serious about trump and his support

[wesw]

can we have a thread about trump which is only analytic?

no insults?

only discussion?

It is important, I think, but almost useless if it degrades into insult.

please?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I can do it.
But I can only speak for me.

One of the first things that I would like to see done.
Immigration-
Build the wall/up patrols/use drones/etc on the border (I don't care who pays for it. Impose a fee for any foriegn money transfers out of the USA?? to help),
Force E-verify on all companies and come down hard on them when they violate E-verify.
Cut down on H1B visas, make the company prove they could not get a qualified USA citizen for the job.
Track down every visa violator. Find those who have overstayed thier visa, those who have violated any other conditions of their visa.

It's a start (for your thread and the PE)

[wesw]

well..., I knew that you (italics) could do it...

but your ideas might doom the thread to anarchy...., sounds like common sense to me tho...

what is a PE?

[Bicycle Bill]

Analytic, eh?

OK, my analysis is that Trump has no plan for anything.  He's been shooting from the hip and making it up as he goes.  He has almost always been reacting to something or someone; someone asks him a question on a valid topic — such as foreign trade or immigration — and he says the first thing that comes into his mind, such as "I'll build a wall and make the other guy pay for it" or "I'll hit Mexican imports with a 50% tariff", without ever explaining how he's going to do it within the framework of the Constitution or how he arrived at such an arbitrary rate as a 50% tariff.  And then, having said it, he is so egotistical and so afraid of admitting he made a mistake that he stands by that ridiculous statement come hell or high water.

Same thing with his foreign policy.  Drop out of NATO?  Make Japan defend itself?  He hasn't said anything (at least not that I am aware of) about dropping out of the UN or sending them a huge bill for services rendered, but I imagine if someone had asked him that question during the campaign that would have been his likely response.

Kill off Obamacare?  All right, I get it, he and the rest of the Republicans don't like it — but the main reason seems to be because it wasn't their idea.  There is no denying that the cost of health care has gotten out of hand; when someone has to pay $5.00 or more for an aspirin in a paper cup just because some lady in a scrub suit hands it to him or it costs more for nightly room and board at a hospital — room and board, mind you, not services rendered; they come on their own separate bill — than it does for a night at the NY Hilton (and I've stayed at the NY Hilton on 53rd Street so I do know what the costs are) then something needs to be done to either hold down costs or help people find a way to pay them.

Back in the day, when people's lives and their very well-being were threatened — such as when coal for heating fuel was threatened by a miners' strike in 1902 — then-president Theodore Roosevelt, who recognized that "a coal famine in the winter is an ugly thing and I fear we shall see terrible suffering and grave disaster", stepped in and used the power of the federal government to broker an agreement.

I can't ever see Trump doing something like that, and by his own words and actions he has shown that on almost a daily basis.  His solution to a crisis like the one faced by the people in Roosevelt's time would likely be something more in line with Jimmy Carter's recommendation (during the oil crisis of the late 1970s) to "turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater".

So, support for Trump?  Not until he shows me something that I *CAN* support.

-"BB"-

[wesw]

actually he has had, and has espoused, virtually the same positions for thirty years.

I can post video if you doubt me.

I do appreciate your seriousness tho....

thank you,

wes

eta- I will say that your representation of his positions seem distorted tome. I ll only give one example...

he does not advocate dropping out of NATO, he supports reforming it.

I do too.

I think that turkey should be thrown out of NATO and that New Kurdistan should be our main ally in the region

[Guinevere]

Sure. There is no mandate. He lost the popular vote. "The people" elected HRC, which is ironic for a self- proclaimed "populist."

What is he going to do about that?

[wesw]

that seems to be the talking point that was sent out to all of Hillary s allies in the media.

the states chose trump overwhelmingly.

if you go county by county hrc barely won anything.

the rules are what they are unless we change them.

what is your point?

should we nullify the election because you don t like the rules?

I think that the states should have more power and the the winner of the majority of states should win the election.....

let us have a convention of the states and really shake things up.

the black folks voted against Hillary by not voting for her.

I believe that trump will earn their votes.

you had better nominate Michele Obama next time.

we ll see if she can take the slings and arrows, or if her skin is too thin.

politics ain t beanbag, as you well know....

[Sue U]

I can't say I always agree with Ben Wittes, but he is a smart guy and makes some thoughtful (and here, rather scary) points at the Lawfare site run through the Brookings Institution; emphases are mine:

Campaign 2016
The Burden on Donald Trump

By Benjamin Wittes
Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 5:40 PM

Donald Trump, whether he understands it or not, has won the presidency with a unique burden: Most serious national security experts regard him not merely as weak and unprepared for the roles of Commander in Chief and the country’s leader in foreign policy, but as an affiirmative national security threat.

When we founded this site more than six years ago, I never in my wildest dreams imagined myself writing these words about a man who will take the oath of office as President of the United States. We began Lawfare on the assumption that the U.S. federal executive branch was a tool with which to confront national security threats. While I accepted that its manner of doing so might threaten other values—like civil liberties—or prove counterproductive in protecting national security goods, I never imagined I would confront the day when I ranked the President himself among the major threats to the security of the country.

Today, we have to confront that possibility. We have to confront it because of several distinct baskets of concerns about Trump:

• his often bizarre, erratic, and egomaniacal behavior that raises serious questions about his management of foreign and military affairs, particularly in a crisis or a situation in which he is insulted;
  
  his oft-expressed illiberal attitudes about religious and ethnic minorities and foreigners;
  
  his promised abuses of power with respect to free speech and the press and in the context of overseas conflict;
  
  the strange affinity he has shown for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, combined with his campaign’s numerous and unexplained entanglements with Russia and Russia’s intervention in the presidential campaign to his apparent benefit; and
  
  his rejection of mainstream foreign and defense policy thinking on matters as basic as the American commitment to traditional allies.

I have spelled out my concerns on these points at great length (see also here and here), as have many others of both political parties. They are, in fact, not really my concerns so much as a broadly shared set of anxieties about the man whom the American people have chosen to the lead them. The Washington Post reports today that “A palpable sense of dread [has] settled on the intelligence community.” The Post is understating the matter.

My point here is not to reiterate the concerns about Trump. It is too late for that; the time for persuading our countrymen not to elect the man has passed. My point now is to emphasize that because of these concerns, this is no normal presidential transition, and to acknowledge that Trump’s victory fundamentally changes how I understand what I do as a national security legal writer and analyst.

Today’s concession speech today by Hillary Clinton (“We owe [Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead”) combined with the statement later by President Obama on the transition (“Everybody is sad when their side loses an election, but the day after we have to remember that we're actually all on one team … We all want what’s best for this country”) create a veneer of normalcy about the Trump transition. But the veneer is a thin one.

At one level, I agree with Clinton: a patriot always hopes for a successful presidency.

And I agree with Obama too: We all want what’s best for the country, and a successful president is certainly best for the country.

But there’s a risk, in saying these things, of normalizing Trump’s ascendancy. His victory triggers certain path dependencies associated with the peaceful transition of power, and those path dependencies have a soothing feel to them. We will talk about presidential appointments and policy priorities. And with respect to many domestic and economic matters, I suppose that all makes sense.

The problem is that it also has a way of whitewashing the multiple reasons to fear a Trump presidency on national security grounds. And that’s dangerous. Because winning an election doesn’t make normal or okay the things Trump has promised to do: killing terrorists’ families, torture, banning Muslims from the country. It doesn’t make normal or okay the erratic personal behavior, late-night tweet-storms, or inability to restrain himself from taking the bait when taunted. It doesn’t make okay or less scary his rejection of the conventional American defense posture.

So while I of course hope for a successful Trump presidency, I know of only one way Trump can succeed in the national security arena. And that is by radically changing the reckless persona he embodied during a long campaign—changing how he behaves, changing what he believes, changing what he aspires to do, acquiring a sense of restraint, and changing the way he talks about people and groups. And while I agree with Clinton that we owe Trump a chance to lead, the burden is on him to make these changes, not on us to suspend disbelief and pretend we live in the world he has described.

I will be candid and confess that, Clinton’s admonition notwithstanding, my mind is not entirely open about Trump’s capacity to do this, or even his interest in doing it. I have, in fact, deep doubts. And that leaves me, and I think most of America’s national security community, in a very strange position.

Lawfare has always been committed to straight-shooting commentary on the intersection of national security, law, and policy. That will never change. We are not a political site. We have a politically diverse collection of writers, all chosen without regard for their political views but for their expertise in our subject matter. Each of our senior contributors is entitled to write on matters on which he or she sees fit. We don’t tell anyone what to say. The following is, therefore, not Lawfare policy or a statement of editorial position. It is a statement of my own intentions only.

Trump’s election will fundamentally change my work on this site over the next few years, and probably off the site too. Because at least for me, Trump does not enter office with a presumption of regularity in his work. He does not enter office with a presumption that as President he will pursue a vision of what national security means that is remotely related to my own or that he will do so in a rational fashion—or even that he and I share a common idea of what aspects of this nation we are trying to secure. I take what he has said, over a long period of time now, too seriously for that.

So in a way I never did with George W. Bush or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton—the other presidents I have covered as a journalist or analyst—I will write about the actions of the Trump presidency with the working assumption that our nation must be protected both by and from the president. I will support him and dispassionately analyze policy and law related to his functioning as the lawful executive responsible for the nation’s security. But I will always also keep the sharpest of eyes out for the areas where he himself is the threat and dispassionately analyze policy and law related to the threat he poses.

I am honestly not sure at this stage whether the threats posed by the president or against which the president will protect us will be the higher priority.

It’s the peculiar burden of our president elect, a burden entirely of his own making, that this sentiment is not at all eccentric. I have heard from numerous officials over the last few months, and the last few hours, articulating variations of the same theme.

[wesw]

(the sound of disqualification buzzer sounds, loudly)

I m sorry but " bizarre , erratic and egomaniacal" count as insults, whether you quote them or say them yourself the rules still apply.

post denied entry

please unring the bell.

[Crackpot]

And still you hold on to your ears screaming "LA LA LA". (The very same behavior that made you an object of ridicule).

[oldr_n_wsr]

PE=President Elect (aka Donald Trump)

I'm up for getting rid of the electoral college.
No matter what the rest of NY state does, they cannot offset NY city which really is different than the rest of the state (as is lng Island)
Same in Pennsylvania and Philly. Although they were able to this time.
In the beginning, the people didn't vote for their own senators.
Time to change?
Maybe, but if they are going to something other than a direct vote, forget it.
Even congressional district maps need to be addressed.

[Sue U]

(the sound of disqualification buzzer sounds, loudly)

I m sorry but " bizarre , erratic and egomaniacal" count as insults, whether you quote them or say them yourself the rules still apply.

Oh, so you actually don't want to have "a thread about trump which is only analytic." The Brookings Institution and the Lawfare blog are serious policy analysts. Your personal definition of what "count as insults" is irrelevant and clearly designed to limit any discussion. Why do you hate free speech? Why are you so insistent on political correctness?

[wesw]

you are such a lawyer...

you are not in the spirit of the thread.

you can use all the fancy lawyer-speak that you want, but you know that you are violating the spirit of the thread.

continue if you want, it is a free country again.

[Big RR]

Well, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and keeping a keen eye on our leaders is the responsibility of us all, as is making our feelings known when the leaders abuse the trust we have placed in them.

wes--without those adjectives, how would you couch the concern that is being raised or its basis? I think the behavior is fairly well documented.

oldr--tell that to the lowest population states that still get 3 electoral votes--they won't give that up. I'm not a big fan of the electoral college, but I'd bet it's here to stay (although I do support the states that have agreed to award the votes proportionally if enough states do the same).

[wesw]

well, if "seemingly" had been added to the said adjectives , as a qualifier, they would have been acceptable.

[Scooter]

oldr--tell that to the lowest population states that still get 3 electoral votes--they won't give that up.

They wouldn't have a choice if enough states would get their act together to force a change - National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

This isn't a partisan issue or even a big state vs. small state issue. The issue is that if you don't live in one of a handful of battleground states, you might as well not even cast a vote for president for all that it is worth. And that needs to change. If they had to win the popular vote, no presidential candidate could afford to ignore all of the small states, nor could they continue to write off Texas or Georgia or California or New York. And states like Ohio or Florida would cease to outweigh their actual importance.

[kristina]

Thanks for the link to Lawfare, Sue. Very interesting.

[Burning Petard]

bizarre , erratic and egomaniacal" count as insults

My online thesaurus says this about insults: abusive remark, jibe, affront, slight, barb, slur, indignity; injury, libel, slander, defamation; abuse, disparagement, aspersions; informal dig, crack, put-down, slap in the face, kick in the teeth, cheap shot, low blow, smack talk

libel, slander, defamation are all terms with objective meanings, as are bizarre, erratic and egomaniacal. Factual support for any of these terms seems to me to take them out of the insult category. "Insult' seems to have primarily an emotional burden. To call some one 'whitey' because they have white hair, in my social group is not an insult. For a person that the general American society identifies with the term 'Afro-American' that is not part of my social group to call a a person 'whitey' (even if that one referred-to-as-whitey has white hair or is an African-American) would probably be understood as an insult.

Therefore, I declare that 'insult' is determined by the emotional intent, not by the word used.

So. IMNSHO, The conduct of Mr. Trump while seeking the elected office of president, was many times objectively bizarre, erratic and egomaniacal when compared to the activities of others who have been successful in seeking that office, for at least the last 50 years

Again, I am trying to be unemotionally analytical here. IMNSHO, those very qualities of bizarre, erratic and egomaniacal were a major plus in the judgement of many of Mr. Trump's supporters. Not insulting, they found those qualities reinforced their hopes for a president who would change things.

snailgate

[oldr_n_wsr]

Well, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and keeping a keen eye on our leaders is the responsibility of us all, as is making our feelings known when the leaders abuse the trust we have placed in them.

Isn't that the truth. Wish there was a bi-partisan press that understood that. Too much opinion in the reporting of news now-a-days.

oldr--tell that to the lowest population states that still get 3 electoral votes--they won't give that up. I'm not a big fan of the electoral college, but I'd bet it's here to stay (although I do support the states that have agreed to award the votes proportionally if enough states do the same).

I doubt there is an answer that will please everyone. But one man (or woman or whatever you identify as) = vote, seems to be fair.

As scooter said

The issue is that if you don't live in one of a handful of battleground states, you might as well not even cast a vote for president for all that it is worth. And that needs to change.

snailgate said:
The conduct of Mr. Trump while seeking the elected office of president, was many times objectively bizarre, erratic and egomaniacal

I don't disagree with that. I do think he will be less so as president, but time will tell.

wesw, there is a difference between insults, gratuitious insults and just plain descriptives as snailgate explained.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Another point that Trump should get immediately to work on is infrastructure.
Roads, bridges, tunnels are all crumbling. Get to the rebuilding of those. Trumps a builder, these kinds of projects should come easy to him.
Just keep the MTA and Buffalo Rising out of it. new yorkers know what I am refering to

ETA
This would jump start the economy to some extent. Can't outsource a road or bridge. Put in requirements such as local sourcing of people and material. Bonuses for on/under time to completion and penalties for run overs.
They had insentives like that for the LIE rebuilding and it's amazing, it came in under time and under budget.
The money can be gotten from tolls that are strictly to pay for the rebuilding and when