Obviously True, My friend. I was not around when discussions like this were serious business.

"Wow. Authoritarian much?"



It still amazes me that ostensible adults write things like this unironically. Snark is not a substitute for having a coherent philosophy.

---

The great liberal project of universalism has proven a disaster. It cannot be saved by elections or any other means, and whoever incidentally happens to be elected will not change the course of history, at best it may ease or alter the style of the transition out of this dark era. One way or another reality will be confronted.

---

Analysis that paints Trump as a buffoon, a foreign-paid stooge, or a generic neo-con is politically motivated claptrap at best and woeful ignorance at worst. You will not accurately predict reality by believing anything so stupid. Similarly if you view him as the savior of Western civ.

---

The American political system produces Trump, the French system produces Macron. (Its the primaries.) It remains unclear whether Nationalism or Accelerationism will get us where we want to be, or how much blood either course will produce. Expect Europe to flow with it within your lifetimes.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 20 2017, 5:24 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: No cuckservatism pls. It's rude

Now there's an impeachment inquiry.

Yes, this is a good time to explore your own thinking on these types of matters. For example, if you believe the system to be hopelessly corrupt, then this should simply be perceived as an example of that system attempting to stave off an outsider from influencing it, no?

Everyone was all doom and gloom initially but really is Trump any better or worse than Bush?

A lot of people who hate Bush admit they would rather have Bush. It's very bizarre.

It's not even so much about the actual performance. It's about what kind of person he is. I would never ever want such a person represent my country.

Yeah but most politicans are scum so that's nothing out of the ordinary. Trump just isn't duplicitous like the others so it's more visible.

Think of all the presidents who were slave owners, even George Washington, is it even possible for Trump to be considered less moral than them?

That's just a very common thing people say levelled at the current leader. "I would rather have X person from the past." That's not specific to Trump

Trump is definitively worse than Bush. The primary power of the U.S. President is not legislative in nature, since he's the head of our executive branch, so the country has not collapsed or anything ridiculous since he doesn't hold the power to actually fulfill his campaign promises via legislation. HOWEVER - in the areas that he does hold power - appointment to heads of agencies like the FBI, CIA, EPA, the cabinet, and so forth, he has already caused chaos that will be felt for years to come, and more importantly he has destabilized the foundations of the relationships between Western nations - I think Angela Merkel said it most famously. Like it or not, post WWII and prior to the Trump election the Western world did look to the U.S. for leadership, but today that is not the case. This opens the door for authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to insert their ideology into the fringes of this base of democratic nations - obviously a staunch supporter like the U.K. won't be swayed, but consider intermediate countries like Turkey who are losing out on U.S. support. Bush understood that foreign aid was not "throwing away" money, it was an investment in long-term U.S. interests. Trump, in his buffoonery, sees only that we are spending the money and he wants other people to do it instead, and understands nothing about the complex tapestry that makes up international relations. Bush was a status-quo president in a trying time for the U.S., Trump is a clear negative.

what did our esteemed empress (Merkel) say?

This guy is off the rails. Just yesterday he randomly said that people are flushing their toilets too much.

this did not age well...


There is nothing bizarre about preferring a bad president in a democracy instead of a demagogue who presents the greatest threat to US democracy since the civil war.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 8 2019, 6:48 pm by Zincoshine.

If one man can present such a threat to the system of democracy maybe the system of democracy is the problem, if it is so susceptible to such things. Surely there are policies and procedures in place to stop such things from occurring.

How is this any different to other presidencies who make these appointments is what I don't get. Obviously if you are a Democrat, you aren't happy with who the Republician will put into these positions, and vice versa. Can't the next president simply appoint their own preferred heads of agencies? How is it "creating chaos for years to come" do you just mean years as in only the years in which he is in power.

Bush took America into two wars. Trump has yet to do that. Surely that makes Bush worse?

Afaik, you can't simply remove everyone the previous president added to the fold easily. There is the possibility that the people that were appointed are inadequate for the station which would mean any future work would involve trying to fix issues caused by said inadequacies.

If you can't do it (easily) how did Trump do it then?

Moreover you can't replace the knowledge and other intangible assets - such as relationships with foreign diplomats, educators, or local law enforcement - lost when you fire or lose career employees. Nor can you fully recoup morale - when someone like Scott Pruitt tries to sabotage his agency's mission and silence or discipline employees when their research disagrees with his politics (or even more concerning, his financial interests).

Who would want to pursue a career working for the government when they see the president and his associates would fire, or attempt to fire, or harass them for doing their jobs well or for correctly reporting suspicious behavior? I can't imagine someone presently looking at the state department as a great place to work, or thinking a career as an environmental scientist with the EPA would mean stable employment.

Trump's administration has all but assured a long-term decrease in the quality of the people working for - and the quality of work done by the government.



You can destroy an organization or a business a lot easier than you can built it; and when you violate norms (like firing the FBI director who's supposed to serve a certain length of time and should not be removed for political reasons) it's very hard to restore the "old normal".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 9 2019, 9:43 pm by jjf28.

so it's not so much about the people he's put in place but the precedent he's set?

Not really what I said; when we're talking about long term effects it's a mix of the people put in place (some of which, namely judges, are for life and can't be removed), what they're actually doing (e.g. revoking net neutrality), and the and the precedents they set/norms they break (both trump, and his appointees, and characters like giuliani); one isn't necessarily more damaging than the others.

You guys are all saying once these people are appointed it's hard for them to get removed... but isn't that exactly what Trump did? He came in, removed a bunch of people and appointed his own. Doesn't sound like it's that hard to remove people.

It depends on the position, e.g. supreme court justices are for life, all cabinet members are ~automatically changed, heads of government organizations depend