as a comical overreaction to the same old, same old seems pretty dismissive.

Maybe some of us are in right/left bubbles. But I feel like others are stuck in their own bubbles. Namely, their Overton bubbles.

I don't believe that Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway has said anything by mistake. Every *lie* (untruth, distortion, Alt-Fact, whatever) they've told is designed to accomplish one goal: To make the American people feel less safe. Nobody gives up their liberties faster than someone who feels their safety is jeopardized.

And the Russian scandal is ONLY going to get bigger and deeper...it's a sinkhole.

Does that Overton thing work with husbands? If so, let me know right away because someone here is operating with hopes and expectations that are way too high.

You know how the tide turned in the Super Bowl after Atlanta went up 28-3 and the rest of the game just seemed different?

Brandon's post is that moment in this thread. :)

I want to give you a like, but I just can't because you're now the Tom Brady of this thread. And nobody likes Tom Brady.

Great points and presented in a very fair manner.

But while all of that stuff is either questionable activity or bat**** crazy, is it really doing anything.

I like the sentiment of this Politico article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/president-trump-has-...ing-214775

Because I think most of what you posted falls into this idea. And someone can come along and bullet point your bullet points and explain in great detail why it's the end of the world as we know it, but I don't think it is.

Is it ideal? Oh, hell naw!

Is it moving the Overton Bubble (a term I was unfamiliar with and would have simply described as 'normalizing certain behaviors')? Maybe? Probably? Sort of? But isn't that what all politicians try to do to a small degree?

While not a defense of those actions, I think it should be pointed out that what you list here is either not unprecedented or not something Obama did/started. Gun walking, prisoner exchanges, political power plays, etc., are, for better or worse, something that we're accustomed to to some degree.

All acceptable because someone along the way moved the bubble.

So Trump doing things that could move the bubble is scary. I can see that. It's exactly why Bernie was so scary to me. But if no one moves the bubble, then there's no real change and it doesn't matter who gets the fancy title and serves as figurehead...and I get slammed every time I suggest that as truth. But it's also one reason I'm not afraid of Trump - we don't like to move the bubble too far...if at all.

I still have faith in the system, I guess. (sort of ironic in the end given all of our stances) I just think the people and processes are in place to stop him from really doing anything goofy. He can talk all he wants - and he does. Every single bullet point on your list is either loud words or ****ty staff choices (with the sole exception of the conflict of interest thing). He's done nothing. The system keeps him in check...even with party control of congress. It'll be even better come midterms in 2018.

In his first month he's essentially Brick from Anchorman:

The amazing part to me is that everyone (on both sides) is buying into it...and at that point I refer back to my Trey Parker video from a few pages back.

I don't really have much beyond that to add and I'm officially getting into 'just repeating myself' territory so I'm just going to copy and paste the last four paragraphs of the article I linked to so anyone not clicking through can read the summary - and it says what I've been trying to say way better than I have the ability to:

And yet, words are not the same as actions. Trump can issue as many documents called executive orders and presidential memoranda as he wants. As the fate of the travel ban shows, however, that doesn’t mean that even the more meaningful ones are actionable, and the preponderance of the orders to date would in any other administration have been news releases stating broad policy goals that may or may not ever become actual policy.

But too many of us take these words as action. That confirms both the worst fears of what the Trump administration is and the greatest hopes of what Trump wants it to be: a White House that shoots first and asks question later, a White House of action and change that shakes the status quo to the core and charts a new path for America and Americans. To date, this White House has broken every convention and rule of tone and attitude, toward Washington and toward the truth. But in reality, it has done far less than most people think.

In the time ahead, as Congress turns to actual legislation and the White House presumably does normal things like propose a budget and specify its legislative ideas, there will be real actions for us to probe and debate. Distinguishing between words and action is essential: When senators say silly things about legislation, we know to separate those public statements from votes takes and laws passed. When leaders of other countries speak aggressively, we do not immediately act as if war is imminent; if that were the case, we’d have invaded Iran and North Korea years ago. Words should be taken as possible indicators of future action, but not as absolutes and not always.

Trump poses a challenge to decades of tradition and precedent. He is masterful as conflating words and actions in a way that enrages and alarms his opponents and exhilarates and excites his supporters. It’s more important than ever to distinguish what is from what isn’t. Understanding the difference between what this president says and what he does is one of the only things that will keep our public debate from plunging ever deeper into the hall of mirrors.

I don't believe that it's not really "doing anything." I mean, Obama didn't really do anything, but he literally didn't do anything. I'm less worried about Trump and more concerned at the way his rhetoric and stupidity seems to have emboldened all of the assholes of the world that had been largely marginalized for being on the wrong side of history (the racists and such). It's less the bright center of stupidity and more about the halo of stupidity.

So Gonch, is there any way to actually have a meaningful discussion about whether a sitting president is actually a threat? If I understand you correctly, because the reactions are to the same extreme on both sides (possibly crying wolf), there's no real way of telling whether there's an actual wolf.

And if that's the case, isn't that more scary than whichever party won limited power for some finite term?

(The more I think about it, the less I even know what I mean by "a threat." Nixon managed to f' all sorts of beliefs about our country, both inside and out. Was the damage irreparable? Did it send us on a distinctly different trajectory? Are we worse off 40 years later for it?)

ApolloAndy said:

So Gonch, is there any way to actually have a meaningful discussion about whether a sitting president is actually a threat?

I suppose if you surround yourself with people able to discuss objectively. And that doesn't seem impossible. Hell, I think we do pretty good around here for the most part. (high five!)

If I understand you correctly, because the reactions are to the same extreme on both sides (possibly crying wolf), there's no real way of telling whether there's an actual wolf.

Mmmmm. Maaaaybe. No. I dunno. I don't think it's impossible to spot the wolf. But I think there's a noise level or floor you have to be able to rise above. So many people are just caught up in that noise.

(The more I think about it, the less I even know what I mean by "a threat." Nixon managed to f' all sorts of beliefs about our country, both inside and out. Was the damage irreparable? Did it send us on a distinctly different trajectory? Are we worse off 40 years later for it?)

Exactly.

And I'll go a step further. I believe that even if the wolf makes it to the White House that it's still likely not an issue (I guess that's what you're questioning there) because we have all of the necessary precautions in place - even if that wolf surrounds himself with the rest of the pack.

I'll go even further and say Trump might even be the little ****ty chihuahua nipping at everything. You put your finger in there, you're getting bit. But it's not a wolf and it's still bound by all of the same safety measures a wolf would be. At that point the chihuahua is all but harmless unless you're looking for trouble.

How does one know if what one is hearing is noise or actual wolf identification?

Depends on where it's coming from. That's on the listener.

I can't tell you what art is, but you know it when you see it.

Like porn!

Digression:

Mildly NSFW.

Yes, how wretched a President is is typically in the eye (and ear) of the beholder...

...but I think that Mr Trump is quantifiably unqualified and quantifiably dangerous. The checks and balances built into our system of government weren't designed for someone like him in mind.

After the first court ruling knocking down Trump's ban on innocent people entering the country, the White House was directing authorities to ignore the ruling, for example.

I figured you guys would like this. ;)

Why Liberals Are Wrong About Trump

Lord Gonchar said:

Depends on where it's coming from. That's on the listener.

I can't tell you what art is, but you know it when you see it.

Wait, really? There's no objective, non-partisan way to measure if someone is tanking the economy or engaging in conflicts of interest or violating the constitution?

That seems way scarier than any person in the White House for 4/8 years.

There should be in the form of the news media, but unfortunately, they seem more concerned with ratings. I applaud the anchors of major news networks calling out the administration on its issues, but they've spent so much time over the years with clear biases one way or the other that it's hard to take most of them seriously anymore.

That said, when Fox News calls out a conservative administration, it's time to pay attention. ;)

The biggest fault of the press is honestly that they didn't call out the bull**** during 18 months of campaigning. Reporting "so and so said this" is not reporting unless you validate the claim, which they refused to do. Instead they would just report the opposition's response, which amounts to gossip reporting. Amanpour has been calling for "truthful, not neutral" for much of this time, but the call largely fell on deaf ears.

I think it's telling when John McCain starts publicly worrying about a dictatorship. From someone in his own party.

There's no objective, non-partisan way to measure if someone is tanking the economy or engaging in conflicts of interest or violating the constitution?

The US economy is a very complicated animal which is influenced by a great number of ever changing factors both domestically and internationally. As such its often extremely difficult (if not impossible) to determine what/who caused any given change in the economy (in either direction). Different people will have different views on the given factors and their respective influences. Because of that subjectivity, we run the risk of biases influences the views (people who like a given policy will tend to give it credit for positive economic results and discount its effects on negative ones and vice versa for those policies they dislike).

There are also a number of ways to measure the strength/health of an economy. Which one should be considered?

US President has much less influence on the US economy than general public gives him (and even less credit than US Presidents take). In large part its because basic economics understanding in the US is worse than horrible. And politicians have taken credit (and assigned blame on the other side) for pretty much everything under the sun. We talk in terms of the Obama economy. Bush economy. Clinton economy. As if there is an economy dial in the Oval Office allowing the president to dial up any given level of growth or decline as the daily whim of the sitting President desires. Not true literally or figuratively.

Conflicts of interest are often not black/white either. I have always been a strong supporter of disclosure. Give people full info and let them make their own decisions. In terms of conflicts, Trump has been significantly worse than abysmal. And because of the economy issues noted above, there is a significant risk that given action is taken for the stated reason of creating jobs (or some other societal benefit) but in reality benefits the Trump business empire (with very little ability but determine whether the societal benefit would have occurred on its own anyway. I am not expecting a lot of help here from Congress as they have their own undisclosed conflicts. Trump just has those on steroids.

Historically, something less than 50% of US Supreme Court decisions are unanimous. Something in the nature of 15-20% are 5-4 decisions. I don't see determining constitutionality as objective (at least not in many cases). In large part because we are applying the word in a relatively short document written 200+ years ago to modern life which could have in very few ways been contemplated by the Framers. Take the travel case. A district court in Massachusetts ruled it was constitutional before the courts in Washington and California ruled it unconstitutional. Is there an objectively right answer? In some cases no doubt there is an objective answer one way or the other. Tough though to draw that line and different people will have different views as to where it should be drawn.

At least part of the reaction in DC to Trump (you can argue how big a part) is Trump is a threat to the status quo of politics (and those who make a living from politics such as the media). The noise of politics has grown from my perspective from the early 90s and the Clinton years. Big ramp up then and it has continued to get worse with each president since. And over that time, the differences between what repubs and dems actually get done has shrunk dramatically with the result being their isn't effectively much of a difference (beyond the rhetoric/noise). That reality is in large part why I think Trump won.

Dems don't lose when repubs win elections. Repubs don't lose when dems win elections. They only both lose when neither dems nor repubs win elections. Trump is neither a repub nor a dem. He has an R next to his name but that is just a party label. He is a total outsider with no political experience (its what the country voted for as we had multiple people on either side with tons of political experience--several of whom have spent pretty much their entire adult lives in government). He ran a campaign that scores of pundits thought was horrible and destined for failure. But he won. That all is very much a threat to the status quo. On what basis is it clear that folks complaining the loudest are not doing to out of their own personal interests rather than the sanctity of the Republic?

And if Trump is a wolf (whether he needs to do anything actually showing he is or if just the threat is sufficient), what do we do about it? I don't think he will resign. He appears to be in good health. Should he be impeached? If so, on what grounds?