The Trump Presidency

[AerchAngel]

that the radical right hates a the idea of the foundation of a liberal democratic republic and has been trying to destroy it for a while?

And for a good reason.

[AerchAngel]

The pulse of the country or the pulse of the 5 districts targeted by Trump Campaign.

The country voted HRC

With the help of California and New York vote overwhelming Dem and historically Dem voting. Take them out with Texas. Trump easily wins.

That there is a reason why we have equal representation of states and not allow California, Texas and New York run the country as candidates will only focus on those three for president in campaigning.

[Julio3000]

Haha. Look, you clearly prefer your bull**** served on a silver platter Mr. Hope & Change. I'm not that fancy.

First off, I disagree that there's an effective level of 'trust and credibility' (which are relative, but that's beside the point) requisite to lead in contemporary American society. I actually don't see how you can assert that with a straight-face once you consider the administrations we've been subject to over the past half-century. Your first mistake is assuming that the populace at-large is even that interested, your second mistake is presuming they are educated enough to maneuver through the crossfire and political noise. I assume that the electorate is more interested in tangible results/damnable proof. I know that perception is more important than policy when it comes to swaying public opinion.

Like it or not, Trump is an anomaly. He's Teflon. The kitchen sink was thrown at him during the election. Hell, he threw half of it on himself. What happened? He garnered 30 million votes. He won. This in spite of being labeled (and, at times, was pretty damn well proven to be) a tax cheat, grossly unsympathetic to the military, a Manchurian candidate, a wife-abuser, a serial rapist, an inept businessman, a silver-spooned out-of-touch insensitive buffoon, habitual liar, narcissist, racist, bigot, etc.

And what? What has changed from the day he won the election until the present? Where is the Trump machine taking on water? The inauguration attendance 'scandal'? His obsession with illegal votes (that's actually a good thing for Republicans)? Sean Spicer? It's the same paradigm as the campaign, except now it's playing out in real time from the highest office in the land. What leads you to believe the endgame has changed, that most suddenly have an inherently greater negative perception of Trump than they did on election day?

People sit there and work themselves up in a tizzy over absolutely ludicrous and single, unnamed source character attacks of chalk-like consistency and it's the next media cycle, and then the next, and it's gone. Meanwhile, he's locked up his (oh so controversial, racist, and inexperienced) cabinet, he's delivered on a not insignificant number of his pre-election promises, the economy is booming, and he's fighting a smart political battle with the immigration ban.

I don't feel duped. But I'm not here picking my ass and talking about birtherism still either.



I'll tell you what's concerning to me. It's the petulance that people who simply disagree with Trump resort to when challenged on the substance of their positions. Maybe he's rubbed off on you in that sense. I think we all realize that Trump is less than desirable in terms of his public persona, but he's not the Generalissimo FFS. He is, however, tied to an ideology, and you are slipping the clutch when you suggest anyone re-calibrate their belief system based on a handful of arbitrary infractions by its figurehead.

Instead of responding line-by-line, I'll offer you this tl;dr:

If you think that President Trump will be able to effectively govern as he campaigned, I'll take that bet. If you think having Trump as a figurehead for an ideology is a winning strategy long-term, I'll take that bet, too.

[goldfly]

And for a good reason.

You know just the idea of this country is a radical liberal idea right?

[goldfly]

So, we are going door to door checking papers. Or eh?

[Hawk]

If you think that President Trump will be able to effectively govern as he campaigned, I'll take that bet. If you think having Trump as a figurehead for an ideology is a winning strategy long-term, I'll take that bet, too.

Well, that's boring.

[thethe]

What an awful thing to find out who is here in this country illegally. We are monsters!!!

[thethe]

You know just the idea of this country is a radical liberal idea right?

You know the colonists were protesting real oppression as opposed to the fake oppression of today right?

[Julio3000]

Well, that's boring.

If you want to give Trump credit for having his cabinet confirmed by a friendly senate, for the "booming" economy of his first 21 days in office, and for prosecuting a "winning issue" with a hacky EO that is currently stayed by the courts, I'm afraid I'm spitting in the wind. You've fully co-signed this lunacy. I look forward to your continued defense of it.

[Hawk]

If you want to give Trump credit for having his cabinet confirmed by a friendly senate, for the "booming" economy of his first 21 days in office, and for prosecuting a "winning issue" with a hacky EO that is currently stayed by the courts, I'm afraid I'm spitting in the wind. You've fully co-signed this lunacy. I look forward to your continued defense of it.

It's easy to defend something in the absence of a bona-fide prosecution. The only tactics I'm seeing employed with regularity are character politics and anecdotal moral diatribes.

And, while we're at it, have you stopped to consider the political consequences of choosing to treat the immigration ban as a Waterloo moment for Trump?

Imagine if - heaven forbid - there were to be a terrorist attack (in the US or abroad) featuring a citizen of one of the countries banned, or a person/entity somehow demonstrably connected to one of those countries. Not only have you granted the Trump administration a virtually infinite amount of culpable deniability (we tried to protect you, but they stopped us!), but you've prematurely devastated your case against future anti-immigration measures deployed under the guise of national security.

So, yeah, I'm comfortable floating that this 'loss' isn't the end of the world, and his continuing to fight it is a "smart political battle" (actual quote) ... but I'm also desperately trying to inject some notion of the status quo into the equation as an alternative to repeatedly heaving these events into a vacuum and exclaiming, "Look, bad!"

[Julio3000]

It's easy to defend something in the absence of a bona-fide prosecution. The only tactics I'm seeing employed with regularity are character politics and anecdotal moral diatribes.

And, while we're at it, have you stopped to consider the political consequences of choosing to treat the immigration ban as a Waterloo moment for Trump?

Imagine if - heaven forbid - there were to be a terrorist attack (in the US or abroad) featuring a citizen of one of the countries banned, or a person/entity somehow demonstrably connected to one of those countries. Not only have you granted the Trump administration a virtually infinite amount of culpable deniability (we tried to protect you, but they stopped us!), but you've prematurely devastated your case against future anti-immigration measures deployed under the guise of national security.

So, yeah, I'm comfortable floating that this 'loss' isn't the end of the world, and his continuing to fight it is a "smart political battle" (actual quote) ... but I'm also desperately trying to inject some notion of the status quo into the equation as an alternative to repeatedly heaving these events into a vacuum and exclaiming, "Look, bad!"

Nice work broadening the field as much as possible there.

So it was a smart move to issue the EO without passing it through the agencies responsible for its enforcement? Without clarifying to whom it applied? Ok.

You're not just saying it's not the end of the world—you're not even willing to admit that it was a ****up.

Yeah, "heaven forbid," right? When your position demands a specific kind of terrorist attack to justify it ex post facto, perhaps you should examine your assumptions.

Gosh, but if such an attack were to occur while this was hung up in the courts, seems like the folks who weren't competent to draft a lawful order might come in for a bit of the lash, no?

[Julio3000]

Soooo...just spitballing here, but if the President's National Security Advisor was forced to resign within the President's first 100 days, might that qualify as "taking on water"? Asking so I can avoid character politics and anecdotal moral diatribes.

[DaneHill]

What an awful thing to find out who is here in this country illegally. We are monsters!!!

If you don't see the ominous historical overtones of a government police force going door-to-door in an ethnic community and having people "present their papers", well.... Now whether that truly happened or not is a legitimate question. However, constitutionally, such an occurrence would sure seem to be a slam dunk case of unlawful search and seizure. We don't live in a police state, as much as you seem to relish that thought.

[sturg33]

correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't Obama deport about 3 million illegal immigrants? More than the trump target?

Just curious if it was a problem then, or just now?

[thethe]

If you don't see the ominous historical overtones of a government police force going door-to-door in an ethnic community and having people "present their papers", well.... Now whether that truly happened or not is a legitimate question. However, constitutionally, such an occurrence would sure seem to be a slam dunk case of unlawful search and seizure. We don't live in a police state, as much as you seem to relish that thought.

Non-citizens do not have constitutional protection.

[Julio3000]

Non-citizens do not have constitutional protection.

You're wrong about this, but that doesn't surprise me.

[DaneHill]

Non-citizens do not have constitutional protection.

ANYONE within the borders of the U.S. has constitutional protection. Particularly if you are an actual citizen living within that Hispanic neighborhood when an ICE agent comes knocking on your door.

[thethe]

You're wrong about this, but that doesn't surprise me.

You are correct but from what I've been reading its not the full set which citizens are granted.

[thethe]

ANYONE within the borders of the U.S. has constitutional protection. Particularly if you are an actual citizen living within that Hispanic neighborhood when an ICE agent comes knocking on your door.

Are there stories of citizens homes being illegally searched in this 'raid'?

[The Chosen One]

They are still afforded Protection of the 5th and 6th amendments. This was settled by the Supreme Court decades ago.