President Donald J. Trump

[The King of Kings]

Oh and Scifi, you remember this book, don't you?  Barry is one of your heroes as well as mine.




So yes, my conscience is important.

[pyewacket]

There's no denying that this campaign has been one of the most divisive for the GOP. I'm not a Trump supporter but I get why he is appealing to many people. They feel totally betrayed by the party and are sending them a message. The GOP responds by sending out 'Mittens' Romney to lecture the peasants.

Remember when another successful business man ran on the Republican ticket? Steve Forbes was a man with clear, reasoned ideas and I would have loved to see him run again rather than Trump, but it looks like that ship had sailed long ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/05/steve-forbes-weighs-in-on-economy-2016-election/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned   

[SciFiAuthor]

Oh and Scifi, you remember this book, don't you?  Barry is one of your heroes as well as mine.




So yes, my conscience is important.

Yes, but all that's done is get us the Bushes and a slew of failed candidates all of which were beholden to special interests all while the Dems ran around remaking the country. At some point pragmatism kicks in, or we end up with a Democratic party social "utopia" with no say in the matter.

[Designx]

There's no denying that this campaign has been one of the most divisive for the GOP. I'm not a Trump supporter but I get why he is appealing to many people. They feel totally betrayed by the party and are sending them a message. The GOP responds by sending out 'Mittens' Romney to lecture the peasants.

Remember when another successful business man ran on the Republican ticket? Steve Forbes was a man with clear, reasoned ideas and I would have loved to see him run again rather than Trump, but it looks like that ship had sailed long ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/05/steve-forbes-weighs-in-on-economy-2016-election/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned

Forbes put the flat tax into popular culture and is still being pushed by Cruz today. I think it's the same "postcard" plan Forbes had back in 1996.

[Up All Night]

And our Radical Islamic Terrorist enemies believe they are acting in the name of their God... We fight Fire with Fire.... not with pie-in-the-sky coalitions of "Sunnis" & "Shias", and fairy dust... The Radical Islamic Terrorists are much more dangerous than all of the "Godless Communists" that were hiding under Barry's bed...

[21st Century Man]

Yes, but all that's done is get us the Bushes and a slew of failed candidates all of which were beholden to special interests all while the Dems ran around remaking the country. At some point pragmatism kicks in, or we end up with a Democratic party social "utopia" with no say in the matter.

I'm in total accordance about the urgency of the situation.  Utopia will never be achieved on planet Earth.  There will always be someone who will pervert it for their own ends.  The lust for power will never fade and people are going to always stab each other in the back if not physically then metaphorically.

I guess that is why I put my faith in something besides humanity.  I am skeptical that humanity will ever evolve.  The only thing that is keeping this planet somewhat stable for the time being is the threat of nuclear annihilation.  If that wasn't in place who knows what would happen.


People who believe in an earthly utopia are living in a fantasy world.

[Value Of Pi]

I prefer to vote according to reality and how humans are. To me conscience is some murky shit involved with my upbringing or my parent's religion or whatever. I understand the fundamentals of it, but then I realize almost all politicians and people that advanced the concepts underlying that conscience were frauds.

This is the most cynically honest statement I've seen of why someone of average or higher intelligence could even consider supporting Trump. It is, all at once, an indictment and a dismissal not only of conscience as a necessity for living an ethical and/or moral life, but an attack on objective morality and ethics themselves.

IOW, pretty scary stuff for any human being, much less a president who would also operate without conscience.

[Faustina]

There's no denying that this campaign has been one of the most divisive for the GOP. I'm not a Trump supporter but I get why he is appealing to many people. They feel totally betrayed by the party and are sending them a message. The GOP responds by sending out 'Mittens' Romney to lecture the peasants.

I don't support Trump either, but I do understand his appeal.  He really does seem to speak from the heart, off the cuff, without guile.  He seems to have a genuine desire to want to "make America great again," and seems to think he can do it.  If it's all an act, then the man deserves an Oscar.  (My own lack of support for him is based on my belief he'll find himself hog-tied by Congress if he does win the Presidency). 

I wish I could fully get behind his candidacy, coz I'd dearly love to see a maverick non-politician shake up Washington.  I'm just not sure if that's even possible unless that maverick would manage to understand how to get Congress to work with him/her once he got there.

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm in total accordance about the urgency of the situation.  Utopia will never be achieved on planet Earth.  There will always be someone who will pervert it for their own ends.  The lust for power will never fade and people are going to always stab each other in the back if not physically then metaphorically.

As long as we're human, you're right, there can be no utopia. Even when you get past the lust for power, I'm not sure everyone would agree on exactly what utopia is.

I guess that is why I put my faith in something besides humanity.  I am skeptical that humanity will ever evolve.  The only thing that is keeping this planet somewhat stable for the time being is the threat of nuclear annihilation.  If that wasn't in place who knows what would happen.

Well, I think the wildcard in that is technology. I'm deeply concerned about the next 50 years when we start gaining the ability to augment the human brain with chips and technology, which is not nearly as far in the future as people generally think. We're going to have to ask ourselves if we want to merge with our machines, and if we choose to do that then it changes everything. Utopia becomes possible at that point through several ways. One would be virtual reality. Create your own virtual utopia and live in it similar to the Matrix. Even concepts such as self and immortality become relevant issues as computers start passing the Turing test and anti-aging therapies and direct brain to computer interfacing becomes possible. 

We're already confronting the beginnings of this. It is only by sheer luck we have thus far dodged the human cloning bullet. We have the technology to do it, but so far everyone has behaved ethically and haven't tried it. During the next presidency, transhumanism is going to begin entering the arena of political thought, most likely in the form of major leaps in human lifespan and anti-aging medicine. We're going to have to ask ourselves if we really want that, and conservatives like Cruz will go into a "does not compute" mode where they don't want to regulate the development of technology, but at the same time that technology will challenge their paradigms in ways that an ideologue on the right will not be able to handle. A good example of this is religion, why does one need a religion when they can back their mind up with a computer and live indefinitely? What is good and evil in the minds of human beings when evil tendencies can be eliminated with a chip upgrade? What is a soul when computers achieve the intelligence of a human?

So, through technology, I think we can evolve. We just need to determine if we want to. We should probably be doing that now, while we still can.

[Value Of Pi]

I don't support Trump either, but I do understand his appeal.  He really does seem to speak from the heart, off the cuff, without guile.  He seems to have a genuine desire to want to "make America great again," and seems to think he can do it.  If it's all an act, then the man deserves an Oscar.  (My own lack of support for him is based on my belief he'll find himself hog-tied by Congress if he does win the Presidency). 

I wish I could fully get behind his candidacy, coz I'd dearly love to see a maverick non-politician shake up Washington.  I'm just not sure if that's even possible unless that maverick would manage to understand how to get Congress to work with him/her once he got there.

All populists have had the kind of appeal that Trump does. Some have been better performers than others, but it is still a performance, an act. We just haven't seen one run for president lately, so it's an unfamiliar act/performance for most people. This unfamiliarity tends to make Trump more effective at convincing people of his sincerity.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is the most cynically honest statement I've seen of why someone of average or higher intelligence could even consider supporting Trump. It is, all at once, an indictment and a dismissal not only of conscience as a necessity for living an ethical and/or moral life, but an attack on objective morality and ethics themselves.

IOW, pretty scary stuff for any human being, much less a president who would also operate without conscience.

It's just the realities of things. I don't think there actually is such a thing as an ethical and/or moral life. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. If I go to Saudi Arabia, it's perfectly ethical and moral to stone someone to death for adultery. 400 years ago it was perfectly ethical and moral to burn a witch in the west and those that would light the fire were seen as paragons of virtue. The fact that witches existed weighed heavily on people's consciences. In my own life, I've seen attitudes towards masturbation evolve from immoral, disordered and unethical to healthy. To me, that there was even a debate about it seems silly.

Instead, I think morals and ethics should derive from infringing on the rights of others. That's what the framers had in mind. Live and let live so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights and legal protections. I'm pretty sure Trump agrees there, though I'm not sure I trust him on property rights. But if I go up to Cruz and point out that gay marriage doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, it's not going to go over well. Trump would be more flexible. Conversely, I look at the Democrats and they're perfectly happy to coerce people into being thin and healthy, or attack fundamental rights like gun ownership, and so on. All they seem to do is infringe.

Plus, Trump's willing to say the word tariff, which is a word that's needed to be said for a while now.

[pyewacket]

I don't support Trump either, but I do understand his appeal.  He really does seem to speak from the heart, off the cuff, without guile.  He seems to have a genuine desire to want to "make America great again," and seems to think he can do it.  If it's all an act, then the man deserves an Oscar.  (My own lack of support for him is based on my belief he'll find himself hog-tied by Congress if he does win the Presidency). 

I wish I could fully get behind his candidacy, coz I'd dearly love to see a maverick non-politician shake up Washington.  I'm just not sure if that's even possible unless that maverick would manage to understand how to get Congress to work with him/her once he got there.

That's the trick, isn't it- getting Congress on board. How many times have we heard a candidate promise us real change if we'd just deliver the presidency, the senate, and the house? Didn't Bush Jr. have all three? They never deliver. We need term limits- some of them have been there 20 or 30 years. They'll never allow it.

Sorry to sound so negative, but for once I'd like the opportunity to vote for someone instead voting against the greater evil.

[GravitySucks]

That's the trick, isn't it- getting Congress on board. How many times have we heard a candidate promise us real change if we'd just deliver the presidency, the senate, and the house? Didn't Bush Jr. have all three? They never deliver. We need term limits- some of them have been there 20 or 30 years. They'll never allow it.

Sorry to sound so negative, but for once I'd like the opportunity to vote for someone instead voting against the greater evil.

Bush 43 had a majority for most of his presidency, but by that time, the establishment GOP had started acting like big government democrats. You are right about term limits.

The debt doubled under Bush 43 and will double again under Obama. That is disgusting. From a fiscal standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter who is in control of Congress. Both parties sell out to lobbyists and special interests.

[onan]

“deficits don’t matter.”

[albrecht]

Bush 43 had a majority for most of his presidency, but by that time, the establishment GOP had started acting like big government democrats. You are right about term limits.

The debt doubled under Bush 43 and will double again under Obama. That is disgusting. From a fiscal standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter who is in control of Congress. Both parties sell out to lobbyists and special interests.

Besides all the other problems I think the biggest is that the folks in Washington (and applies in most State capitols also) think that they need to be always "doing something." Frankly I'd rather pay their salary and let them drink, screw interns, play golf, or whatever if it comes to it. Just because you are elected or get a government job in some regulatory agency doesn't mean you need to keep making more laws and regulations. At some point the system will implode if each generation of politicians and bureacrats need to make more laws and regulations. Enough is enough. Look at our tax code, as one example. But EVERY aspect of our life, work, travel, fun, business, health, property etc is covered by a Byzantine reams of regulations and laws- so much that nobody can actually have a handle, or even know, all the rules. It is crazy. Just using the tax-code as an example (but there are examples everywhere) hire three different firms or tax attorneys to do your taxes (or your business's taxes) and compare. What kind of logical/sane system would one find different results from the same data?

[pyewacket]

Bush 43 had a majority for most of his presidency, but by that time, the establishment GOP had started acting like big government democrats. You are right about term limits.

The debt doubled under Bush 43 and will double again under Obama. That is disgusting. From a fiscal standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter who is in control of Congress. Both parties sell out to lobbyists and special interests.

It is disgusting and I'm afraid this will not change.

"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists." Ernest Hemingway

[GravitySucks]

“deficits don’t matter.”

Yes they do...

[onan]

Yes they do...

Of course they do. I was quoting Cheney.

[gabrielle]

Can someone please tell me if the President of the United States could unilaterally revoke/rescind the NAFTA agreement?  Would they not require Congressional approval? 

[GravitySucks]

Of course they do. I was quoting Cheney.

Ooooooooh. Sorry.

[GravitySucks]

Can someone please tell me if the President of the United States could unilaterally revoke/rescind the NAFTA agreement?  Would they not require Congressional approval?

It depends.

NAFTA is not a treaty. It was implemented through the NAFTA Implementation Act.

The President is in charge of foreign policy. That being said, a president wouldn't just cancel NAFTA without getting Congress involved (or the courts would get involved).

Same thing with ObamaCare.

There are probably some aspects that the President can refuse to enforce/administer, but actually repealing it would take an act of congress. 

[gabrielle]

It depends.

NAFTA is not a treaty. It was implemented through the NAFTA Implementation Act.

The President is in charge of foreign policy. That being said, a president wouldn't just cancel NAFTA without getting Congress involved (or the courts would get involved).

Same thing with ObamaCare.

There are probably some aspects that the President can refuse to enforce/administer, but actually repealing it would take an act of congress.

Why thank you!  I thought so.  It is something to keep in mind when listening to the Donald. 

[albrecht]

Can someone please tell me if the President of the United States could unilaterally revoke/rescind the NAFTA agreement?  Would they not require Congressional approval?

It is a question often pondered and conflicting arguments for both. And all sides have done so over the years. There also is interesting "understandings" of treaties in US law vs international law etc.* One side would have it since Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the Senate to confirm the negotiated by the President/Executive branch that they would need to be involved with the dissolution. The other side would say, like a divorce or partnership, only one side could dissolve the agreement and the President being the head of state and initial negotiator can break them.

*most of our "treaties" are not, really, "treaties" per the Constitution but "agreements" etc
(warning opens pdf: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf )

[gabrielle]

It is a question often pondered and conflicting arguments for both. And all sides have done so over the years. There also is interesting "understandings" of treaties in US law vs international law etc.* One side would have it since Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the Senate to confirm the negotiated by the President/Executive branch that they would need to be involved with the dissolution. The other side would say, like a divorce or partnership, only one side could dissolve the agreement and the President being the head of state and initial negotiator can break them.

*most of our "treaties" are not, really, "treaties" per the Constitution but "agreements" etc
(warning opens pdf: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf )

Thank You.  This seems to be an area that is not explored well when the candidates make statements like "I am going to scrap NAFTA". 

[albrecht]

Thank You.  This seems to be an area that is not explored well when the candidates make statements like "I am going to scrap NAFTA".

Even though we have a Constitution and laws etc there still is much debate and also the "F you" option, which has been done/tried before If you want some interesting reading look up Missouri v. Holland with regard to treaties and, later, the balance of power between States and the Feds and the argued ability of the Executive Branch (essentially the President) to amend law, and even the Constitution, by a foreign treaty. Also look up the attempts in the 50's to 'solve' this problem (Bricker Amendments.)

Nothing, really, changes and the same issues ebb and flow over history, it would seem. Look at our oldest books or moral codes or myths in every culture and think: why would their be prohibitions etc against the behavior if it wasn't already happening?

[Faustina]

All populists have had the kind of appeal that Trump does. Some have been better performers than others, but it is still a performance, an act. We just haven't seen one run for president lately, so it's an unfamiliar act/performance for most people. This unfamiliarity tends to make Trump more effective at convincing people of his sincerity.

Why would it all be just an act, though?  Granted, his desire to be President and improve the country is likely driven by his ego and his need for power and fame, but if he could do what he says he will, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.  To me, Trump's acting like he's always acted, outrageous (although not all the time), and is just behaving in accord with what's actually his personality.

I'm very on the fence over the conspiracy theories out there that say Trump is running for President just to ensure that Hillary wins. 

[Value Of Pi]

It's just the realities of things. I don't think there actually is such a thing as an ethical and/or moral life. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. If I go to Saudi Arabia, it's perfectly ethical and moral to stone someone to death for adultery. 400 years ago it was perfectly ethical and moral to burn a witch in the west and those that would light the fire were seen as paragons of virtue. The fact that witches existed weighed heavily on people's consciences. In my own life, I've seen attitudes towards masturbation evolve from immoral, disordered and unethical to healthy. To me, that there was even a debate about it seems silly.

Instead, I think morals and ethics should derive from infringing on the rights of others. That's what the framers had in mind. Live and let live so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights and legal protections. I'm pretty sure Trump agrees there, though I'm not sure I trust him on property rights. But if I go up to Cruz and point out that gay marriage doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, it's not going to go over well. Trump would be more flexible. Conversely, I look at the Democrats and they're perfectly happy to coerce people into being thin and healthy, or attack fundamental rights like gun ownership, and so on. All they seem to do is infringe.

Plus, Trump's willing to say the word tariff, which is a word that's needed to be said for a while now.

First, you suggest your belief in moral relativism, which of course goes with your implication that most morals and ethics, Saudi or not, have no intrinsic value. So, no need to try and live an ethical or moral life. All you have to do is be realistic and you're on safe and non-hypocritical ground.

Then, it turns out that you do endorse the following of morals and ethics, as long as they derive from the Constitution and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Never mind that respecting the "rights of others," your core principle, is constantly in flux based on evolving interpretations by the courts and society at large of what those rights are. Talk about trying to follow fixed concepts instead of what is "realistic." (Your point that gay marriage does not or cannot infringe on the rights of others is a bit moot when people are being forced to bake gay wedding cakes in violation of their First Amendment rights. In practice, people's "rights" conflict all over the place.)

In the end, conscience implies that people should be responsible for doing the right thing. The right thing is often debatable, but having a conscience is itself not optional if you're living in a society. Moral relativism, which has value in terms of understanding how and why groups of people do the things they do, is usually a dangerous component in anyone's individual philosophy.

Within limits, I think it's useful, but too much of it in the mix just allows people to justify all kinds of bad behavior. As in, "Sure what I'm doing may be wrong and unethical but it's still a heckuva lot better than what those guys are doing." It's always a sad excuse. Trump is basically a relativist with some core values, few of which seem to be very valuable.

[Value Of Pi]

Why would it all be just an act, though?  Granted, his desire to be President and improve the country is likely driven by his ego and his need for power and fame, but if he could do what he says he will, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.  To me, Trump's acting like he's always acted, outrageous (although not all the time), and is just behaving in accord with what's actually his personality.

I'm very on the fence over the conspiracy theories out there that say Trump is running for President just to ensure that Hillary wins.

I don't mean that Trump and his campaign are an act in terms of any wild Hillary conspiracy theory. They're an act in terms of him not being what he claims to be and his not having the interests of the country as his greatest concern. This problem overall, and with all the specifics of his history and character, make him unqualified for the job of president. Except in some alternate universe, which as it turns out, may be what we are living in.

Here are John Oliver's impressions of Trump, which are as on target as any "serious" analysis I've heard or read:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42541/john-oliver-donald-trump-video/

[SciFiAuthor]

First, you suggest your belief in moral relativism, which of course goes with your implication that most morals and ethics, Saudi or not, have no intrinsic value. So, no need to try and live an ethical or moral life. All you have to do is be realistic and you're on safe and non-hypocritical ground.

No, I would say that it's more that I don't see religious or social whims as being ideal places from which to derive morality from. Often, it's arguably not moral at all, such as burning a witch. But there was a time when that was seen as the moral thing to do.

Then, it turns out that you do endorse the following of morals and ethics, as long as they derive from the Constitution and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Never mind that respecting the "rights of others," your core principle, is constantly in flux based on evolving interpretations by the courts and society at large of what those rights are. Talk about trying to follow fixed concepts instead of what is "realistic." (Your point that gay marriage does not or cannot infringe on the rights of others is a bit moot when people are being forced to bake gay wedding cakes in violation of their First Amendment rights. In practice, people's "rights" conflict all over the place.)

I wouldn't say that it's based on that, more the enlightenment and classical humanist thinking that underlies their thought. I don't think people should be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, that would be an infringement on their right to do business with whomever they choose. Equally, I wouldn't expect a church opposed to gay marriage to perform a gay wedding. It would be ludicrous, since it's outside their doctrine. What I do object to is someone deciding on a wholly religious basis that two adults can't engage in a same sex marriage. Such a marriage infringes on the rights of no one. In fact, I'd go further and ask why government is in the marriage business at all. They should be recording that marriages occurred for legal reasons, they should not be deciding who can marry and who can not.

In the end, conscience implies that people should be responsible for doing the right thing. The right thing is often debatable, but having a conscience is itself not optional if you're living in a society. Moral relativism, which has value in terms of understanding how and why groups of people do the things they do, is usually a dangerous component in anyone's individual philosophy.

Yeah, but the "right thing" changes an awful damned lot. I can't think of anything more dangerous than basing a moral code on a religion. That leads to stonings, beheadings, burnings, inquisitions, and many other things in history that were grossly immoral in my thinking, but were perfectly moral at the time from a religious standpoint. So taking religion out of it, what could "doing the right thing" be based on other than a basis derived from a healthy morally relativistic look at the world? There can be no objective "right thing" otherwise, it would always be subjective with no basis at all.

Within limits, I think it's useful, but too much of it in the mix just allows people to justify all kinds of bad behavior. As in, "Sure what I'm doing may be wrong and unethical but it's still a heckuva lot better than what those guys are doing." It's always a sad excuse. Trump is basically a relativist with some core values, few of which seem to be very valuable.

Welcome to the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger lol. That's basically how he operated. That said, he was effective. I have no illusions, the world at the top is basically run by morally ambiguous people and it always has been. That's basically the main way you get there, by cheating one way or another. As far as Trump, well, look, he openly says that he's bought politicians for years and that's fundamentally how the system works. Alright, one could easily call that into question morally, it's engaging in corruption. However, when every other possibility (with the possible exception of Sanders) are the people being bought, I'd rather go for the guy that bribes rather than the guy that gets bribed.

[GravitySucks]

Speaking of Kissinger, buried in this article is the fact that the US knew that Arafat ordered the murders of two American diplomats being held hostage in Khartoum in 1973 and did nothing. This is the first I have heard of this part of the story.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/06/exclusive-inside-nsa-operation-to-stop-1973-new-york-city-bomb-plot/