Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
I lived in the US when GWBush was elected. He was no worse than Trump in many ways.

So imo it’s not Trump that’s the problem.

It’s those who call themselves Trump supporters that didn’t seem so scary when calling themselves Bush supporters. In years to come some smarter people than me will look back and explain the difference.
 
But that rationality doesn't start with "Trump is bad", it starts at the middle and being open to both sides then you build your case from there.

This is, I think, what trips you up with me. You absolutely can rationally conclude this. I have 25 years of demonstrable, published evidence that the man lies. Big lies and little lies. Therefore I do not trust him. I don’t trust what he says he believes or what he says he has done when there is no evidence of it. I also have demonstrable evidence that he has never served his country in an elected or unelected capacity before. That of course doesn’t make him bad, but it makes him lacking in experience for the top elected office in the land. Those are two pretty large non-starters for my support, his politics and policies aside.

Human relationships operate on trust. So do business relationships, and relationships between the governors and the governed. If I cannot trust him, he is fundamentally a bad choice as a President in my book.

There are plenty more personal characteristics we could discuss that I find repugnant in him. And there are some policies of his that have had some positive impact on America in my view and others that have had negative impacts.

But I cannot start with a “clean slate” with him, because he continues to lie and lie and lie and lie. Everything else is secondary and contingent upon trust, just like any other relationship I have, personal or business. Or, dare I say it, you have.
 
Last edited:
This is, I think, what trips you up with me. You absolutely can rationally conclude this. I have 25 years of demonstrable, published evidence that the man lies. Big lies and little lies. Therefore I do not trust him. I don’t trust what he says he believes or what he says he has done when there is no evidence of it. I also have demonstrable evidence that he has never served his country in an elected or unelected capacity before. That of course doesn’t make him bad, but it makes him lacking in experience for the top elected office in the land. Those are two pretty large non-starters for my support, politics aside.

Human relationships operate on trust. So do business relationships, and relationships between the governors and the governed. If I cannot trust him, he is fundamentally a bad choice as a President in my book.

There are plenty more personal characteristics we could discuss that I find repugnant in him. And there are some policies of his that have had some positive impact on America in my view and others that have had negative impacts.

But I cannot start with a “clean slate” with him, because he continues to lie and lie and lie and lie. Everything else is secondary and contingent upon trust, just like any other relationship I have, personal or business.
Even if you scrub all his previous behaviour and start from the day his victory in the Primary his behaviour has been pretty disgusting.
 
Even if you scrub all his previous behaviour and start from the day his victory in the Primary his behaviour has been pretty disgusting.

Actually I was willing to "scrub" for a brief instant when his victory speech was in part gracious the night he won. In the moment I said, "Well . . . maybe he'll turn over a new leaf, confronted with the gravity of what has befallen him." And I say "befallen" because I suspect he really didn't believe he would win, nor do I think he grasped fully the implications of the responsibilities he would be confronted with if he were to win. But my optimism (if you can call it that -- desperate hope was more like it) was short-lived.
 
Actually I was willing to "scrub" for a brief instant when his victory speech was in part gracious the night he won. In the moment I said, "Well . . . maybe he'll turn over a new leaf, confronted with the gravity of what has befallen him." And I say "befallen" because I suspect he really didn't believe he would win, nor do I think he grasped fully the implications of the responsibilities he would be confronted with if he were to win. But my optimism (if you can call it that -- desperate hope was more like it) was short-lived.
I suspect he had no input into that speech.
 
I suspect he had no input into that speech.

Entirely possible.

I do fear his re-election. If he is a man with little regard for the consequences of his actions on the entire populace when re-election is on the table, as I often suspect, I shudder to think how he will act if he’s a lame duck. In fact one of the reasons I think he might not be running is the disregard he demonstrates for the fate of so many.

But the hard part for me is telling the difference between if he truly hates and fears those he castigates, or if he is doing so to appease and curry favor with those who support him some of whom (not all) really do hate and fear them. I don’t trust him, so I don’t know, which is why tagging him as a “racist” has always seemed off kilter to me. Is he a racist? Or is he exploiting others’ racism for his own personal benefit? Either way is repugnant, the latter more cynical and Machiavellian. Is he too dumb to understand the impact of his rhetoric, or does he not care? Either way, I’m not sure it matters — both are awful.

But he should take some credit for the surge in consumer confidence among his constituency, which has been made clear from the data, and some for the strength in the economy. Now it will come with a cost, as the bond market and the Fed have sniffed out. If you push hard on one side of a balloon, there’s usually an impact elsewhere or it pops (same with trade policy). I’m just not sure if he understands or cares. Again — it’s a function of lack of trust in his motives, and my own sense that the ends don’t justify the means as a world view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Entirely possible.

I do fear his re-election. If he is a man with little regard for the consequences of his actions when re-election is on the table, as I often suspect, I shudder to think how he will act if he’s a lame duck. In fact one of the reasons I think he might not be running is the disregard he demonstrates for the fate of so many.

But the hard part for me is telling the difference between if he truly hates and fears those he castigates, or if he is doing so to appease and curry favor with those who support him some of whom (not all) really do hate and fear them. I don’t trust him, so I don’t know, which is why tagging him as a “racist” has always seemed off kilter to me. Is he a racist? Or is he exploiting others’ racism for his own personal benefit? Either way is repugnant, the latter more cynical and Machiavellian. Is he too dumb to understand the impact of his rhetoric, or does he not care? Either way, I’m not sure it matters — both are awful.

But he should take some credit for the surge in consumer confidence among his constituency, which has been made clear from the data, and some for the strength in the economy. Now it will come with a cost, as the bond market and the Fed have sniffed out. If you push hard on one side of a balloon, there’s usually an impact elsewhere or it pops (same with trade policy). I’m just not sure if he understands or cares. Again — it’s a function of lack of trust in his motives, and my own sense that the ends don’t justify the means as a world view.
I suspect it is more about increasing his personal worth. I don't think he even understands the consequences, let alone cares.

It seems everything he does is about his next deal or tax scam, even down to his policy decisions.
 
Entirely possible.

I do fear his re-election. If he is a man with little regard for the consequences of his actions on the entire populace when re-election is on the table, as I often suspect, I shudder to think how he will act if he’s a lame duck. In fact one of the reasons I think he might not be running is the disregard he demonstrates for the fate of so many.

But the hard part for me is telling the difference between if he truly hates and fears those he castigates, or if he is doing so to appease and curry favor with those who support him some of whom (not all) really do hate and fear them. I don’t trust him, so I don’t know, which is why tagging him as a “racist” has always seemed off kilter to me. Is he a racist? Or is he exploiting others’ racism for his own personal benefit? Either way is repugnant, the latter more cynical and Machiavellian. Is he too dumb to understand the impact of his rhetoric, or does he not care? Either way, I’m not sure it matters — both are awful.

But he should take some credit for the surge in consumer confidence among his constituency, which has been made clear from the data, and some for the strength in the economy. Now it will come with a cost, as the bond market and the Fed have sniffed out. If you push hard on one side of a balloon, there’s usually an impact elsewhere or it pops (same with trade policy). I’m just not sure if he understands or cares. Again — it’s a function of lack of trust in his motives, and my own sense that the ends don’t justify the means as a world view.

The civil rights lawsuit in NYC against his apartment building and his full page ad touting the death penalty for the Central Park Five (who were NOT GUILTY) would suggest, “Yes, he is a racist, just like his father, who was arrested at a Klan rally in his younger days.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.