Fair analogy, but not entirely accurate. Chess has always had rigidly defined rules, but other games/sports, along with politics, have changing and evolving rules. Even with a set of rules written down, such as the Code of Hammurabi, The Torah, Bible, or Constitution, they are constantly reinterpreted, and things that seemed inviolate can become normalized.
Nixon damaged the Presidency in ways that still ripple today. Trump has damaged it too, but hopefully to such an absurd degree the pendulum will swing back.
Perhaps it is lost on me, but in what way would you say that Nixon changed the rules? Nixon clearly didn't play by them or perhaps even acknowledge that they applied to him. Nixon ignored the rules and paid a steep price for it. That's not rewriting the rules but simply displaying an ignorance and/or arrogance as to their applicability to the position. To me, Nixon is a study in what can happen when you run afoul of rules.
Trump doesn't play by many rules either and his base gives him a pass on this under the most flimsiest of guisies: "We need to let Trump be Trump". I don't think it is this so much that the "genius" Trump just doesn't want to play by any rules because he can't comprehend them or even want to. Too much effort and energy. Rules are for "losers". He isn't interested in knowing how Government is actually set up to function. He wants to simply dictate from on-high what should happen and have everyone else do his bidding in a Constitutionality-be-damned approach as long as he gets the results he's expecting in the moment. If it doesn't turn out as expected... well then of course it's someone else's fault (Democrats, Deep State, Clinton... whatever). He often creates chaos because chaos is the only thing he can create in this scenario. Anything else... is a happy accident.
Sorry, you don't get to make that judgement. "Everything matters". If nothing mattered this thread would have died out long ago.
Trump doesn't get to rewrite the book on how a presidency is conducted. Just like I don't get to make up new rules for chess and expect everyone to play the game a different way based on my new rules. He's an outlier... a cosmic event like a meteor strike. His time will pass and (with it all the mass confusion and mismanagement) to eventually be replaced by a competent president (Republican or Democrat). He effectively tapped into the resentments of Republicans but it's pretty clear to anyone with eyes and a pulse that he isn't the man to lead his own base. He isn't the one to execute on those resentments -or- for that matter on most of the promises that he made.
Fair analogy, but not entirely accurate. Chess has always had rigidly defined rules, but other games/sports, along with politics, have changing and evolving rules. Even with a set of rules written down, such as the Code of Hammurabi, The Torah, Bible, or Constitution, they are constantly reinterpreted, and things that seemed inviolate can become normalized.
Nixon damaged the Presidency in ways that still ripple today. Trump has damaged it too, but hopefully to such an absurd degree the pendulum will swing back.
You're both wrong. Has nothing to do with Benghazi. We're light years past that.
Its just that we have reached the point that it doesn't matter anymore. Everything is what it is now. Live with it.
Sorry, you don't get to make that judgement. "Everything matters". If nothing mattered this thread would have died out long ago.
Trump doesn't get to rewrite the book on how a presidency is conducted. Just like I don't get to make up new rules for chess and expect everyone to play the game a different way based on my new rules. He's an outlier... a cosmic event like a meteor strike. His time will pass (and with it all the mass confusion and mismanagement) to eventually be replaced by a competent president (Republican or Democrat). He effectively tapped into the resentments of Republicans but it's pretty clear to anyone with eyes and a pulse that he isn't the man to lead his own base. He isn't the one to execute on those resentments -or- for that matter on most of the promises that he made.
I think that just means that there's no rational, thoughtful, explanation of how he's behaving as President. It's impossible to defend him against all the things that he's done, trying to frame him as a proper American President.
Negatives thus far off the top of my head: Didn't release taxes Sons et al engaging with Russia for election Ruining relationships with other nations Golfing incessantly at Mar a Lago - with its associated costs to the taxpayer The association/hiring of incompetent staff The lack of hiring into governmental positions, leaving large numbers of them unfilled Inarticulate, contradictory public speaking The tweeting No wall, in any form Tax reform that's clearly skewed to help himself, his family, and his associates His truncated work schedule at the White House No improvement of the nation's healthcare system, and a bit of worsening it
On the plus side: There's that stock market Shows the nation how important it is to pay attention to politics Gave the "non-elites" a chance to put a guy just like them into office for a change Maintaining the pressure on Hillary!
Precisely; there is no defending such a piece of human garbage. A piece of human garbage with serious mental issues and access to the nuclear codes.
The point is that logic and reason have totally left the building in all things regarding Trump. The Marquess of Queensberry has also left the building. No holds are barred. He is no longer considered a person. He has become an object of which everyone is blaming him for everything that is wrong. Deserved and undeserved. We have reached the peak of dysfunction as a country.
I just happened to watch SNL last night for the first time this season. I have never felt so old and irrelevant as I did last night. Who and what the hell is Troye Sivan ? But there were some real pearls of wisdom shared last night in the true old original SNL way.
.
"The point is that logic and reason have totally left the building in all things regarding Trump."
It's all Trump's fault! Seriously, though: Trump invites and deserves a great deal of the criticism leveled at him. At this point, I believe that Trump is shifting his position on an issue from one week to the next, sometimes even one day to the next.
It's possible that Trump is easily distracted and persuaded by sources like Fox and Friends. It's also possible that Trump is deliberately testing differing positions on a subject to test public reaction and to appeal to his base by providing them with conflict and drama reminiscent of reality TV shows like "The Apprentice."
Dave Leonhardt of the New York Times recently pointed his readers again to an op-ed written by Italian journalist Luigi Zingales who drew parallels between the ways that Trump and former Italian Prime Minister (and billionaire) Silvio Berlusconi handled their opposition: The Right Way to Resist Trump
Mr. Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition. It was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different.
We saw this dynamic during the presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton was so focused on explaining how bad Mr. Trump was that she too often didn’t promote her own ideas, to make the positive case for voting for her. The news media was so intent on ridiculing Mr. Trump’s behavior that it ended up providing him with free advertising.
"Democrats fare best when they fight Trump on policy grounds that can win over swing voters. That ground tends to be economic. Trump favors government cuts and corporate deregulation that would hurt many Americans. He has also failed to deliver on his promises to bring back factory jobs. “If you are a Democrat, and you are not talking about this every day,” Ronald Klain, the longtime Democratic operative, wrote, referring to Trump’s broken promises to Carrier workers in Indiana, “you are not using the most effective argument we have.” "
Pundits offered the same advice about Sarah Palin when she was still a political force: stop attacking the person's behavior and personality because doing so just earns that person sympathy from supporters. Trump and Palin became voices of the people, speaking truth against corrupt political elites, after those personal attacks. Force the person to talk in detail about policies, especially economic ones that will affect the average family.
Trump's supporters don't care whether he changes his mind on a policy matter from one day to the next. They're looking for him to be blunt, abrasive and confrontational. Trump's opponents have to stop questioning Trump's sanity, diligence and statements. They have to force him to offer detailed policies and explanations—something that he didn't do during health care reform or tax reform.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 21, 2018 - 12:00pm
Steely_D wrote:
I think that just means that there's no rational, thoughtful, explanation of how he's behaving as President. It's impossible to defend him against all the things that he's done, trying to frame him as a proper American President.
Negatives thus far off the top of my head: Didn't release taxes Sons et al engaging with Russia for election Ruining relationships with other nations Golfing incessantly at Mar a Lago - with its associated costs to the taxpayer The association/hiring of incompetent staff The lack of hiring into governmental positions, leaving large numbers of them unfilled Inarticulate, contradictory public speaking The tweeting No wall, in any form Tax reform that's clearly skewed to help himself, his family, and his associates His truncated work schedule at the White House No improvement of the nation's healthcare system, and a bit of worsening it
On the plus side: There's that stock market Shows the nation how important it is to pay attention to politics Gave the "non-elites" a chance to put a guy just like them into office for a change Maintaining the pressure on Hillary!
Three major negatives, ones likely to impact the nation adversely for years after Trump has exited: attacks on the FBI and the intelligence community in general attacks on the media — Fake News refrain fueling the Deep State paranoia — those working in the government, like those in the media, are enemies of the people
You're both wrong. Has nothing to do with Benghazi. We're light years past that.
Its just that we have reached the point that it doesn't matter anymore. Everything is what it is now. Live with it.
I think that just means that there's no rational, thoughtful, explanation of how he's behaving as President. It's impossible to defend him against all the things that he's done, trying to frame him as a proper American President.
Negatives thus far off the top of my head: Didn't release taxes Sons et al engaging with Russia for election Ruining relationships with other nations Golfing incessantly at Mar a Lago - with its associated costs to the taxpayer The association/hiring of incompetent staff The lack of hiring into governmental positions, leaving large numbers of them unfilled Inarticulate, contradictory public speaking The tweeting No wall, in any form Tax reform that's clearly skewed to help himself, his family, and his associates His truncated work schedule at the White House No improvement of the nation's healthcare system, and a bit of worsening it
On the plus side: There's that stock market Shows the nation how important it is to pay attention to politics Gave the "non-elites" a chance to put a guy just like them into office for a change Maintaining the pressure on Hillary!
The point is that logic and reason have totally left the building in all things regarding Trump. The Marquess of Queensberry has also left the building. No holds are barred. He is no longer considered a person. He has become an object of which everyone is blaming him for everything that is wrong. Deserved and undeserved. We have reached the peak of dysfunction as a country.
I just happened to watch SNL last night for the first time this season. I have never felt so old and irrelevant as I did last night. Who and what the hell is Troye Sivan ? But there were some real pearls of wisdom shared last night in the true old original SNL way.
Screening tests like these cannot rule out declines in reasoning or memory, or difficulties with planning or judgment. The test is just too blunt an instrument, and for many high-functioning people, too easy.
... “If you are a Harvard professor, you could have a lot of decline before it starts to show up in cognitive tests,” said Dr. Eric Siemers, who until recently headed the development of Alzheimer’s drugs at Eli Lilly.
Clearly Trump is neither a high functioning individual nor a Harvard professor. He's a blunt instrument. So the results say that he is still a blunt instrument, with early onset Alzheimer's if I read everything and everybody correctly. And he is obese with heart disease according to CNN's esteemed Dr. Gupta, who has examined Trump's test results. Time for the 25th Amendment. Chop, chop !!
Drat, we can't use the 25th because the government is shut down. Maybe Trump isn't as stupid as he looks after all, cuz the way things are going, the government will be shut down every three or four weeks, forever ... Kim is already warming up his missiles cuz the USA is closed and Hawaii ain't on his list. Clearly the best target would be the Yellowstone Caldera. Extinction event with one poorly aimed missile. Direct hit unnecessary. Close would work there just fine.
ymwv ... Sweet dreams ... and Trump is still fat and demented, right ? or is that Kim ? Who cares anymore anyway because ...
An OT I know administers this test to determine if someone would be safe living home alone, not to determine his/her soundness of judgment in leading a country.
Screening tests like these cannot rule out declines in reasoning or memory, or difficulties with planning or judgment. The test is just too blunt an instrument, and for many high-functioning people, too easy.
“You wouldn’t make a diagnosis in either direction based on a screening exam,” said Dr. Ronald Petersen, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. (He emphasized that he was speaking in general terms, not specifically about President Trump’s case.)
...
But shouldn’t a perfect score be reassuring?
Maybe. But the test is not that difficult, and the problem with a single test is that the doctor doesn’t know what the subject’s starting point was. Usually it’s the trend over time that suggests a problem.
“If you are a Harvard professor, you could have a lot of decline before it starts to show up in cognitive tests,” said Dr. Eric Siemers, who until recently headed the development of Alzheimer’s drugs at Eli Lilly.
An OT I know administers this test to determine if someone would be safe living home alone, not to determine his/her soundness of judgment in leading a country.
It really was. I'm glad I took the time to read it. My biggest take-away was the suggestions of how to move forward after this and the compromises that might actually work. Being neither Rep nor Dem, I've always been frustrated by the endless tug-of-war and congressional blocks....and hoped for some sort of moderate political trend in my lifetime (you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm definitely not the only one), and had hoped even more that this current administration would wake people up to make it happen. This statement in the article seemed to affirm my belief/hope:
Perhaps the very darkness of the Trump experience can summon the nation to its senses and jolt Americans to a new politics of commonality, a new politics in which the Trump experience is remembered as the end of something bad, and not the beginning of something worse.
The pendulum will always swing, but over the last few decades it feels like it is being pushed farther and farther to each extreme. Obama felt like a little bit of moderation to me, but to the hardcore conservatives he appeared to be a giant shove. I wonder how much of that was his race, and If he would have been more welcomed by the right as a white guy (or even a woman?). But then he would probably not have been as celebrated by the left (which would probably help acceptance by the right).
I used to think there was about 70% in the middle that basically agreed, but were colored by the fact that they had to pick a side with the 15% of radicals on the left and right. I now think my numbers were wrong, it appears that there are about 30-35% on either side that are 'unswayable'. So that means that there are probably only 30-40% of people in the middle who basically agree. That means that the majority of people refuse to even agree on basic facts, or what constitutes a good source of information. That also means there aren't enough of us truly in the middle left to forge a compromise. So stability comes from the powerful hold of a few who are benefited by the status quo.
Are we doomed? Probably too soon to tell. We probably won't know until it's too late. If people knew when the revolutions were going to start, they would probably take steps to avert them. It's on the horizon though. I don't think we have another century on this trajectory. But hey, I'm just on the edge over here looking in. But I'm ready to cast off and go do my thing somewhere else at any moment. IN a way I'm like the trumpers - I don't think this system is working very well. But I think it's fixable if the people get involved and are honest about what is needed and what they want instead of just burning it all down.
I don't usually have much use for Frum but that was pretty good.
It really was. I'm glad I took the time to read it. My biggest take-away was the suggestions of how to move forward after this and the compromises that might actually work. Being neither Rep nor Dem, I've always been frustrated by the endless tug-of-war and congressional blocks....and hoped for some sort of moderate political trend in my lifetime (you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm definitely not the only one), and had hoped even more that this current administration would wake people up to make it happen. This statement in the article seemed to affirm my belief/hope:
Perhaps the very darkness of the Trump experience can summon the nation to its senses and jolt Americans to a new politics of commonality, a new politics in which the Trump experience is remembered as the end of something bad, and not the beginning of something worse.
There were a couple of valid points in this piece which is in support of his new book, but they get muddied with his overall bias and sales pitch for his book.
If you are neither a repub or a conservative and you seek insight into either and Trump supporters, Frum is not a good source. He is Canadian, a Bush lapdog, neoconservative and never Trumper.
He serves on the board of directors ... of the anti-drug policy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana amongst others.
Beware of any analysis that says Trump supporters are acting out of fear. That couldn't be farther from the truth. It is rooted in anger and frustration with the status quo. Those who use fear as their primary explanation are projecting their own fear onto this group. A suggestion for interpreting these projections would be to substitute fed up every time you see the word fear used to describe Trump supporters.
If you want to be right, how about trying being right for the right reasons. But this only applies to those seeking to understand. If you hate Trump and want him gone no matter what, then never mind.
