.
All apologies for selecting a "Letter On Donald Trump" from a Denizen whose worldview is similar to my own. I did feel though that Rick had a measured and nutrient-dense mini-essay, one which raises concrete points that can easily be commented by either side.
.
Trump's form is ugly as ugly, but I'm fine with the results.
A friend recently asked me why I support Trump, when Mike Pence stands ready to step in, someone more inclined to see things the way I do. One reason is that while I think his form is atrocious and not my preferable way, it's his way. He needs to do what he thinks is necessary, within the law, to achieve his objectives. If he has to tweet to get health care passed, or get the press to put the focus where he thinks it should be, so be it. He always does what he thinks he has to do, to get things built, or promote himself for ratings or whatever. Will it work as President? Is it "Presidential?" I never cared whether Obama was being presidential or not. According to some, he was the most Presidential President the world had ever seen. That and a terrible Iran deal will buy you a cup of coffee and a $400k speech nobody will long remember, I suppose.
So, I try to overlook form and focus on substance - the bottom line. In that regard, I have very little objection to Trump's actual performance. But you gotta follow the law. Unfortunately, these days what passes for "law" is how an obscure judge feels about it. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will help to fix that.
....
Nobody gets everything he wants, but I'm basically ok with what we're getting:
I might wish he could be as smooth as Barack Obama, or Mike Pence for that matter, but I don't care what elites in foreign capitals think about us. I always wondered why the guy played, "You can't always get what you want" at his campaign rallies. Perhaps to warn both his supporters as well as his opponents.
....
Like many of you, I am tired of his constant reminder that he won the election. Yes, Donald, you won. We get it. But....well, if anyone was not supposed to win the Presidency at any time between the day he announced to the night he won, it was Donald Trump. He was never supposed to win. Ever. Has anyone ever done this? Hmmmmm.....I can't think of one. Maybe Harry Truman. But Truman was already the sitting President when he was never supposed to win. So, talk about your power of positive thinking. He also did it with half the money of his opponent and an overwhelming deficit of good press, much of it well earned, both then and now. I think Trump is a good observer of society, and has learned that trying to curry good press is a trap that will render one ineffective. BUT, he knows the aggregate value of press, good or bad, has always trafficked in it, and you can't argue with the results he has gotten by being ever available to its voracious appetite.
....
Tragic hero, headed for a great fall due to his fatal flaw? Perhaps. That's his problem. In the meantime, the country needs some things badly, including expanding economic growth and bending the deficit curve. He's headed in the right direction. I think. I could be wrong.
.
DR D SAYS
Of Rick's seven bullet points, at least 1, 3 and 4 are completely dependent on your position. But this still goes to Scott Adams' point that IFF the U.S. is MOVING on these issues already in the first half of Trump's first year, the question is certainly not Trump's competence. Neither could it be "fascist" because he shouted from the rooftops that he would do these things, and was fairly elected by the People after declaring his intentions.
...
Nodding in the position of my progressive friends here, I will cheerfully concede that Trump's "grotesque personality" (Ann Coulter) is a problem of form AND of substance. He is incendiary. Maybe we needed a President to stand up to the Thought Police, but the resulting bare-knuckle cultural civil war (Trump vs NYT, the riots, the escalation of polarity, etc) has already been far more costly than I bargained for.
Also, I agree that President Obama was about as Presidential as any man in history. I'm very proud that the First American was a black man; try electing a Chinese man in Turkey. My left-wing friends here might be surprised to learn that I work for Klat precisely because of an essay that was sincerely complimentary to Barack Obama in the largest view of his career.
...
On Rick's other four bullet points: on 7) Sarin gas attacks, I would hope that we all could agree there is SOME point at which the "leader of the free world" actually leads the free world in an intervention to stop atrocity. There is a general consensus that we won't let despots gas children and that we won't let madmen have nukes. If we can help it.
.
On 6) Korea's nukes, I am curious what the Leftists and Rightists think about this -- quite apart from any resentment of U.S. arrogance in seeing itself as "leader of the free world." I don't know much about it, but I can very easily imagine Kim Jong-Un nuking the city of Seattle in 3 years, can you not? Are you read up on "The Arduous March," the Kims executing parents for stating that their children starved to death because it cast aspersions on the government, and so forth?
I'd be interested to know if we agree -- or not -- that the REAL Hitlers of the planet should be prevented from having ICBM's. Or has moral equivalency taught us that it is no longer appropriate to differentiate between Hitler and Churchill?
...
Personally I would put these things on MY OWN bullet list as Trump accomplishments, along with most of Rick's:
The biggest (but not only) things on MY OWN bullet list of Trump setbacks:
Two neutral issues for me are:
.
The Konspiracy Korners at SSI have been, for the most part, very edifying and respectful, for me anyway. Those who don't like them, please continue to not participate. :- ) Those who do enjoy them, please continue to comment in a friendly tone so as to encourage your debate opponents to reply.
Respectfully,
Jeff
I wonder whether Chuck Schumer would rather try to 'resist' Trump and the Senate majority, or Pence and the Senate majority? Would be interesting to see how the "Resist" movement would cold-start its engines against Mike Pence? The angst embers against Donald Trump have been 24 months developing.
Here is a Politico article discussing conservatives' feelings about swapping out Trump for Pence.
Since Pence is actually conservative, whereas Trump is not. :)
But I don't see it happening unless Trump himself decides he's tired of playing at being President.
If anyone thinks that getting rid of Trump, and having Pence in office will calm the riots and create civil rest... I believe you are severly unestimating the far left and the their dedication to their beliefs.... and I highly doubt a subdued authority figure will even lower the level of the swamp.
Sundance (the pseudonym of the main author) over at The Conservative Treehouse, points out that the Trump administration is fighting a single-front war. His assertion is that both Democrats and Republicans represent an establishment Uniparty (of which the Deep State is a part) and Trump's team represents the outsider that the people have been pining for since, gosh, who KNOWS how long? I'm only 37 and I haven't invested the time to investigate. How long HAVE Americans been pining for an Outsider Candidate to break up the establishment?
Legislators spend the majority of their time fundraising. Can we all agree on that?
Corporations donate money to legislators in order for those legislators to be more amenable to their agendas. Scalia said this was a feature, not a bug. Can we all agree on that?
Lobbyists write the majority of legislation that legislators put forward. Can we all agree on that?
Lobbyists write legislation that benefits the deep pockets of the corporations that employ them. Can we all agree on that?
Corporations have agendas that may not be aligned with the best interest of America in general. Can we all agree on that?
So if Trump's "America First" agenda, which includes:
Can it be any wonder if those representing the interests of globalist corporations (Establishment Dems, Republicans, career bureaucrats, and conglomerate media owners) fight tooth and nail against him?
I didn't vote for Trump but I'm reconsidering that stance in 2020.
Unfortunately Trump's "Drain the Swamp" theme has been deliberately drowned out in the noise of protest against him. And in the magician's misdirection that claims since he hired Steven Mnuchin, he didn't mean it.
But in a more dispassionate world we would hear what Bernie and Trump are saying, and as "rank and file" voters we would support them in overthrowing the system.
Superb post.
I agreed with all the one liner statements for the most part. Where you go from there seems off to me thogh. Look at Trumps teams and who he's put in key positions and you can't make the case he's fighting against the establishment. He's filled up 5 positions, including the Sec. of Treasury, with Goldman Sachs execs. His Sec. of State is an Exxon CEO. The guy laying out the future of healthcare in America is Tom Price, a 6 term congressman. The same Tom Price who traded $300,000 in medical stocks while advocating for and sponsoring bills that would raise the stock prices those companies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-pick-for-health-secretary-tra...
This whole drain the swamp meme is bankrupt. It completely mystifies me that people continue to see Trump as anything other than a profiteer. If you think Trump has America's best interest at heart, that it's his primary focus, you're dead wrong. He said what he had to say to rile up the base and get attention/votes, ie immigration, trade deals etc. When a guy spends his life getting his ties and polo shirts made in Bangladesh, then turns around and talks about how terrible the trade deals are...I mean it's completely baffling to me that some folks still don't see right through this guy.
And no, I'm not a Hillary person. She's pretty awful too.
Let me parse those bullet points for ya. 1) Obamacare could use a tweaking no doubt. However the AHCA is a steaming
pile that satisfies neither side. Can you name one successful free market health care system in the world?
2) Border security crossing figures have been on a downward trend for years. We have had a net loss of illegals
for years now. Most illegals come by plane and simply overstay their visas. 3) Drill baby drill is so 1990's, we are
awash in oil and are a net exporter. 4) Tax reform or tax giveaway? Trump's one page "reform" is not paid for and
would add trillions to the deficiet. Doesn't the deficiet matter? Giving billionaires another tax break hasn't really given
us the stimulous we hope for. 5) Israel must embrace the 2 state solution. 6) North Korea is a tough nut. A first strike
from us would surely result in the flattening of Seoul and millions of deaths in retaliation. 7) That 80 million
dollar tomahawk attack was nothing more than a loud fireworks display. We told the Russians in advance
and didn't even touch the runways. They were flying off of it the next day. So far, Trump has failed to live up
to his America first pledge and settled into a typical war hawk politician.
I find it reassuring to have some perspective on this tumult, by looking back at Andrew Jackson's presidency and at the mess of the 12 years or so before the Civil War. We are not yet close to the prospect of having a senator clubbed unconscious on the Senate floor. The echo chamber of D.C. and the media did not exist in the 1820s/1850s: it's very easy to lose your head and think we are in uncharted and enormously dangerous territory. For example, we hear so much about a "Muslim ban," but Muslims are not getting attacked by rampaging citizens, as Mormons were in the 1800s.
I think it would also help if people paid more attention to foreign events that seem to be under the radar, like Venezuela heading toward collapse, Islamic State apparently getting routed in Iraq, the recent South Korea election.
My only question Arne, is whether we are committing errors in an era of more reliable fielding. A coal-mine murder in 1912 didn't panic the country ...
Do you maintain your perspective that "America Is Not Fragile" even adjusting for the fact that this is supposed to be the 21st century? Honest Q.
I don't know that the country is not fragile, so much as the turmoil that could lead to real, violent conflict simply hasn't happened yet. A very big difference from pre-1860 America, or even Vietnam War-era America, is that there hasn't emerged an enormous cause to prompt the citizenry to start shooting and bombing each other.
But, my sense is that all the technological progress, and our much greater ability to control our environment and our own circumstances, hasn't done that much to override our capacity for emotional and mental mishaps. I don't think there's a truly rational explanation for why North Koreans and South Koreans live in such different circumstances. In 2014, did anyone in Venezuela imagine they'd be in a famine within 3 years? Or, for what the left seems to consider a similar-sized disaster, did any liberal in 2014 think Trump had a chance of becoming president?
I'm as ardent of a #Nevertrump conservative as the next guy. You might think that swapping Trump and his baggage and his lying and his crassness and his strange ideas for a real Republican in Mike Pence would be as good as having Ronald Reagan back for 8 more years. It wouldn't. Here's why:
Trump was elected by traditionally Democratic blue collar states with an American jobs first populist message. Republicans will have to honor that and change their ideologies somewhat or they are going to be very sad in 2018.
If Trump is impeached, there will be a huge Democratic told ya so backlash.
I think that Trump is the best person to handle North Korea, because I think Kim Jong Un is actually afraid of him. I imagine Un takes his morning breakfast always thinking that he could be eating CIA poison, and he takes his morning stroll on cloudy days only because he's afraid of reaper drones. I'm not saying Un should be assassinated, as that might provoke war with China and Russia. I am saying that North Korea has to be stopped before setting Seattle on fire is an option. I also think that the Obama era politics of economic sanctions, harsh reprimands and the occasional CIA malware hack have only left Un more time to make bigger and more effective bombs. If those things don't work, then what does?
I also think that free market approaches to the economy and old school Reaganomics are going to lead to people having nowhere to work. There aren't that many jobs left that aren't automated. The party that does something about this is the party that is going to be in charge.
Also, for the day to day operations of America, Pence already runs the Presidency anyway, doesn't he?
I am in full agreement that Pence would not be better than Trump, for same and other reasons.
I also fully agree there will be backlash if Trump is impeached... but there is a fairly large minority of this country (my guess at least 10%) that is fed up with the swamp and the normal politics of today... and this minority group wants change, and feels change is essential to saving the American way (whatever that means today???) Most of this group are ardent Trump supporters, even today, but also there is a percentage that are still Bernie supporters and ANTI ESTABLISHMENT supporters - and NOT Democrats or Republican backers - that are closely watching how the Establishment is treating the Outsider... Knowing that Bernie or any other Outsider would be getting the same treatment. Thus, if Trump gets forced out by the Establishment, this group will react, and by many accounts this group is already angry, aggressive and somewhat armed. It could get ugly quickly.
On North Korea... I am not sure if crazy / unpredictable behaivor should be handled with unpredictable / spoiled brat behaivor. I certainly hope there are some voices of reason somewhere in the world working behind the scenes here.
I hadn't gone beyond the simplistic --- > McConnell and Ryan would LOVE to swap in Pence, but --- > are dubious about HOW MUCH this will cost them with voters. (Also you have the question of what kind of org Trump would set up to embarrass them. Can you run for election Third Party, having been impeached?!)
Handling N. Korea ... you see Trump as the right person to do it, much better than Pence to do it, that's a consideration that weighs heavily.
....
Agree that an impeachment sounds farfetched, even though Repub congressmen seem to be simply watching motionless, smirks aface, to see whether momentum develops for it.
Just know he's doing something different and more effective than what has been done. Un believes he is the target of CIA assassination plots and is not enjoying his life of antagonizing America. This is all right and good and better than what has been going on. Maybe Pence would do the same thing.
Had dinner the other night with a friend who's a rocket scientist. I mean this literally. (Like, if someone said to him, "what are you, some kind of rocket scientist?", he would answer, "well, yeah, actually I am.")
Anyway, he is fully aware of America's technology...and what the Pentagon and the Intelligence agencies believe Un's technology is.
So, in answer to the question, "is this something we (Americans) should really be worried about?"
His answer was, "yes."
So that's good enough for me.
But that leads to the question of what we do about it. Assuming there were an easy answer, I believe we would have already stumbled on it.
If Un launches a nuclear attack on American soil, he knows his nation disappears. Any U.S. President pushes the button. Maybe he doesn't care?
If we launch a first strike against them, then there is no leading nation in the world anymore. Our claim to leadership is gone. Anything goes.
But what if Un decides to drop a couple nukes on South Korea? What do we--or the rest of the world--do then?
I don't have an answer.
Left hates, Coulter disappointed, must be doing something right