The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

The fact that you are a vet makes this seem like you are being willfully obtuse here. Your standards for football players is higher than for the most powerful position in the world, which we won't be saying much longer.

I look at the intent -- Trump wanted to call the families of the dead service members and express his condolences personally. I think that is perfectly appropriate, even admirable. If he stumbled and botched the execution while trying to do the right thing, I'm going to be more forgiving of that because his intent was good. I suspect that is exactly how General Kelly saw it as well. For those who have decided that this country is not worth standing up for, I judge them accordingly as well.

For a member of Congress to take that private phone call and try to pick it apart to score political points is reprehensible. And I don't really care if you think that's being willfully obtuse, or not. I believe it is willfully obtuse for you guys not to acknowledge that there is basically an open conspiracy to try anything to ensure Trump doesn't get to complete his term in office. That's been the M.O since before he even took office, and I really don't think you guys think that anything is out of bounds in trying to accomplish that.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I personally would. But it's hard for me to shame others that value their life over their countries mistakes.

Honestly, that just strikes me as really odd reasoning. Presumably, such a person would advocate for others to do the same, which means our cities get bombed into oblivion, and people killed, just to show Obama that he didn't get away with his screw-ups.

Seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

He clearly implied that Obama directly and other past presidents never called any families. That is a lie.

In that exact same news conference, he said:

“President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn’t,” Mr. Trump continued. “That’s what I was told. All I can do is ask my generals.”

That's true.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fairness Doctrine: For it? Against it?

I hadn't heard of it until it was brought up yesterday. Thought to myself, OMG that was the catalyst in why news went to shit in the late 80's / early 90's.

I actually would welcome this back. I just want transparency in the oversight.

I personally think it is a horrible idea that should be held violative of the First Amendment. It leaves up to unelected bureaucrats to make the determination as to whether a particular issue has been presented in a manner that is "honest, equitable, and balanced". The idea that such a standard is remotely capable of objective determination is a joke. Imagine trying to apply that standard in this kind of toxic political environment. Not to mention that it essentially amounts to giving the government a veto over what may be said in terms of political opinion on broadcast TV or radio.

The real world effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to muzzle all but orthodox opinion. Broadcast licensees did not want to risk government censure or their licenses, so they basically stayed very much between the lines. It is no accident that political talk radio took off after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to that, it would have been a violation.

 

[-Akronite-]

Seems you’re assuming somebody is already in the military, trained to fight in which case I’d agree with you depending on the situation.

I cannot imagine any scenarios where I’d be willing to risk my life to fight a faceless enemy and abandon my wife and child, including any of the wars the US has already fought.

I’d rather be around to lead a good long life, to help provide for them and to leave a legacy behind as an 80 year old man who died here rather than an 18-34 year old man who died overseas. I wouldn’t consider that chickenshit. I’d consider it rational and the right decision to make for myself and my family.

I see his point though. Presumably, you'd only be able to make that decision and live that life because other men/women like you decided they needed to risk their life to protect others.

Chickenshit is subjective, but taking care of yourself/family while others defend your life and liberty is certainly an ethical dilemma.

In that exact same news conference, he said:

“President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn’t,” Mr. Trump continued. “That’s what I was told. All I can do is ask my generals.”

That's true.

Yeah, because a reporter followed up on his lie.

His original statement:

"The traditional way, you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls, a lot of them didn’t make calls."

That's a lie.

EDIT: Notice how in your quote he uses that "I was told" excuse AGAIN. He loves passing the buck on his bullshit. That's a very clear tell and I'll throw in an additional obtuse on that one.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, because a reporter followed up on his lie.

His original statement:

"The traditional way, you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls, a lot of them didn’t make calls."

That's a lie.

No, that's ambiguous. That's why the reporter followed up. If you think you've got something concrete, you never ask a follow-up and give them a chance to get out of it. But the "most/some" was sufficiently ambiguous that the reporter had to clarify.

Look, I would agree that Trump shouldn't have said it. I simply think it is being blown wildly out of proportion, particularly given that he clarified it to be factually correct at the exact same news conference.

 

[gourimoko]

Seems you’re assuming somebody is already in the military, trained to fight in which case I’d agree with you depending on the situation.

I cannot imagine any scenarios where I’d be willing to risk my life to fight a faceless enemy and abandon my wife and child, including any of the wars the US has already fought.

I’d rather be around to lead a good long life, to help provide for them and to leave a legacy behind as an 80 year old man who died here rather than an 18-34 year old man who died overseas. I wouldn’t consider that chickenshit. I’d consider it rational and the right decision to make for myself and my family.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice certain things for the greater good of your country and of humanity. Sometimes that sacrifice is your own life.

In an instance like WWII, every man who was capable of fighting had a duty to himself, his countrymen, and to humanity to wage war against the Nazis. The War was the pinnacle of human effort at that time, and to ignore it and solely focus on one's own family is a difficult decision to justify from an ethical standpoint, IMHO.

 

[-Akronite-]

No, that's ambiguous. That's why the reporter followed up. If you think you've got something concrete, you never ask a follow-up and give them a chance to get out of it. But the "most/some" was sufficiently ambiguous that the reporter had to clarify.

Look, I would agree that Trump shouldn't have said it. I simply think it is being blown wildly out of proportion, particularly given that he clarified it to be factually correct at the exact same news conference.

He lied. The press asked him to confirm. He backed off and passed the buck on the faulty information. You're talking as if it's the job of the press to make the president look bad by getting him or something. It's there job to hold powerful people accountable for their words so that's what they've done here.

He did the same exact thing when he claimed to have had a historic electoral win. He lied and when he was caught he blamed someone else.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You're talking as if it's the job of the press to make the president look bad by getting him or something.

Oh, I absolutely think that's how a lot of members of the press view their jobs with this particular President. No question about it.

He lied and when he was caught he blamed someone else.

No, the only time he mentioned his generals was when he correctly stated that other Presidents did not always make calls. That was backup for a truthful statement.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sometimes you have to sacrifice certain things for the greater good of your country and of humanity. Sometimes that sacrifice is your own life.

In an instance like WWII, every man who was capable of fighting had a duty to himself, his countrymen, and to humanity to wage war against the Nazis. The War was the pinnacle of human effort at that time, and to ignore it and solely focus on one's own family is a difficult decision to justify from an ethical standpoint, IMHO.

I agree with this, but I just wanted to add that I only see compulsory national service justified in truly extreme situations when the nation has been attacked. I don't think a peacetime draft is morally justified - not in this country at least. Perhaps a different story in a much smaller nation where having a disproportionately large trained populace is necessary.

 

[Cavatt]

I look at the intent -- Trump wanted to call the families of the dead service members and express his condolences personally. I think that is perfectly appropriate, even admirable. If he stumbled and botched the execution while trying to do the right thing, I'm going to be more forgiving of that because his intent was good. I suspect that is exactly how General Kelly saw it as well. For those who have decided that this country is not worth standing up for, I judge them accordingly as well.

For a member of Congress to take that private phone call and try to pick it apart to score political points is reprehensible. And I don't really care if you think that's being willfully obtuse, or not. I believe it is willfully obtuse for you guys not to acknowledge that there is basically an open conspiracy to try anything to ensure Trump doesn't get to complete his term in office. That's been the M.O since before he even took office, and I really don't think you guys think that anything is out of bounds in trying to accomplish that.

His intent was to make someone else look bad to puff himself up. C'mon man.

 

[-Akronite-]

Oh, I absolutely think that's how a lot of members of the press view their jobs with this particular President. No question about it.

I know you do. But here you seem to be advocating it as if that's the right way to do their job. His statement was not ambiguous, the press holding him accountable for lying. Too often, honestly, our press let's politicians state lies without following up. Sometimes that lie becomes a story but why weren't they held to account THEN? It can be frustrating.

No, the only time he mentioned his generals was when he correctly stated that other Presidents did not always make calls. That was backup for a truthful statement.

No, he lied. Then he was questioned so he made an ambiguous statement to back out of the lie, and then blamed the lie on getting information from someone else. He was basically saying "if you use these words against me they weren't mine."

This also doesn't change that he's lied about his interactions since then and has essentially called multiple grieving families liars.

EDIT: It's also clear that you're ignoring his intent. He said they didn't make calls while he does. Even if from the start he was telling the truth, he's trying to shit talk past presidents to prop himself up, it's childish and pointless.

 

[MediumBaller]

Seems you’re assuming somebody is already in the military, trained to fight in which case I’d agree with you depending on the situation.

I cannot imagine any scenarios where I’d be willing to risk my life to fight a faceless enemy and abandon my wife and child, including any of the wars the US has already fought.

I’d rather be around to lead a good long life, to help provide for them and to leave a legacy behind as an 80 year old man who died here rather than an 18-34 year old man who died overseas. I wouldn’t consider that chickenshit. I’d consider it rational and the right decision to make for myself and my family.

I've thought about this a lot when it comes to WWII. In reality the US was never going to be invaded. It just wouldn't happen. They went to war to defend our allies, but I don't think I would leave my family and loved ones to die thousands of miles from home for that. I'm selfish and I don't pretend not to be. I see my "greater purpose" being my family, future family, etc.

 

[gourimoko]

I've thought about this a lot when it comes to WWII. In reality the US was never going to be invaded. It just wouldn't happen. They went to war to defend our allies, but I don't think I would leave my family and loved ones to die thousands of miles from home for that. I'm selfish and I don't pretend not to be. I see my "greater purpose" being my family, future family, etc.

The Nazis were developing nuclear weapons, Medium; just as we were ... Moreover, the conquest of Asia, Europe, and Africa by the Axis would have left the United States almost completely isolated, and would have left 3/4ths of the Earth's population under the dominion of Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito.

Nothing could be more noble, brave, and honorable than fighting in such a conflict against the most tangible form of evil ever known to the world. Refusing to fight against such a threat is, by extension, the opposite of those traits.

 

[Los216]

Jeff Flake out. AZ up for grabs in 2018.