The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[BugI02]

Trump and Pelosi both suck for fomenting divisions in our society. They both exist purely to pursue their own benefit and offer nothing of lasting value to society.

But yeah, that little tit-for-tat is pretty funny. Totally petty, but I, too, would've liked to see her reaction.

Your opinion is duly noted, as is the reflexiveness of its nature and its lack of basis in objective, provable fact

Should you dispute this judgement, please lay out your arguments to support the stipulation that 'Trump exists purely to pursue his own benefit and offers nothing of lasting value to society'. Facts, man ... not supposition and opinion

 

[ghitch75]

[h=1]Trump denies Pelosi aircraft for foreign trip, after call for State of the Union delay[/h]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response-to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

 

[nonobaddog]

Trump donates his entire salary to charities. He wanted to not receive any salary but found out he was required to accept it - so he donates it.
That just doesn't sound like "purely to pursue...own benefit".

 

[mmpsteve]

Your opinion is duly noted, as is the reflexiveness of its nature and its lack of basis in objective, provable fact

Should you dispute this judgement, please lay out your arguments to support the stipulation that 'Trump exists purely to pursue his own benefit and offers nothing of lasting value to society'. Facts, man ... not supposition and opinion

That's just crazy talk, Bug. We all know Trump is benefitting hugely more as President, than running his billion dollar enterprises! Oh, wait ... I heard he doesn't even take his Presidential salary. Oopsy.

ETA: baddog beat me to it

.

 

[d.kaufman]

Someone has TDS for sure!

 

[BugI02]

Yep. "As of January 3, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 85 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 30 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts" virtually all vetted and recommended by the Federalist Society as promised prior to his election.

But I guess he must be doing that only so he'll get favorable treatment before the bench for his own legal issues

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Trump and Pelosi both suck for fomenting divisions in our society. They both exist purely to pursue their own benefit and offer nothing of lasting value to society.

But yeah, that little tit-for-tat is pretty funny. Totally petty, but I, too, would've liked to see her reaction.

Sorry, but I think increasing border security does have lasting value. Yes the whole immigration system needs to be revised, but in the mean time, increasing security can't hurt. In the grand scheme of things, 5.7 billion isn't even a blip on the radar of the massive amount of federal spending. It's not about the money, or the efficacy, it's purely political bovine excrement.

 

[jamil]

Trump and Pelosi both suck for fomenting divisions in our society. [TRUE] They both exist purely to pursue their own benefit and offer nothing of lasting value to society. [subjective but less true]

But yeah, that little tit-for-tat is pretty funny. Totally petty, but I, too, would've liked to see her reaction.

Absolutely Trump and Pelosi epitomize what is wrong with the divisiveness of politics today. They indeed suck. However, I suspect that Trump genuinely wants the wall, and not for him personally, but because he thinks it will benefit America. I think he's a boundaries guy. He may put his personal boundaries in odd places, but he strikes me as a person who likes boundaries. Of course there is some self-centered reasons for getting the wall. He made the campaign promise and so far the support he's lost has been disappointment that he didn't get the wall done when he had majorities in both houses of congress.

Pelosi? I'm not so sure she cares all that much about the wall per se. It's not apparent until you uncover the politics where her opposition starts happening.

She's on record talking about the need to secure the border, and the usefulness of a barrier. Of course that was in a different context but thinking that a barrier is an effective detereant is incompatible with her stated position now. Maybe she's evolved. But, she's also on record reciting essentially the Mitch McConnell line, that their strategy is to block everything this president does. Her motivation appears to be keeping Trump from claiming victories which he can use to win support for his reelection.

 

[jamil]

Trump donates his entire salary to charities. He wanted to not receive any salary but found out he was required to accept it - so he donates it.
That just doesn't sound like "purely to pursue...own benefit".

Sure it can. An annual salary of $400K is chump change. It means nothing to donate it, but the value of being seen donating his salary is worth way more than the $400K. The tactic apparently works.

 

[jamil]

Yep. "As of January 3, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 85 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 30 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts" virtually all vetted and recommended by the Federalist Society as promised prior to his election.

But I guess he must be doing that only so he'll get favorable treatment before the bench for his own legal issues

Trump isn't a conservative. He's keeping campaign promises, which is good. And refreshing that a candidate actually appears to think about the promises he made. But, he made the promise because he's playing to conservatives. If he'd have run as a democrat it's likely his list-o-judges would have come from a much different advocacy group.

 

[BugI02]

Sure it can. An annual salary of $400K is chump change. It means nothing to donate it, but the value of being seen donating his salary is worth way more than the $400K. The tactic apparently works.

Pelosi's estimated net worth $58million to 72million when she assumed the speaker position again. Care to guess how much of her salary she is donating to charity?

She must not need any good publicity

 

[nonobaddog]

The only Presidents that donated much or all of their salary were George Washington. Herbert Hoover, John Kennedy and Donald Trump. Pretty good company.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, but I think increasing border security does have lasting value. Yes the whole immigration system needs to be revised, but in the mean time, increasing security can't hurt. In the grand scheme of things, 5.7 billion isn't even a blip on the radar of the massive amount of federal spending. It's not about the money, or the efficacy, it's purely political bovine excrement.

Yeah. There's quite a bit of evidence that Trump does believe in many of the things he wants to do. As I said, it's not because he's a conservative. But I do think his heart is in it with the border issue. Also with trade. He's been preaching all that stuff for years before he decided to actually run.

And actually, I think the only logical argument against the wall IS the cost issue. I agree that the politicians who were once on record approving border barriers who now are using the cost issue, are probably just being political. They don't want Trump to have a victory.

But about the cost, it's expensive beyond the proof that it will be worth the money. It seems to come down exactly across political lines which side you're on there. Which makes it largely deterministic. I don't know if it would be worth the cost. I suspect it could be. There's a fair argument either way, but since the current opinions appear to be deterministic, I can't say I trust either.

 

[jamil]

Pelosi's estimated net worth $58million to 72million when she assumed the speaker position again. Care to guess how much of her salary she is donating to charity?

She must not need any good publicity

So do you have a rebuttal which isn't whataboutism? Pelosi's donations have nothing to do with the apparent sincerity of Trump's benevolence or lack thereof.

 

[BugI02]

Trump isn't a conservative. He's keeping campaign promises, which is good. And refreshing that a candidate actually appears to think about the promises he made. But, he made the promise because he's playing to conservatives. If he'd have run as a democrat it's likely his list-o-judges would have come from a much different advocacy group.

I only buy that argument to the extent that I'll agree he's not a George Will/David French style conservative - and thank God for that. I think he is redefining what it means to be a conservative (not to be confused witha Real Republican®) so tough to make that call just yet. However, at its heart I always thought that true conservatism was about fighting to keep the things that make America unique - and dare I say great - as the bedrock of our society. I think he's much closer to the mark than anybody since Reagan

 

[nonobaddog]

Trump isn't a conservative.

Trump is a conservative.

 

[jamil]

I only buy that argument to the extent that I'll agree he's not a George Will/David French style conservative - and thank God for that. I think he is redefining what it means to be a conservative (not to be confused witha Real Republican®) so tough to make that call just yet. However, at its heart I always thought that true conservatism was about fighting to keep the things that make America unique - and dare I say great - as the bedrock of our society. I think he's much closer to the mark than anybody since Reagan

Yes, by supporting some gun control bull****. No. If you have to redefine conservatism so that it looks a lot less like conservatism, it's not redefining it. It's something different. Trump doesn't really fit on the left-right paradigm as neatly as conservatives. Politics is multi-dimensional, and if you compress all the dimensions to just one, you lose the resolution with which to accurately model some people's politics. I don't get the impression that Trump is really all that ideological. He doesn't really fit. So in that sense you might say he's defining his own, but it's not conservatism.

I'll put it this way. He panders to conservatism much like he panders to Christianity. It's obvious he's neither. Might be part of the reason he picked Pence. He needed a coach to get the language close enough.

It's okay to say you don't care if he's not a conservative. But it's not anywhere near accurate to say he's redefining conservatism. Conservatism may well die. And what he is may well replace it on the right. But it's not a redefinition.

 

[BugI02]

So do you have a rebuttal which isn't whataboutism? Pelosi's donations have nothing to do with the apparent sincerity of Trump's benevolence or lack thereof.

This is the familiar mind-reader problem. I can't unequivocally refute your opinion because I can't know Trump's true feelings on this (or any other issue) without being a mind reader. Neither can you. I can respond with a counter-opinion of "Taint so" if you wish

You will note that I have given just as much evidence to support my opinion as you have yours, that to me the facts of the matter appear to lead to a certain conclusion that is at variance with yours

As for your assertion that the political value of the contribution that Trump makes outweighs its monetary value to him because he's rich, I simply point out that Pelosi - also rich - must not need any good publicity or she would do the same. I would expect you to spot the obvious fallacy, to whit that Pelosi actually needs all the good publicity she can get, and thus perhaps question your assumptions in forming your opinion about Trump's motive

A guy can hope, you know

 

[jamil]

Trump is a conservative.

Well, at least he's getting some of the language right. During the campaign it was laughable how often conservative supporters had to take him aside to explain the nuances so that he'd stop saying stupid ****.

 

[BugI02]

Yes, by supporting some gun control bull****. No. If you have to redefine conservatism so that it looks a lot less like conservatism, it's not redefining it. It's something different. Trump doesn't really fit on the left-right paradigm as neatly as conservatives. Politics is multi-dimensional, and if you compress all the dimensions to just one, you lose the resolution with which to accurately model some people's politics. I don't get the impression that Trump is really all that ideological. He doesn't really fit. So in that sense you might say he's defining his own, but it's not conservatism.

I'll put it this way. He panders to conservatism much like he panders to Christianity. It's obvious he's neither. Might be part of the reason he picked Pence. He needed a coach to get the language close enough.

It's okay to say you don't care if he's not a conservative. But it's not anywhere near accurate to say he's redefining conservatism. Conservatism may well die. And what he is may well replace it on the right. But it's not a redefinition.

con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvədiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.


noun
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

Please point to the part of the definition of conservative he doesn't meet. Note that I specify 'small c' conservative as opposed to Country Club Conservative, the posers that have occupied the sinecures inside the beltway since Buckley passed