The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

I've said it many times by now, but my problem, and I think Lathum's though I shouldn't speak for him entirely, is that Edward on many issues is not having good faith arguments. Many of the things he does with conversations, very frequently conversations that come out of fox news propaganda, come straight out of alt-right playbooks. I'm not calling Edward a fascist or a nazi, but I think that we are giving a strong voice to a person here who carries arguments in a way that is designed to distract from meaningful points and to dilute any discussion with minutae. I don't think its intentional either, I think its a natural thing that happens when you argue indefensible points from time to time. The best example, as always, are discussions of race. Every conversation about race, no matter who it starts between or in what tone, turns into a conversation dominated by edward. He has two reliable methods to derail any conversation about race. One - an act, or a person, is either racist or not. It's a binary yes/no question in his mind, which makes most conversations about race pointless. Second, it requires 20-25 posts of discussion to agree on a dictionary definition or racism. Goalposts moved all over the place, diluting any argument so that instead of discussing a critical topic of race, we instead discuss the definition of race until the argument goes away. Conversations about China feel the same. Conversations on the border wall to the south are even worse. On that topic Edward does share extremely similar views to nazi's. Edward frequently ignores the impact of... well, anything.. to actual human life in favor of discussing the impact to his retirement portfolio.

Some of these things can be a part of some reasonable discussion, but with him, it just never is. He controls the direction of every conversation on this forum due to how many times he posts compared to anyone else on the forum. If he doesn't like any conversation happening anywhere, he has more control over the views the board sees than anyone, and again I don't think he's doing that on purpose, but its absolutely happening in the same was as it would if we allowed a clear alt-right fascist to argue in bad faith here every day.

The most frustrating thing for me is that its just impossible to put him on ignore and talk to anyone else here. Almost everyone engages him, myself included from time to time, and I need to stop doing that.

I'm pretty sure you don't want a point-by-point analysis of what is valid, semi-valid, way-off, without context, pot calling the kettle black etc. so I'll just leave it at suggesting you be more open & tolerant of views & opinions that differs from you; and many times honest people can just agree to disagree.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm not calling him a fascist or nazi, he's an obvious troll and I'm amazed people are still trying to engage. Best ignore button usage ever.

Same as above.

[Butter]

After 8 years of having Obama misrepresented constantly, called the anti-Christ, and generally belittled, now I'm supposed to be the one to reconcile by pointing out the good things that Trump has done? Why is it on the Democrats to constantly be the ones to act with intelligence and conscience? At what point does the GOP take on ANY responsibility at all to act with good faith instead of just constant deflection in the name of power grabbing? Never?

Bullshit. I don't care if the current GOP limo'd 1 million dollars to my house, they can go fuck themselves as can their racist leader as can their followers and apologists. There is no apology, there is no compromise. There is no "good" that has come from it. They haven't gotten us into a nuclear war, though that looked pretty dicey for a few weeks there. They haven't directly caused my death, but they may be trying with this "let's open the economy back up" bullshit. Fucking bravo.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Radii

my problem, and I think Lathum's though I shouldn't speak for him entirely, is that Edward on many issues is not having good faith arguments.

Enjoy your month, and if you find this place unhealthy for you then do whatever you need to be in a better place. But the point here is, I think that a lot of arguments made by others fit the same thing from a different perspective. A lot of the board generally don't think so because of groupthink, but then someone like me or Edward or whoever comes by who doesn't share your presumptions and thinks they're ridiculous. I.e., some people think racism is binary. Some people think about China/Mexico differently than you do. Etc.

I know your posts well enough to say I don't think it's intentional either, but what your argument here really boils down to is 'I don't like people posting things that significantly differ from my view enough to not accept my core assumptions'. In which case, what's the point of a debate in the first place?

Originally Posted by Butter

After 8 years of having Obama misrepresented constantly, called the anti-Christ, and generally belittled, now I'm supposed to be the one to reconcile by pointing out the good things that Trump has done?

Yeah that's not at all what's happened on this board. More to the point, it's not about it being on anyone to reconcile. It's about being intellectually honest and not caricaturing people. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good. That means there are bad things in the best of our leaders, and good things in the worst of them. You don't have to support them to recognize that, and it's very helpful to talk about things in a balanced way.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

he's an obvious troll and I'm amazed people are still trying to engage.

Again, the provable fact of criticism of Trump on a number of fronts over an extended period of time demonstrates this is false.

[Flasch186]

The only issue is that when a Dem is in office the same Trumpists will be asked by people on the other side, "C'mon, say one thing good about Joe Blow and we'll get into this cycle" I'm not saying I agree but I can say that Trump has been good for Real Estate and he's been good Russia. He's been good for the rich and he's been good for racists. See it's easy.

[Kodos]

He's also GREAT at sowing discord.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yeah that's not at all what's happened on this board. More to the point, it's not about it being on anyone to reconcile. It's about being intellectually honest and not caricaturing people. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good. That means there are bad things in the best of our leaders, and good things in the worst of them. You don't have to support them to recognize that, and it's very helpful to talk about things in a balanced way.

I don't see anything positive about Trump. Not one thing. I can safely say that anything that I feel that was remotely positive that has come from the administration during his time in office has been 100% a result of someone around him and not him directly.

He has been good for the rich and very good for racists. He's been outstanding for divisiveness, because he has turned people against each other like no one yet.

What I feel like this is, is: "You know that Hitler had some great ideas, but he just took it too far."

[Lathum]

The problem I have with stating the good things Trump has done is they are offset by the mountains of horrible shit he has done and the horrible human being he is.

It isn't a policy issue. it is a human decency issue and his lack of human decency spills over into every aspect of how he governs.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

I can safely say that anything that I feel that was remotely positive that has come from the administration during his time in office has been 100% a result of someone around him and not him directly.

Ok, but he still put those people in those positions, or retained them if they were there before him. So it still reflects on him to a degree.

Other than that, it sounds to me like a case of being blinded by animosity towards what he's done if you view it as 100% negative. That's just not reality. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and so on.

[Butter]

He is a person wholly incapable of empathy or doing anything other than feeding his ego. Just because a couple of policy decisions happen to be things that I don't hate as a byproduct of that shouldn't cause me to give him any credit for it.

I just tend to avoid watching him or talking about him whenever I can, but to see that we need to agree on "the good things he's done" as some sort of basis for a common ground, respect, or debate is laughable. There are no good things, there are only happy accidents.

[PilotMan]

To a point. How many times did we hear about how Obama lied. About health insurance. That one time. Before policy was written. And how that meant that he was worthless. As a person and a president.

Now we have something else entirely and it's just another day at the office and I'm the one getting called out for being mean by those very same people. I'm not talking about the board here, but more of a general view or approach from those I'm surrounded by.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The problem I have with stating the good things Trump has done is they are offset by the mountains of horrible shit he has done and the horrible human being he is.

Ok but one doesn't invalidate the other. I agree that Trump is a horrible human being and has done mountains of horrible things. 100% agree. That doesn't mean he hasn't also done good things from time to time. Both things not only can co-exist, but in fact it's quite common for them to do so within a single individual. All of us have them to some degree.

[ISiddiqui]

Trump is going to be remembered by history as one of the worst Presidents in US history. In historian lists, he'll be with James Buchanan (who is down there for being incompetent not for anything disastrous he did - you know for the folks who are like name ONE thing worse than X, etc, etc), Andrew Johnson, etc. So all this name things you like he did is a bit ridiculous. Our President is incompetent and corrupt, tries to undermine the press, ratchets up racist rhetoric, and looks the other way when acts of overt racism (Charlottesville) happen. To believe he won't be in the bottom 5 going forward is just delusional.

[cartman]

My take on it is that the good things done weren't out of a sense of purpose or planning. He'd happily reverse those things in a heartbeat if it would be something that he thinks would make him look good in that moment.

[JPhillips]

If Trump were just a guy in my neighborhood and I knew all this about him,

he's a racist
he brags about sexual assault
he's been credibly accused of rape by his ex-wife
he mocks the disabled
he regularly attacks and demeans working women
he lies constantly
he steals from a charity
he doesn't pay people that work for him
he promotes conspiracy theories
he rarely works but brags about how hard he works
he tells everyone that he's an expert on every topic
he defends and admires mass murderers
he encourages his friends to physically assault people he doesn't like
he fakes being committed to his religion
etc.

I would just consider him an asshole. I'd never play along if a neighbor said they would only take my criticisms seriously if I also presented a list of good qualities for this asshole. Trump is uniquely horrible as a human being and anything that attempts to gloss over that fact is dangerous.

And before you say I hate all Republicans, I can speak well of Romney or DeWine or our county executive, and a number of others. But I'm not going to play a game of Ten Things I like About a Monster.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Ok but one doesn't invalidate the other. I agree that Trump is a horrible human being and has done mountains of horrible things. 100% agree. That doesn't mean he hasn't also done good things from time to time. Both things not only can co-exist, but in fact it's quite common for them to do so within a single individual. All of us have them to some degree.

Originally Posted by cartman

My take on it is that the good things done weren't out of a sense of purpose or planning. He'd happily reverse those things in a heartbeat if it would be something that he thinks would make him look good in that moment.

What Cartman said. Trump has never, and will never, do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. He will only do what he feels is best for him and if that means it is also beneficial for us as a nation that is a byproduct.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

My take on it is that the good things done weren't out of a sense of purpose or planning. He'd happily reverse those things in a heartbeat if it would be something that he thinks would make him look good in that moment.

Today's a perfect example. Officially the WH is still recommending isolation and distancing until May 1, but Trump is tweet Liberate Michigan! and Liberate Minnesota! and Liberate Virginia! There is no plan, there are just impulses.

[PilotMan]

He's just showing that it is possible to be all things to all people and not get held for any of it.

[CrimsonFox]

Ruth Chris Steakhouse chain took 20 million of the bailout money set aside for small businesses
the money was blown through very quickly

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Trump were just a guy in my neighborhood and I knew all this about him,

he's a racist
he brags about sexual assault
he's been credibly accused of rape by his ex-wife
he mocks the disabled
he regularly attacks and demeans working women
he lies constantly
he steals from a charity
he doesn't pay people that work for him
he promotes conspiracy theories
he rarely works but brags about how hard he works
he tells everyone that he's an expert on every topic
he defends and admires mass murderers
he encourages his friends to physically assault people he doesn't like
he fakes being committed to his religion
etc.

I would just consider him an asshole. I'd never play along if a neighbor said they would only take my criticisms seriously if I also presented a list of good qualities for this asshole. Trump is uniquely horrible as a human being and anything that attempts to gloss over that fact is dangerous.

And before you say I hate all Republicans, I can speak well of Romney or DeWine or our county executive, and a number of others. But I'm not going to play a game of Ten Things I like About a Monster.

monsters are cool. trump is not

don't call trump a monster
you insult dragons and mindflayers and beholders when you do

the more you know...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Ruth Chris Steakhouse chain took 20 million of the bailout money set aside for small businesses
the money was blown through very quickly

This is why I'm always hesitant about letting the government spend a crap ton of money, especially with a President who sees oversight as a detriment.

Stimulus checks are also apparently going to dead people as well.

[JPhillips]

Sen. Loeffler says criticizing her for insider trading is socialist:

“This gets at the very heart of why I came to Washington, to defend free enterprise, to defend capitalism, and this is a socialist attack,” she declared. “We have taken extraordinary measures and I am focused solely on working for Georgians.”

Keep fucking that chicken.

[whomario]

Brian Klaas on Twitter: "Watch this video of Merkel and compare it to Trump, who recently lamented that the virus has become so “brilliant� that antibiotics don’t work—against a virus. Via @BenjAlvarez1. https://t.co/awAsd6PjmN"

Here's a politician/'head of state' (i know she is not technically) actually using a press briefing to bring across information and explain goals/strategy/reasoning. Even throws in a shoutout agreeing to a local official not in her party. All in less than 2 minutes.

5 years ago i thought Merkel was boring, nowadays i wish the next chancellor will be equally boring if the alternative is the shitshow-populism that is plaguing not just the US ....

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sen. Loeffler says criticizing her for insider trading is socialist:



Keep fucking that chicken.

They keep making the socialism attack because it works.

I think the reason that Elizabeth Warren scared people more than Bernie is that she is a committed capitalist. But she wants to make capitalism work for everyone.

If the choice is between socialism and our current brand of corrupt capitalism, then even a solid liberal like me will pick corrupt capitalism.

But if Americans are ever given a choice between functional capitalism and corrupt capitalism . . .? Well that will be a bigger revolution than anything Bernie could ever bring us.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

They keep making the socialism attack because it works.

I think the reason that Elizabeth Warren scared people more than Bernie is that she is a committed capitalist. But she wants to make capitalism work for everyone.

If the choice is between socialism and our current brand of corrupt capitalism, then even a solid liberal like me will pick corrupt capitalism.

But if Americans are ever given a choice between functional capitalism and corrupt capitalism . . .? Well that will be a bigger revolution than anything Bernie could ever bring us.

And Grover Norquist tweeted that Manchin endorsing Biden is evidence that all the Dems are radicals.

I love it when classic bands play their old hits.

[ISiddiqui]

Biden can probably just take that Norquist claim and put it next to a Bernie bro claim saying #NeverBiden because he's a Republican just to show the ridiculousness of the extremes.

[Ben E Lou]

Question: what is the most unhelpful thing the president can tweet during a pandemic?

Answer: ���� pic.twitter.com/z59r6i8QvG

— Molly Jong-Fast�� (@MollyJongFast) April 17, 2020

[HomerSimpson98]

#unfuckingbelievable

[NobodyHere]

Have we ever had a President call for a civil war?

[albionmoonlight]

A lot of MAGA is built on this conservative myth of "I got my gun, my land, and my dog and I don't need anything else."

The virus has shown us that we are highly interconnected and that our actions both hurt and help others in ways it can be hard to fully grasp.

That truth obliterates MAGA in a way that almost nothing else does.

So it makes sense that Trump is going to start using language of civil war and violence and division.

If we stop blaming "others" for our pain, and if we instead realize that we actually need each other, then MAGA dies.

And Trump would prefer a civil war to that.

[albionmoonlight]

basically, if I were in the GOP, things like this would scare me a hell of a lot more than whatever Biden does or does not do:

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

They keep making the socialism attack because it works.

I think the reason that Elizabeth Warren scared people more than Bernie is that she is a committed capitalist. But she wants to make capitalism work for everyone.

If the choice is between socialism and our current brand of corrupt capitalism, then even a solid liberal like me will pick corrupt capitalism.

But if Americans are ever given a choice between functional capitalism and corrupt capitalism . . .? Well that will be a bigger revolution than anything Bernie could ever bring us.

There is nothing capitalist about our current system. Government propping up zombie companies by printing money and bailing out their mistakes. If companies are not allowed to fail, how is it any way capitalism?

[albionmoonlight]

It is shitty broken capitalism, but it is still capitalism.

Which is why Warren scares them so much. She does not want to throw out capitalism. She wants to show Americans what it can really do. And THAT would be the real revolution.

[Ben E Lou]

I tend to think Trump and the GOP leadership are aware of how long a shutdown is needed, and that's why ultimately the governors will decide. Come November, when it has cropped back up AND the economy is still reeling from round 1, the message will be "if we'd opened up the country on May 1st, we wouldn't be here! Everyone would be immune and we'd all be working!"

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

What Cartman said. Trump has never, and will never, do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. He will only do what he feels is best for him and if that means it is also beneficial for us as a nation that is a byproduct.

So what? First, nobody can ever know for sure why another person does things. Neurological science has shown that we don't even know why we do things most of the time - our brains literally make up justifications for stuff subconcioiusly all the time.

But also, the issue at hand wasn't 'how altruistic is Donald Trump'. That's where I'm saying emotionalism and animosity tends to cloud the issue. It's what good things has he done. Even if he did them for selfish reasons, or craven political ones, or whatever - if it was the right thing to do, and he did it, basic fairness requires that be recognized. I.e. if you think the justice reform was a good thing done for wrong reasons just to take a popular example - people don't get their sentences lengthened because Trump's motives were faulty. They get the same sentence whether he did it for the right reasons or not. If the new law is better than the old one, it's a good thing period.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is nothing capitalist about our current system. Government propping up zombie companies by printing money and bailing out their mistakes. If companies are not allowed to fail, how is it any way capitalism?

agreed. It's only "Capitalism" when it's an anti-blue democrats are evil 'socialists' style of capitalism. Otherwise, it is absolutely not capitalism at all.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So what? First, nobody can ever know for sure why another person does things. Neurological science has shown that we don't even know why we do things most of the time - our brains literally make up justifications for stuff subconcioiusly all the time.

But also, the issue at hand wasn't 'how altruistic is Donald Trump'. That's where I'm saying emotionalism and animosity tends to cloud the issue. It's what good things has he done. Even if he did them for selfish reasons, or craven political ones, or whatever - if it was the right thing to do, and he did it, basic fairness requires that be recognized. I.e. if you think the justice reform was a good thing done for wrong reasons just to take a popular example - people don't get their sentences lengthened because Trump's motives were faulty. They get the same sentence whether he did it for the right reasons or not. If the new law is better than the old one, it's a good thing period.

I disagree with this line of thinking. "A broken clock is right twice a day". Being right for the wrong reasons is useless, it leads nowhere positive.

[Edward64]

It would be helpful to understand your definition of capitalism. Always helpful to define terms instead of trying to guess your definitions.

No one I know is staying the US is 100% free-market capitalism. I think everyone concedes it's mixed. But this doesn't mean "there's nothing capitalist about our current system".

[Flasch186]

Capitalism wherein winners and losers are based on innovation, entrepreneurship, and no one gets given shit for free.

The gop changes the definition in times of crisis versus when things are flourishing to be able to better paint the Dems as evil socialists when they use socialism to float zombie companies and avoid cyclical cleansing.

Btw I’m for it because I’m for bailing out some companies and social safety nets.

As Ive always been on these boards, what I cannot stand is the hypocrisy the right shows when theyre socialists when it fits them but its we dont wanna be the Franch, when sucker voters get sound bited to vote against the evil welfare moms and unemployed drug addicts that are abusing your hard earned tax dollars.

And theyre coming to take your guns and hate Christmas and murder babies and want Mexico and Canada to own you!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Being right for the wrong reasons is useless, it leads nowhere positive.

So the person who gets a more fair sentence gained nothing because Trump had the wrong motive? That's useless to them? I'd wager they'd say otherwhise. I mean, nobody has perfectly pure motives for doing anything, so that means everything is useless. Nihilism FTW!!

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So the person who gets a more fair sentence gained nothing because Trump had the wrong motive? That's useless to them? I'd wager they'd say otherwhise. I mean, nobody has perfectly pure motives for doing anything, so that means everything is useless. Nihilism FTW!!

That's a weird way to look at things. Are you saying someone that actually does things properly more consistently would have come to the wrong conclusion here? Even if so, wouldn't it lead to the right conclusion more often?


I don't know, go ahead and be happy your watch got noon and midnight right every day. I'll keep my admittedly flawed Timex and make it to the rest of my meetings more or less on time.

[Butter]

You're really beating this to death. Motivations matter. That's why you can be sympathetic to a character like Walter White and then grow to hate someone like Mother Teresa over time. The "why" of decision making most certainly matters.

If you're asserting that Trump is actually some puppy dog or something, come out and say it.

[RainMaker]

Capitalism is private ownership in trade and industry. We don't have that. Large companies are essentially state-supported. Just that we set it up so the state doesn't get a cut of the profits.

It's socialism but for wealthy people.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

basically, if I were in the GOP, things like this would scare me a hell of a lot more than whatever Biden does or does not do:

This SCARES the hell out of me. Those kids are NOT wearing MASKS and are NOT SIX feet apart. They are SELFISH brats who are putting EVERYONE around them in MORTAL DANGER.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Butter

You're really beating this to death. Motivations matter. That's why you can be sympathetic to a character like Walter White and then grow to hate someone like Mother Teresa over time. The "why" of decision making most certainly matters.

If you're asserting that Trump is actually some puppy dog or something, come out and say it.

Mother Teresa wasn't all that great

Penn And Teller BS Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa - YouTube

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Are you saying someone that actually does things properly more consistently would have come to the wrong conclusion here? Even if so, wouldn't it lead to the right conclusion more often?

No, and yes. I think both of these questions are irrelevant to what I've said. I mean, I've stated repeatedly I think Trump is a terrible leader, president, and person and that I didn't and won't vote for him, etc. It would obviously be much better to have a POTUS who makes more good decisions, and they are rare occasions with Trump. That has nothing to do with how we should treat the good decisions he does make. They are totally separate issues.

Originally Posted by Butter

You're really beating this to death. Motivations matter.

I'm doing it because consistency matters. Without them you don't have guardrails and can just claim whatever you feel at the moment - ideologies, worldviews, philosophies whether political or otherwhise require consistent principles or incoherency destroys them. And I totally agree motivations matter. Nothing I've said makes it not matter. What I've said is, a bad motivation does not make an objectively good decision no longer a good one or no longer beneficial to those on the receiving end.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Capitalism is private ownership in trade and industry. We don't have that. Large companies are essentially state-supported. Just that we set it up so the state doesn't get a cut of the profits.

It's socialism but for wealthy people.

Let's have a more structured definition of capitalism. I get the wiki is not necessarily the bible but definitely a good starting point.

Preamble on the definition.

Capitalism - Wikipedia

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

Economists, political economists, sociologists and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free-market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[9] obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.[10][11] The extent to which different markets are free as well as the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.[12]

Some familiar themes from this board.

Critics of capitalism argue that it establishes power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; it prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and it is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities. Supporters argue that it provides better products and innovation through competition, disperses wealth to all productive people, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, creates strong economic growth and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society.

A little more on mixed ...

In free market and laissez-faire forms of capitalism, markets are used most extensively with minimal or no regulation over the pricing mechanism. In mixed economies, which are almost universal today,[85] markets continue to play a dominant role, but they are regulated to some extent by the state in order to correct market failures, promote social welfare, conserve natural resources, fund defense and public safety or other rationale. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on state-owned enterprises or indirect economic planning to accumulate capital.

So my conclusion is sure the US doesn't have pure capitalism (so what?). But it does have mixed capitalism. So one can complain about the mix but let's not say arbitrarily say "there's nothing capitalist about our system today".

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, and yes. I think both of these questions are irrelevant to what I've said. I mean, I've stated repeatedly I think Trump is a terrible leader, president, and person and that I didn't and won't vote for him, etc. It would obviously be much better to have a POTUS who makes more good decisions, and they are rare occasions with Trump. That has nothing to do with how we should treat the good decisions he does make. They are totally separate issues.

But they aren't good decisions. They are good results. If I decide to get plastered, run a red light, and run over a serial killer, that's a good result, but not a good decision. And while you might note it, you shouldn't celebrate or laud it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

If I decide to get plastered, run a red light, and run over a serial killer, that's a good result, but not a good decision.

That's not even remotely comparable. In that case you make three bad decisions to get a good result. In the case I'm talking about, the decision is to promote and sign a good law. There's no bad decision in there.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This SCARES the hell out of me. Those kids are NOT wearing MASKS and are NOT SIX feet apart. They are SELFISH brats who are putting EVERYONE around them in MORTAL DANGER.

Actually, it was the use of pastels.