Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Water John

Another poster running off on whataboutery. Trump for any true American citizen is an embarrassment.

DrumSteve

Weird how worked up people get here when all I asked was a question.

There is no narrow definition that I am using; to expand on why I am asking this here, I seen a post from a conservative commentator on twitter earlier that posited this same question.

It's not a stupid word game; I'm trying to understand how you can separate the title (President)from the actions you want to see in a President ("presidential") when his actions by definition as President are "Presidential" and contradict what you believe to be presidential; if so, should our understanding of what it means to be a president be redefined?

aloyisious

I'm more than a little bit happy that Don has backed off from his military parade in Washington, even from a cost-saving angle it is good. Don tweeted several days ago that if the military refused a pay raise it would be a patriotic act. On Monday afternoon, Trump spoke to troops at Fort Drum in advance of a signing ceremony for the 2019 national defense authorization, which includes a 2.6 percent pay raise for the troops.“We are proudly giving our troops the biggest pay increase in a decade,” Trump said. “I know you don’t want it because you’re very patriotic. You’ll say, just save the money. We’re going to pay down debt.” Then Trump awkwardly launched into what perhaps was supposed to be a joke. Except the crowd didn’t seem to find it funny at all. “Does anybody not want it? Please raise your hand,” Trump he said. After scanning the crowd, he added, “What’s going on here? Are these real patriots? I don’t know, General. I don’t know.”

Another aspect of the parade would be the actual presence of a large body of troops in Washington, outside of it's normal contingent of units based in the DC area and Maryland next door. I'd be afraid of the opportunity offered to Don to do something stupid where it comes to presidential authority which would make it clear he is an even bigger idiot than people choose to believe.

Leroy42

DrumSteve wrote: »

Just so I'm clear; I'm being extremely literal in the question I'm asking.

Yes, and all I am asking is that literal be taken to cover all POTUS, not just this one.

So, as being POTUS means that everything you do is presidential, then why did the GOP get so worked up at what Bill do during him acting presidential.

Its the inconsistency yet again there is so apparent.

aloyisious

DrumSteve wrote: »

Weird how worked up people get here when all I asked was a question.

There is no narrow definition that I am using; to expand, I seen a post from a conservative commentator on twitter earlier that posited this same question, which is why I'm asking it here.

It's not a stupid word game; I'm trying to understand how you can separate the title (President)from the actions you want to see in a President ("presidential") when his actions by definition as President are "Presidential" and contradict what you believe to be presidential; if so, should our understanding of what it means to be a president be redefined?

Not all acts or actions of a president are presidential in nature. The president, as chief executive of the USA and person responsible for proper use of the powers that go with the job, is expected and required to behave as a responsible adult AT ALL TIMES.

That includes treating all others with respect and not flying off the handle at the slightest bit of pressure on him, like when people disagree with him and his opinion. He has made it clear by his actions that he can't think or work clear-headed as president at the best of times, let alone when he's faced with a real obligation to act presidential. He hasn't grown with the job. One of your posts said people think he act's presidential by not acting presidential and that is the problem, acting [gas-lighting] versus actions [actual deeds]. They are NOT the same thing.

Christy42

DrumSteve wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Not how how English works.

Maybe if enough presidents come along who act like that presidential may become a bad word. Until then they are not going to change the meaning of the word over one person. It is a separate word from president with its own meaning (certainly derived from how world leaders have acted in the past and the word may evolve further but its definition is not dependent on a Presidents every action). Side note you can act presidential without being president of anything.

If it was simply things done by a president the word would quickly become pointless and no longer be used.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/presidential see 1.1

I know how English works, jesus. (Also two how's don't make sense in your first sentence if we're going there).

The point I am making is that he (trump) is president; therefore his actions while president will be presidential actions.

While you or I might not agree with them; there is a huge cohort of people who believe he is extremely presidential (almost by virue of the fact that he doesn't act presidential, which he has alluded to at many of his rallies).

Presidential has a technical definition. That definition is not actions a president does. See link in my previous post.

You are still attempting to redefine an English word.

(What do you mean if we are going there, you know what people mean by presidential and tried to go for semantics on the English language, we are there already).

This entire argument is dumb. You know what people mean by acting presidential. It is the same as what people mean when they say a candidate is acting presidential even though they are not president.

He does not act presidential is a valid English sentence that is also true. Whether or not he is president is not relevant to what the word means.

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

Can we move past the "Presidential" vs. "presidential" discussion please.

Neither side is making any movement and we're just going round in circles.. Let's agree to disagree and move on..

Thanks

Igotadose

Whoa, among numerous faults, I didn't know that Trump was pro-asbestos. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17670942/donald-trump-asbestos-epa-ban-russia

Apparently the EPA's looking to relax some asbestos regulations. Only Russia now exports asbestos (and, one of their companies put out a 'go, us!' news release featuring Trump's image on it.). This got missed in all the Pruitt kerfuffle over the last few months.

Sure, more asbestos. What could possibly go wrong?

Dohnjoe

Nearly 2 years in and this is still far more surreal than I ever imagined it could be

Outlaw Pete

dudara wrote: »

There's no doubt in my head that his attacks contributed to the Ananapolis attack. It's not a case of if or when he'll get a journalist killed, he already has.

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure there is no doubt in your head but the reality of the situation is much different.

Ramos had a long standing grudge against the newspaper. They wrote a story about him pleading guilty to harassing one of his high school classmates and he sued the reporter who wrote the article, and the newspaper's publisher, for defamation (unsuccessfully). The murders had nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure there is no doubt in your head but the reality of the situation is much different.

Ramos had a long standing grudge against the newspaper. They wrote a story about him pleading guilty to harassing one of his high school classmates and he sued the reporter who wrote the article, and the newspaper's publisher, for defamation (unsuccessfully). The murders had nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.

For it is worth Pete, I agree with you (minus the use of the roll eye emojis and the general snark).

However, what Trump is currently issuing is, by any objective view point, an authoritarian decree that will and already has incited violence against the press (see any of his rallies for example).

There is a very fine line between angry folk who have ridiculously easy access to guns and someone getting shot. In my view, it is a matter of time.

It is pure reckless to be stoking those emotions and he is doing it in spades.

dudara

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure there is no doubt in your head but the reality of the situation is much different.

Ramos had a long standing grudge against the newspaper. They wrote a story about him pleading guilty to harassing one of his high school classmates and he sued the reporter who wrote the article, and the newspaper's publisher, for defamation (unsuccessfully). The murders had nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.

Indeed he had a grudge. But tweets of this nature from the president create an environment where a person can feel justified in going from a grudge to getting guns and murdering people. So I reject your argument that Trump had nothing to do with it. As president, every single one of his actions have consequences.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm more than a little bit happy that Don has backed off from his military parade in Washington, even from a cost-saving angle it is good. Don tweeted several days ago that if the military refused a pay raise it would be a patriotic act. On Monday afternoon, Trump spoke to troops at Fort Drum in advance of a signing ceremony for the 2019 national defense authorization, which includes a 2.6 percent pay raise for the troops.“We are proudly giving our troops the biggest pay increase in a decade,” Trump said. “I know you don’t want it because you’re very patriotic. You’ll say, just save the money. We’re going to pay down debt.” Then Trump awkwardly launched into what perhaps was supposed to be a joke. Except the crowd didn’t seem to find it funny at all. “Does anybody not want it? Please raise your hand,” Trump he said. After scanning the crowd, he added, “What’s going on here? Are these real patriots? I don’t know, General. I don’t know.”

Another aspect of the parade would be the actual presence of a large body of troops in Washington, outside of it's normal contingent of units based in the DC area and Maryland next door. I'd be afraid of the opportunity offered to Don to do something stupid where it comes to presidential authority which would make it clear he is an even bigger idiot than people choose to believe.

Yeah, the cost, if indeed the $92m figure (Mattis disputes it) is correct, is not acceptable. And, frankly, if true, it's another demonstration how anything in the US costs many times more than it needs. The dollar values for even installing a platform at a light rail station are insane. If the French spent nearly $100m every year on Bastille Day, that parade would have been cancelled years ago.

To give you an example, this year on Remembrance Day I'm scheduled to be commanding a 60-ton tank in a parade near Toronto going to the Oshawa Cenotaph, one of some 60 armored vehicles of which about 20 are proper tanks. These are museum pieces, it's not exactly a massive budget. But my M60 is almost as heavy and just as dangerous to people in the way as a a current M1. Excuses about tanks being too big and heavy are complete BS. Even if for some reason they can't roll on their tracks (which I find hard to accept), they can flatbed them as some other countries do.

That said, if the figures were inflated by the (Generally Democrat-run) DC government to scupper the parade just because Trump wants it, I hope that comes out and shame on them for it. The selection by the Pentagon of the 100th Anniversary of the end of WW1 was fairly inspired, and if there is any event worthy of the first military parade in nearly three decades, that is it. There will obviously be major events in many other countries, they aren't controversial, mainly because Trump isn't involved.

Outlaw Pete

dudara wrote: »

So I reject your argument that Trump had nothing to do with it.

Reject it all you like but until you have some reasonable grounds for why you feel he contributed to those killings your assertion is absurd and is just yet another example of people accusing Trump of either being something he is not or doing something he didn't....... and lord knows we've have a mountain of that over the last two years.

As president, every single one of his actions have consequences.

Of course, intentional and otherwise, but that doesn't mean because of that you can just say his words got people killed, which is what you did with the following:

dudara wrote: »

It's not a case of if or when he'll get a journalist killed, he already has.

If he had tweeted about Trump and said something like: "Trump's right, some journos screwed me over a few years back too and they're gonna pay today" then, yeah, I'd understand you saying what you have at least, but there is zero reason to think anything Trump said led to Ramos's actions. You're adding 2 + 2 and getting 100.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yeah, the cost, if indeed the $92m figure (Mattis disputes it) is correct, is not acceptable. And, frankly, if true, it's another demonstration how anything in the US costs many times more than it needs. The dollar values for even installing a platform at a light rail station are insane. If the French spent nearly $100m every year on Bastille Day, that parade would have been cancelled years ago.

To give you an example, this year on Remembrance Day I'm scheduled to be commanding a 60-ton tank in a parade near Toronto going to the Oshawa Cenotaph, one of some 60 armored vehicles of which about 20 are proper tanks. These are museum pieces, it's not exactly a massive budget. But my M60 is almost as heavy and just as dangerous to people in the way as a a current M1. Excuses about tanks being too big and heavy are complete BS. Even if for some reason they can't roll on their tracks (which I find hard to accept), they can flatbed them as some other countries do.

That said, if the figures were inflated by the (Generally Democrat-run) DC government to scupper the parade just because Trump wants it, I hope that comes out and shame on them for it. The selection by the Pentagon of the 100th Anniversary of the end of WW1 was fairly inspired, and if there is any event worthy of the first military parade in nearly three decades, that is it. There will obviously be major events in many other countries, they aren't controversial, mainly because Trump isn't involved.

What major influence would they have on the overall costs?

From what I read , the local DC costs were something like $22M (based on a tweet reply from the Mayor to Trump blaming DC politicians for the cancellation) so that still leaves $70M of costs elsewhere..

Edit - More cost breakdown here

The Democratic mayor of Washington, DC, responded on Twitter to Trump Friday, saying that she is "the local politician who finally got thru to the reality star in the White House with the realities" of holding a military parade. She said the event would cost more than $21 million.

Bowser's office later provided a breakdown of the city's cost estimate for hosting a military parade, which included a $13.5 million price tag for the city's police department and the need for expenses like crowd control, security and traffic perimeters, and protection for dignitaries.A city official added that the Trump administration requested an estimate from the city this week.
Funds to cover the event would have needed to come from the federally funded Emergency Planning and Security Fund, which normally covers the security funds for events in the nation's capital like a presidential inauguration or this past weekend's Unite the Right rally.
But the amount allocated this year for such events was far smaller than the additional amount that would be required to cover the parade. It is likely, according to the official, that the administration would need to request additional money from Congress.
On Thursday, the Pentagon announced that it was postponing the parade until next year. Earlier in the day, CNBC and ABC News, citing unnamed officials, reported that the cost estimate of the parade -- which was estimated in July to cost approximately $12 million -- had swelled to $92 million.

An administration official told CNN that the $92 million figure was a planning estimate for an event that would meet Trump's intent, and that about half of that amount is for non-military costs like security, some of which would involve the city of Washington.

A second official said the costs covered by the military were about $50 million.

26000 Elephants

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yeah, the cost,

Aside from cost issues, are you cool with draft dodgers getting their own parade?

Manic Moran

What major influence would they have on the overall costs?

I'm not sure. It may not even have been anything beyond telling Dept of Roads "Repair any bridges, these 68-ton tanks are a great excuse and we can bill the military." However, I do know how much it costs to, say, send a company of 14 tanks somewhere. I've done it. It's not an unusual thing for us to do. Same with sending an infantry battalion (About 600 personnel) somewhere. Plus, even that money isn't a complete waste: The act of organising, loading and shipping a unit is a perfectly reasonable training evolution which needs to happen from time to time for a unit anyway. The running costs of vehicles (a tank is about $350/mile last I checked) are already budgeted for in what's called "Optempo Mileage." I would wager that the Pentagon's initial estimate for how much it would cost the military to do the military side of things was likely pretty accurate.

Costs "covered by the military" and costs "incurred by the military" are not necessarily the same, and the distinction is probably lost somewhere in the (equally insane) labyrinth of accounting agreements and funding pools.

Aside from cost issues, are you cool with draft dodgers getting their own parade?

A parade on 11 November 2018 would not be a draft dodger's parade. You may style it as such, but to do so would be a disservice to soldiers who have done nothing more or less than those who will be parading in countries like France or Canada on that day.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why did the GOP did so hung up about what Bill did then?

Because the very strict behavioral standards only apply to Democratic Presidents.
Don could unzip it and let it rain on the gathered press and it would be a most presidential golden shower according to his bots.

26000 Elephants

Manic Moran wrote: »

A parade on 11 November 2018 would not be a draft dodger's parade. You may style it as such, but to do so would be a disservice to soldiers who have done nothing more or less than those who will be parading in countries like France or Canada on that day.

I'm not styling it in any way: This is an event being driven by Donald Trump, who avoided the draft when he had his opportunity to serve.

Manic Moran

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

A parade on 11 November 2018 would not be a draft dodger's parade. You may style it as such, but to do so would be a disservice to soldiers who have done nothing more or less than those who will be parading in countries like France or Canada on that day.

I'm not styling it in any way: This is an event being driven by Donald Trump, who avoided the draft when he had his opportunity to serve.

So what?

Are you suggesting that the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 in which the US suffered a third of a million killed and injured, and which is also Veteran’s Day in the US, is not an appropriate occasion to hold a military parade for its own sake regardless of who is calling for it?

I mean, if anyone is going to use the “draft dodger” card, it’s folks like me who have served combat tours. Yet I’m not hearing many complaints about the concept of the parade from like-situated folks.

UsedToWait

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what?

Are you suggesting that the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 in which the US suffered a third of a million killed and injured, and which is also Veteran’s Day in the US, is not an appropriate occasion to hold a military parade for its own sake regardless of who is calling for it?

I mean, if anyone is going to use the “draft dodger” card, it’s folks like me who have served combat tours. Yet I’m not hearing many complaints about the concept of the parade from like-situated folks.

You're trying to impute meaning to what was, undoubtedly, a hare-brained Trump scheme to match the pagentary he saw in Paris on Bastille Day, and the military parades of his paymaster in Moscow.

That you can't see that Trump doesn't give a fcuk about the blood spilled by your comrades, and only cares about Donald J Trump, is somewhat baffling, though perhaps understandable when your profession requires unquestioning loyalty.

The rest of us (and many of your former leaders in the intelligence and military communities) are questioning.

26000 Elephants

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what?

Yeah, I reckoned that's what you would say.

And by the way, just because you served does not give you exclusive right to comment one way or another. He is a draft dodger, and i will call him that.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what?

Are you suggesting that the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 in which the US suffered a third of a million killed and injured, and which is also Veteran’s Day in the US, is not an appropriate occasion to hold a military parade for its own sake regardless of who is calling for it?

I mean, if anyone is going to use the “draft dodger” card, it’s folks like me who have served combat tours. Yet I’m not hearing many complaints about the concept of the parade from like-situated folks.

Do you, as a vet, not find it appallingly hypocritical for him to talk about pay cuts for vets when he dodged the draft 5 times?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

A parade on 11 November 2018 would not be a draft dodger's parade. You may style it as such, but to do so would be a disservice to soldiers who have done nothing more or less than those who will be parading in countries like France or Canada on that day.

I'm not styling it in any way: This is an event being driven by Donald Trump, who avoided the draft when he had his opportunity to serve.

So what?

Are you suggesting that the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 in which the US suffered a third of a million killed and injured, and which is also Veteran’s Day in the US, is not an appropriate occasion to hold a military parade for its own sake regardless of who is calling for it?

I mean, if anyone is going to use the “draft dodger” card, it’s folks like me who have served combat tours. Yet I’m not hearing many complaints about the concept of the parade from like-situated folks.

Because its not for the veterans or the sacrifice of those who served in ww1. Trump wants a parade for Trump. The date is irrelevant for him.

Draft dodger is a statement of fact and not limited in who can point it out. Granted personally I don't see it as an insult (presuming he was not in favour of the war). Certainly he could have taken a political stance but that would take a serious amount of bravery given the climate at the time (seriously I reckon many avoided the draft but were unwilling to speak up).

Itssoeasy

The judge in the manafort trial is saying he received threats and is being protected by U.S marshalls. So a judge in a high profile case involving trumps campaign manager is getting treats ? Lovely and classy that.

Penn

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The judge in the manafort trial is saying he received threats and is being protected by U.S marshalls. So a judge in a high profile case involving trumps campaign manager is getting treats ? Lovely and classy that.

Also not going to reveal the names of the jurors after the trial due to potential threat to their lives.

Itssoeasy

Penn wrote: »

Also not going to reveal the names of the jurors after the trial due to potential threat to their lives.

So why aren't these threats given to the police and let the police or whoever sort these eijits who think it's okay to treaten a judge and members of a jury. Sure the jury could easily say they can't reach a verdict if they feel by reaching a verdict that may not be kind to manafort they put their lives at risk.

Water John

I presume the jury is secluded from such whilst they are deliberating.

amandstu

Any know whether relationships between the different ethnic communities has deteriorated since Trump got elected?

How would they measure that,I wonder?

Manic Moran

UsedToWait wrote: »

You're trying to impute meaning to what was, undoubtedly, a hare-brained Trump scheme to match the pagentary he saw in Paris on Bastille Day, and the military parades of his paymaster in Moscow.

No, I’m not. The reason why an idea is proposed does not inherently mean it is a bad idea. Refusing to consider an idea for what it does simply because of the person (or motivations of) the person who proposed it is a perfect example of bias and partisanship at its height.

Is it truly hare-brained? When a good third of the Irish military marched through Dublin two years ago, was it a terrible idea? Is the Bastille day military parade without redeeming merit in and of itself? Is your primary objection to what was going to have been turned into a commemoration of US troops in general and their involvement in WW1 specifically that in addition to making that commemoration it will have also boosted Trump’s ego? I personally don’t care about Trump’s ego. I don’t see why you should either. Why should we not take advantage of a presented opportunity and do some good with it?

Do you, as a vet, not find it appallingly hypocritical for him to talk about pay cuts for vets when he dodged the draft 5 times?

Certainly not enough to warrant my spending any brain cells on it before now. My LESs are not signed by “daft dodger trump”, “war hero bush” or “generally neutral Obama”. I would have thought that the objections to the plan would have been the same regardless of who proposed it. I don’t view his policies on policing, healthcare or forestry any differently because of his backgrounds there either. They are good ideas, or they are not.