|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 10, 2016 6:54:10 GMT -7
Well maybe not quite, but Trump winning is surely noteable. He was not my guy, but I was so relieved when He sent Clinton packing.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 11, 2016 5:52:35 GMT -7
In all honesty he wasn't the guy I'd have chosen as the ideal representative of the politics I'd like to see either, but I did support him for many reasons. First, he went through the primary process and won fair and square. All the others had equal chance to shine, but didn't appeal to the largest number of people.
I never believed any of this media tripe about how the guy, though he was setting record-breaking primary voting records and packing every venue he appeared in, was destined to lose to a very popular Hillary just because the media said so. There were really three basic things about Trump that I supported, but before getting to those, I will say I was not in the least effected by the media's constant attempt to cast Trump as a bigot or a racist. I consider that the source of most of these innuendos is a group who chooses to see a racist, bigotted, homophobe behind every tree, as illustrated by Van Jones of CNN calling the election results a "whitelash" (of Obama). They should have taken a hint the first time it got no traction; just because the press says it doesn't make it so. That's a lesson many of them still have to learn.
OH, it's going to be the death knell for Republicans down-ticket. All those bigotted racists are going to show up to vote for Trump and while they're at it, they're going to vote for Dems in Congress and state positions. Yeah. Sure they are.
Here are three primary reasons why I supported Trump.
First, he's not afraid to engage. We've given Republicans majorities before and they did nothing except clam up as soon as the Washington press got hold of them, rendering them essentially neutered (politically). Trump isn't going to be stuffed in a box by someone else and I like that. I think we need a bit more of that from R's quite honestly. Even the smallest resistance by Trump gets the press extremely nervous to the point they're forecasting the end of western civilization if they don't get concessions such as a press pool to follow the Trumpster around as he finds his way around DC. I'm loving every minute of how worried they are and how they desperately try to sell it as keeping a watchful eye on government.
Second, he brings a different skill set and mind set to the political arena. His ideas of fiscal sense are way different than someone used to the rigors of how things are done in DC. I think of it like someone who isn't about corruption running for mayor of Mexico City, where the standard routine is payoffs and greasing palms to make things happen. Along comes someone who isn't going to grease anything anymore and isn't going to payoff anyone - now what? Naturally we can expect those who become greaseless to make the most commotion about how wrong this anti-corruption business is. That's kind of how I see Trump being viewed by the entrenched Washington types. It will be interesting to see a bunch of policies now judged in light of "does this favor the American people first, or not?" I honestly don't think any government policy since 1983 has been examined in that light.
Third, despite his reported ego and showmanship, I believe there is a side to the Donald that is old-school enough to be respectful of the office of POTUS to not turn it into a freak show. With W. Bush, he was so determined to keep that from happening he would not even answer his worst critics, and while I understand his upbringing and his views, in hindsight I disagree with them because they caused as much harm as they did good. It essentially turned the presidency into a graffiti wall. I believe Trump will do things his way, but not in such a loose or sloppy way that is brings with it disrespect. He has already shown his own respect for military and first respondents, perhaps more than any other candidate has. I find it difficult to think a man would give that kind of respect to others, then assume a higher office and suddenly lose complete concern about how his actions are viewed in the public eye.
I also do not believe for one second there is this sudden cataclysmic bunch of people out there so earth-moved that Hillary lost that they feel compelled to riot in the streets. I think it's a bunch of butt-hurt college kids who break out in riots coincident with the end of classes for a day. Where are their leaders, and what are they demanding? Zip. Zero. Nothing at all there. Just a puff of smoke from where the Hillary rocket impacted the ground is all. They appear to be kids who's parents couldn't afford to send them to schools that had money to burn on Safe Rooms and plastic ball filled bounce rooms with play doh and fuzzy bunny stuffed animals to soothe them.
The press has tried for years to convince us that our views are corrupt in some way; not modern enough; not up-to-date, like we were running MS DOS in a world of Windows 10. Well I think America just found out that DOS had it's uses and while Windows 10 might do wonders and poop cucumbers, it's not the end-all of software and not the only opinion out there. It's the old fallacy of newer automatically being taken as better. What America just found out is that there are enough people out there who aren't going to accept people like Clinton who accomplish nothing, take everything, and ruin everything they touch. Not where there are other possible options.
The media has convinced many Republican candidates that running as Trump did was touching a third rail of politics that carried zillions of volts and would zap a candidate into oblivion if they touched it. Trump just proved for the world to see that there is indeed no current flowing in the rail, and the media is agog that the entire watching world has just seen the Wizard of Oz flipping levers behind the curtain. The entire Dem apparatus from stem to stern has just been nuked nine ways from Sunday. If that's not enough to open people's eyes then I don't know what ever will.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 11, 2016 8:59:16 GMT -7
Heh, well I never really supported him at all, I just liked that he sent her and her machine packing.
For one he is a statist plain and simple. His ideas incorporate a lot of govt into them, it may shift the focus of govt, but it's still the backbone of how he wants it to work.
2nd, he was part of the corrupt system, he even admitted paying people off for access. There is no moral authority of his to criticize any of it. He and people like him is a major part of the problem. And I really have not seen a turn in his ideology in that respect, he is still the same guy who was writing those checks.
I really don't see a lot of true respect for anything from Trump unless it gains him something. They basically muzzled him the last couple weeks to keep him from tripping himself, they have counseled him to be reconciliatory now that he has won, but his nature is his nature, and I suspect it will win out and he is not going to ignore the constant barrage of criticism and insult coming his way now. If we thought Bush was hated by the left, just wait. When he has to be counseled to act certain ways, that is a red flag of what he truly is, we will see how long the artificial Trump lasts.
Having said that I ignore the claims of rape, the accusation of racism, islamophobia and sexism etc. Clearly the rape allegations were political in nature, if for nothing more than suspect timing. Much of the claims he was making racists statements during the campaign is asinine as well, that's not what he was saying, and he was pretty specific who he was talking about in those circumstances. I think just about any anti establishment GOP candidate would have beaten Hillary, her problem was herself more than who she ran against, you take away the granted party support for either of the 2 and you are probably looking at only a 30% - 35% electorate base, maybe even less for her. 47% popular vote for both even with everyone in? Still, these protests, beside the snowflakes on campuses, are paid for agitators and artificial to try and undermine his win and weaken his admin when he takes office, but I suspect it's going to fail shortly, too many people on the right are happy to have booted the leftists out of power, and they really don't care how right now.
You are right, he will bring a different mindset, that will be a good thing to start to clean out the entrenched bureaucracy. It's a double edged sword though, he is going to have to be chained to limit his range, because if he is going to treat the presidency as a chairmanship, where he can bully the shareholders and do what he wants like he has in his business practices, he will be a tyrant.
For now I am content to let him roll, I want to see what he does for a while, and so far I like what I am hearing, though we have to wait a couple months for him to actually do anything. And I have a nagging feeling once the honeymoon is over there is going to be some significant buyers remorse for some people.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 11, 2016 11:40:25 GMT -7
See I don't buy this notion that Trump is this unhinged kind of junk yard dog that can't function save some handler telling him what to do or how to act. I know more than a few people I'd consider just as shrewd a businessman as the Donald and the one thing about them is they have a natural ability at being a chameleon when it's to their benefit. They can be soft as a down pillow or hard as a hunk of granite depending on what they believe will get the job done. I believe Trump is that way too, and while he may be getting advice such as tone it down, stay on point, etc., it's still him driving the bus. No turns happen without his hands on the wheel. What I see is the end of a campaign where it's normal for those who were engaged in one to step back out of the boxing ring and take the gloves off. The fight is over, nothing more to be done at this point, so why not act civil to people? He might actually need a few of them to get things done down the road. While he's doing what people hoped he would do - tone it down some - that is being brushed aside by stories meant to keep his image negative. Like Harry Reid calling him a sexual predator and blaming the riots on him as though they were his idea. As is typical of our media, he's damned if he doesn't tone it down, and damned if he does tone it down. So I think at this point he's ignoring the media who is drooling for a first-hand negative story. Appears to me he's focused on getting his transition team on the ground to get started. Guess we'll find out what he's made of come Jan. I don't think he's going to go full-on tyrant unless McConnell tries to nudge him far into establishment land, and if that happens, I support him going tyrant on them, waterboarding them all if necessary to get their minds right.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 11, 2016 12:31:45 GMT -7
Trump could be himself in business, because he could bully from a position of strength and if that didn't work he could ultimately walk away. This time the stakes were higher, and someone got his attention to the fact if he continued to act like that, he was not going to win. You didn't notice they baited him and he swallowed about every time until they hired Conway? He just about submarined his own campaign more than once because he could not get himself off going after people with vendetta, even to the point his followers were starting to question his point in doing so.
Right now he is riding that wave of success, just as he did after the nomination, but when everyone didn't kneel for him, he went right back on the attack of insult. He is shrewd in some ways, but incredibly short sighted in others IMO, if it was not for the incredible extent people turned a blind eye to that he would not have made it. People didn't want to see what he is, they wanted to see what they wanted home to be. So we will see if that's what they get. He does seem to be getting down to business, what that business ends up being we will see, but like I said some of the signs I am seeing so far I am encouraged.
This is weird being a position that on one hand you see people trying to be so critical that take anything he says and try and portray it as the worst possible thing, or even just outright lie or blame him for every ill they see and argue for him, and on the other hand see people excuse thing they should be now, and have condemned in other candidates or even give him credit for things he had zero to do with and argue just as much against him. It's almost surreal, especially since we have went through all this before with Bush, and seemed to have learned nothing.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 12, 2016 19:12:17 GMT -7
Well let's see, he's been cast as a racist because he's called for illegals to be deported and for those from middle eastern nations with a history of trouble - whom we can't properly vet - to go on hold until we can figure it out. He's a woman hater because he called Rosy O'Donnell a pig. I feel the same way about her and always have, so reporting that fact to me only gets him a higher score. It's not that I'm ignoring the reports, I'm hearing them and processing them and finding them to be low-level personal BS that doesn't rise to the level of rampant racism or misogyny. Just because the NY Times or the Wash Post says something is X doesn't mean it is.
Trump certainly has had anger issues with women. What I want to see is the guy who is equally successful, had an equal number of fingers in as many pies as Trump who is completely free of similar accusations. Certainly every Hollywood studio boss and big-time producer has had the same kind of charges leveled at them. We haven't hurled all of them under a bus, what then is so special about the Trumpster? I think I made this point much earlier in the year by saying something along the lines of if we wait for the perfect candidate who has no dings and dents, we'll be waiting forever because none are out there.
I try to keep in mind that we've been led by Presidents with problems. Nixon and all his lies. Carter was dumb as a stump. Clinton was crooked and lied, in fact we were told that, hey, everyone lies, nothing to see here. He was boning an intern not his wife in the Oval Office's back office. We were told W. Bush was so stupid he couldn't even speak English, and it got worse every year he was in office.
So what, I'm supposed to be worried because Trump might call another woman a pig? I'm not drinking that Kool Aid. He hasn't done any actions as Prez yet, so he's got a clean slate. If he jacks it up, I'll be critical of it, but I want to see what he's got in mind first. We've survived all the other knuckleheads, there's nothing magical about Trump. He'll either take a slightly unconventional approach and deliver on some promises or he'll go the way of the Edsel too.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 13, 2016 9:37:18 GMT -7
Oh I agree those things mentioned to start were all nuanced to become a claim of racism, sexism and islamophobia etc. I mean it's pretty plain that Isis was using muslim immigrants to get access to western countries, that a report of crime among illegals crossing the border comes out and he says they are bring in criminals all of the sudden meant he was accusing all mexicans of being rapists etc. But there are things he has done himself, you see no problem with him going after people personally for bringing up things he has actually done? You OK with him being angry at criticism and wants to shut the opposition press down from doing hit pieces on him, which is what he said to start with. Please don't try and explain what he really said, it was plain he meant that he wanted to change the libel laws to include negative press until he caught himself, or someone clued him in it's unconstitutional. The claim of lies and everyone being liars, when it was he who was lying many of the times, and just repeated it enough his followers picked it up and ran with it. The whole thing about trying to taint Cruz through the BS of his father being part of the JFK assassination? Not just firing back on Megyn Kelly, but actually meeting with Roger Ailes to get Megyn Kelly Fired. Really, that's acceptable to you? That Is a clear red flag of someone who would abuse power.
During the debates, hillary would use key phrases and more than once, off he would go like a dog after a rabbit, wandering way from the point getting lost in personal affronts. The 3rd debate was particularly disappointing to me. Right off the bat he missed a huge opportunity to really set himself apart from her with 1st the question of the constitution being a living document or a grounding principle, and he clearly had no concept of that argument, threw out some generic rhetoric and moved on. The second was what the supreme court was for and what kind of justices he would appoint. If it was not for her extreme leftist take on these 2 things, he would have sounded like the usual democrat trying to explain them and they would have sounded the same. He just wanted his own activist judges, so it came off like dem left and dem lite. And then at the end, he was more preoccupied trying to get his one liner in, like he had in the previous debate than actually show a difference between them.
He clearly has focus issues that can be triggered by personal attacks on him, it was true from the very 1st of his campaign, and remained true to the last of it, but now I am supposed to believe he is going to become an elder statesman because he won? Heheh, and that is why I have not boarded the trump train all along, you have suspend your disbelief and the actual history and adopt his version of reality.
Have you noticed he already is changing stance from solid to maybe on some key issues that got him there? All of the sudden this outsider has a dream team of insiders including lobbyists in his transition team. I wonder how he knew those people? Maybe he ran craigs list ads.
Like you said, he is not even in office yet, we will have to wait and see what he actually does, and I am OK with that, he has started to motion to some really positive things. But this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum, the people he surrounds himself with, the policy stance changes he is making now will mean something. You don't actually have to wait to be falling to know you are going go over a cliff, a certain chain of events leads to it, and at some point it becomes unavoidable. We are past that point now, so now will see if we sprout wings, or at least hope for a relatively soft landing.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 13, 2016 11:34:23 GMT -7
I am well aware of his many faults. Rather than put him up on a scale with the perfect candidate in the other weighing dish, I have chosen a more real-world approach and placed Hillary Clinton, his ACTUAL opponent, in that other dish. See, the press wants you and me to weigh the Donald against the ideal, but they DON'T want you to weigh Hillary against that same ideal because, like Trump, she also will come very short of the mark.
The only true test is to weigh one against the other. So I put Donald's dumb-asssed Constitutional question debate answers on one dish, and on the other I put Clinton's 4-decade long stench of always being a hair-breadth away from collusion, corruption, or other governmental malfeasance. And always when probed, no one knows nuthin' like a bad Mafia movie; the records are incomplete or we can't seem to locate them, etc. In some cases, the records actually resurface, like a box of records from the Rose law firm that popped back into existence in a place where any commoner might have cast them off - the east wing of the White House. We have Donald babbling a poor answer in a debate but we have any number of his campaign speeches that make it clear he understands how the 2nd Amendment works (or should), and on the other side we have Hillary promising more "sensible" gun controls, a desire to go after the EBRs and high-capacity anythings. When I weigh those in side by side comparison, there really is no comparison. Hillary is for exactly what I oppose; Trump claims to be for what I want. What if he's wrong, lying, or otherwise full of crap? Well then I lost nothing because I was going to get that outcome with Clinton anyway. It was a risk worth taking.
Meeting with Roger Ailes - I wasn't there, I have no idea who said what, so I have to give it that much importance. But just for giggles, suppose he did exactly as you claim, waltzed into Ailes office and demanded he "fire that bitch." How does that differ from the myriad stories of Hillary et al sicking her lawyer pals on people critical of her or Bill during the Clinton presidency? What about those who accused Bill of sexual misconduct, the ones who were destroyed by the Clinton political apparatus and never did have a day in court? How does all of that weigh against a Donald who might have been flaming hot at the embarrassing questions he didn't expect from press he still thought he could trust part of?
They weigh about the same to me. So when I hear this stuff reported about Trump I'm not in denial, I'm just saying so what, we get the same from the other side thus this isn't a good criterion for disqualification as a candidate (else they both have to go).
The media is hoping we continue to stay stupid, to judge our own candidate using a critical lens of idealism, then never judging their candidate because such behaviors are human nature (it's just sex), common in society (hey, everyone lies now and then), or not really the wrong they appear to be (Bill only lied to a federal judge, not to all Americans). I'm not playing the media game, and isn't it amazing that when people don't play it and the media's destructive attempts get little traction, their heads explode, their candidates LOSE, and the NY Times has a moment of high theater as they reenact the death scene from Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar and vow in their dying breaths to resurrect themselves as a truth-telling newspaper.
So in short, I accept Trump has warts. They all have them; his are no worse than others in his job. I believe the truer test will be how he applies himself and what kind of things he actually does. Do I expect him to keep every promise? No. None ever do, so it would be silly to expect him to suddenly pop up as unique in that way. I'd just like to see him make Washington act and not sit there kicking cans forever down the road. If he can't, I'm not going to be all that disappointed because I know for damn sure Hillary would not have done anything but screw up whatever she touched.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 13, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -7
The problem with voting against something, is what ever you vote for, even if it is better but is still bad, you get. He not only met with Ailes, he openly wanted her fired, said so publicly several times. And hillary's lawyers? Its not like Trump doesn't keep a whole herd of them on retainer and use them as well, he threatened to sue over about everything that didn't go his way during the campaign, had even filed on a couple to have them dropped later, so I think there is no high ground in that. And I would think as principled people we would hold our leadership to a standard, not just be a notch better no matter how low that is. I see no problem with being against hillary, and still be against him, because it really is about the principle, not just winning. The effect of what you 'won' does not stop agt election results, but impacts for years.
Trump has a lot of actual history in his public life, we have to somehow ignore and discount all of that, igmore and/or discount his campaign behavior and tactics and have to wait and see how he will actually govern? You know, trust is thing earned, not given because you win a popularity contest.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 15, 2016 8:32:00 GMT -7
Again you're pretending we have this vast selection of candidates with all out desirable qualities in the showroom window, we simply have to pick it. Well the reality is we don't have that. We've never had that. We didn't have any candidate that was faultless, any that couldn't be pointed to with a claim of bad behavior, bad judgment, whatever. All had chinks in their armor. We had a primary, we chose a candidate, and that's the guy we choose, we choose his opponent, or we don't vote (or vote for the 2%ers in the 3rd and 4th party). One of those three options is all we have to choose from. Doesn't matter if we get what we like or not; the choice comes down to them.
We made the choice. You can go back and rehash the wisdom of primary choices if you want, but it's a done deal AFAIAC.
Maybe I'm not reading these messages with the way you are intending them. It seems to me that you are saying Trump is some sort of rascal, a bully sicking lawyers on people he doesn't like or are critical of him. That he's engaged in some sort of conversation with Roger Ailes that is... foul? in some way? Why is that? Did he commit a crime doing that? If, in the mid-term elections in a couple years he asks the Dems to "fire" Nancy Pelosi, will that be an evil act too?
And from all of that, I'm somehow not seeing it or willingly not accepting it as bad or something.
Look, I'm not going to stand here and say Trump is a perfect human being. I don't believe such a thing exists, to be honest with you. Trump probably has sicked his lawyers on people. So have a lot of people with the means to employ such a method of dispatching problems. The question is, what does that make him if he did everything you claim he has?
Does it make him an ugly human being? Maybe so. Does it make him a SOB? Maybe so. Does it make him ineligible for office? No. Not at all. We have separation of church and state, remember? So politics can by definition contain no moral code because those can only be sourced to a belief above mankind unless it's a matter of brute force. Therefore, I really am not interested in how moral or not Trump may be. Totally immoral is good with me as long as he delivers. Why would it not be?
I'm not voting for someone to be a moral compass or a standard of excellent polite behavior. I'm voting for someone who will go into a dysfunctional, corrupt, system that looks out for itself ONLY with the hope he will tip over as many apple carts as possible and in the process perhaps set a few things right.
Think of it this way. If you were on trial for you life and there are two defense lawyers you can choose from; the first is a pillar of the community, nice guy, everyone has wonderful accolades when asked about him. He's won a few, lost a few. The other fellow people think is a sleazy, sly, will do anything to win type. Braggadocios. Insults women at the courthouse and sometimes at local bars that he frequents and often makes an ass of himself. His record in court is 319 wins, 1 loss.
Which one do you want when the case means your life? How much does his rating on the politeness scale mean? Is it possible to recognize every one of his faults while still finding his courtroom prowess the desirable trait above all else?
Well that's kind of how I feel about Trump. I'm sick and tired of hearing from the media what an solid waste orifice every successful R candidate is. Now we have one that might truly rise to that label - so what? I don't care. I only care if he succeeds. If he has to insult women - great! If he has to sick lawyers on people - equally great! If he has to do the racist, misogynist dance in a purple tutu on the White House lawn - let the show begin.
I just want liberalism's butt kicked and PC punched hard in the face as this election has already started to do. I don't like how all the progressiveness and secularism has influenced our society. Imagine, kids of college age needing psychological help to deal with an opposing opinion. Millennials proud to be stupid in public so long as they have an electronic device to help them. It's ridiculous and it needs to be stopped. So forgive me if I don't really give a rat's patoot about the fellow hired to do it. Just do it, that's the only thing I care about at this point.
Maybe someday when we are back on a more stable center with citizens who can hear unwanted news and not fall to pieces we could look for better quality humans who can lead us. We are far from there right now.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 16, 2016 14:55:27 GMT -7
Well he is, he has used his lawyers and the power of the state to further his interests at the cost of people who had nothing to do with it but be in his way. And the thing with Kelly, what was his issue with her? That she was openly pointed and unfriendly in questions, that he had to answer something he was uncomfortable with? And for that she needs fired? He doesn't like hit pieces, so off the cuff mentions when gets the power, he is going to looking to find ways to change libel laws to include critical opinion in media. All of those things point to character, and I guess I am one of the very few who think character does impact actions, and that does mean something when you have the kind of power the presidency carries. is he the racists sexist homophobe the left claims he is, no, but he does have some serious faults.
And since when do any of us have to like the choices we are left with? We did in fact have all kinds of choices, IMO trump was one of the most flawed candidates of the bunch. But here we are, and I see no reason to jump on board just because he won.
I consider Trump part of the corrupt system he was running against, he openly has said he paid into the system of corruption, made his money doing so, so I do not see him really changing anything except the angle he benefits from it. In fact he was happily silent on a lot of issues, or supporting the left until he decided he was a republican and wanted to run for office. This whole sales pitch of him becoming the champion of conservative principle and rewriting his own history to sell it is simply bullshit. Look how the lobbyists and insiders not only have flocke to him but been embraced. And sorry I deal with bullshit daily enough to know (literally and figuratively) what it is and I want to avoid more of it. Because when you elect a president you don't just get him, he brings in like minded people with him at every level, and if their priorities are their interest and willing to rationalize anything to further it, then you have a real problem. We see that now with Obama.
I would not trust him with access to my bank account, nor my daughter, so why would I trust him with anything else?
Protectionism is not a conservative principle, more spending, and new programs are not conservative principle, and out right lying is not either, so while you are overlooking and excusing this or that, the bottom just keeps getting lower of what we will accept as a people. And I am not just going to be quiet about it just because it's not popular to hear on the right now.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 16, 2016 17:47:08 GMT -7
Well you should vote for the person pure of heart with all those values then. Just don't try selling me on the idea that there was one among the primary candidates we had this year. Since none of them fit the bill, who exactly do you end up voting for? Hillary, I guess, since Trump is too morally off-base to work out. I'm sure she'd set a higher standard we could all be proud of and easily explain away by saying we had to vote her in because otherwise we'd have had to put up with someone who insulted woman and sicked lawyers on little guys.
Trump has admitted being part of and using the existing corrupt system (lobbyists, buying influence with campaign cash, etc.) but has never said he liked the system. In fact he's stated just the opposite, that he hated that he had to do stuff like that but it was the only way to get permits, etc. that he needed to get his projects done. I know dozens of guys in the trades back in the Boston area that have told me story after story about what unions do to people building large commercial properties, etc. It would make an episode of Soparanos seem tame by comparison. That's how it is; you want to build a building, you have to deal with them, like it or not. What I have heard Trump say is that he's had to be knee deep in this political pay-to-play stuff and never liked it, in fact would love to see it cleaned up. He just purged a good number of his transition team that was engaged in hiring a bunch of K St types (lobbyists), so what does that say? Is he trying to drain the swamp or keep it stocked with alligators?
I'm pretty much done fighting the Trump morality issue. I thought I was all done in Feb/Mar. He might do great things, he might not. He might help change the country and bring it back from a nation that can't find its foreign policy ass with both hands, from a nation who will do more figure manipulation than ten Enrons to make unemployment look rosy and global warming look like impending death. Maybe, just maybe, our future lines in the sand will be exactly that and not some airy words of a chickenhearted chump. Maybe our veterans might actually get a few policies changed instead of a bunch of barking Congressmen with no bite.
I don't know, maybe we'll get none of that. Of the viable choices we had, Trump is who I picked to lead us and he happened to win. We won't know what's going to happen for a year or so, and by then we'll be able to tell if it's going to be a good direction or not. By then we should have plenty of good examples of him sicking the DOJ on little guys who got in his way, or a good number of women insulted by him. We can revisit it then and count them all up.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 16, 2016 19:08:35 GMT -7
I am not asking for a puritan, but maybe someone who even comes close to have integrity and a principle that is not subject to the deal.
He may have never said he liked the system, but never regretted being part of it.
Heh, lets take a look at this maverick who is anti lobbyist then, he hired them to start with, many of which were on the campaign team and then moved to the transition team and only when they were found out and Christie being toxic linked to bridge gate again, when the news hit they dumped Christie like last weeks laundry and about everyone he hired. But lets not pretend Trump knew nothing until they fired them.
And again there is a difference of morality and character, I don't care if he is rude or vulgar, I do care if he is consistent and good to his word and just as important his stated intent. And I expect when things don't go someones way, that they don't start scapegoating and blaming anything and everything why, when a lot of the time the problem was them to start with.
I am glad he won, of the 2 he clearly is the better, but being better is not automatically good, so we just have to wait and see how it works out, but that does not mean I ignore all the things I have issue on him, and I do remember what people say, and hold them to it. Honestly I really am part of a small minority in that right now.
|
|