steeler wrote: 
OK, so there is no need to "blow up the system," right? What has the tea party and their inability to compromise, seek consensus...gotten us?  And now the democrats are taking a page from their book, grand standing, not showing up for meetings...

 black321 wrote:

 
I wonder about that "outsider" thing, too.  Sure, Trump has never served in government; never held or even ran for elected office. Does that add an element that bodes well for the country?  As a businessman, Trump has been steeped in the system/culture in which he has flourished.  During his campaign, he essentially said he could fix the "broken" system because he had exploited it and benefitted from it.  Of course, this also means we are buying into a fox guarding the henhouse scenario.  The fox knows how other foxes are getting to and eating the chickens because that fox has done it.  The question becomes:  Can that fox be trusted to not be a fox any longer? And I am not presupposing the answer to that.  People can change their stripes; persons who have pursued wealth their entire lives, sometimes ruthlessly, can and do become interested in leaving a legacy beyond the accumulation of riches. Now, back to the outsider label.  I suppose Reagan would have been considered an outsider when he ran for Governor of California.  Does the fact that he had been Governor of California then make him not-an-outsider when he ran for President?  In the DC area, Sen. Mark Warner made a small fortune as a businessman and then got into politics.  He has been in politics quite some time now.  I assume he is no longer an outsider.  But at what point does the tipping occur?  Would Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of NYC, be considered an outsider if he were to run for President?  Or is that label reserved solely for someone,like Trump, who runs for President without ever having held any elected position or run for office? Trump trumpeted his outsider status; so did Ted Cruz and others.   To me, it seems rather amoeba-like. 

 

Edit:  Also, this notion that being "politically incorrect" is somehow valuable appears to me to be a canard.    

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Financial Times has a scorecard:

Donald Trump often says things that are not true, a pattern that has continued right into the presidency. Much has been made of this, but it should not obscure the fact that his official actions thus far have been perfectly consistent with the principles and priorities he broadcasted during the campaign.

He is what he said he was: an enemy of free trade, immigration, regulation, abortion rights; a defender of the American fossil fuel industry and the use of torture. He won an election on these foundations, and his energetic pursuit of them as president is fitting and legitimate. The idea that Mr Trump is to be taken “seriously but not literally” — now worn smooth with repetition — was a canard all along.

No laws were made in Mr Trump’s first week, of course. He signed executive orders directing that Obamacare implementation be slowed, environmental approvals for infrastructure projects be expedited, immigration law be comprehensively enforced, and the Mexican border wall built. He published memoranda making way for oil pipelines, freezing hiring in parts of the government, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and banning funding for global aid organisations that provide abortions.

Barack Obama, in the first week of his presidency, signed an order commanding that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility be closed. It remains operational today. Congress needs to fund and enact Mr Trump’s agenda. But the Republicans who control both houses have signalled no objections. Many if not all of these commands, and many more on similar lines, will be effected. The only area where Mr Trump’s party has shown any inclination to resist is on torture.

https://www.ft.com/content/a24b2868-e48c-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a?segmentId=15eb3a28-7dee-8067-0b1d-198855707e9d

 

 black321 wrote: 




I see it the same way.

 steeler wrote: 
Right, I agree.  And i wasn't advocating that only a businessman/woman is capable of fixing the dysfunction we call politics, but that we need someone cut from a different mold who is willing to take on the challenges that govt has created over the past decades.  Many on the liberal end thought Obama was that man...but he wasn't.  Some conservatives think it's Trump...we shall see.  My point was more, I understand what many of Trump supporters are trying to say about fixing the govt, bringing an outsider(the questions), but I don't think Trump is the guy to do it (wrong answer). 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

  

Yeah, there may not be a good ending here, and Kurtster may be in a no-win situation.  But I do understand NoEnz's inquiries because I have been curious regarding the ardent support for Trump that is being voiced out there. Kurtster has been the focus here because he is the most ardent — only ardent? — Trump supporter active on the forum.  I do know others in my "real" life, including one who labeled Trump an embarrassment early in the GOP primaries, supported Kasich up to the end of those primaries, and now treats Trump like a savior and sees criticism of him as being ultra-partisan and fed by a dishonest liberal media.  How does that kind of transformation happen? I grew up with this guy, and he is educated, informed, and able to articulate reasonably well his positions.      

trumpdraws

A White House Devoid of Integrity

 kurtster wrote: 
Being perfectly honest, I think it will be good for you to do, but I don't think you should post it here. I already assume I will see circular logic, conclusions that conflict with your stated goals, etc etc. And if that's what I expect to see, I'm sure I'll find it. That might be more "on me" than on you, but still, I don't want to see you waste your time. I'd much rather see you create a scorecard for his first, say, 2 weeks. Are you okay with his nominations? Most of us howl at the "drain the swamp" gang getting on board with Trump nominating a whole family of Swamp Things.

Yes, I've set a simple trap: If you agree with everything so far, I cannot consider you to be in your right mind. Any rational person who still wants to be a team player would at least say "Betsy DeVos isn't my favorite, but maybe she'll work out." Or some other kind of faint praise for the picks they are unsure of. As opposed to my suckup senators who are all gushing about how great all of Trump's picks have been.  

 black321 wrote: 
I have always questioned/wondered about the assertion that we need a businessman or woman as President. And what kind of businessman or woman?  I believe W. Bush ran a small  oil company, and was president of the Texas Rangers.  Do those things count? Jimmy Carter ran his peanut farm.  Does that count?  In terms of running something or being in command:  Ike was a General, commanding troops in WWII.  Not business, but is that not relevant experience in running things?  Obviously, someone who has been a governor of a state has been running a huge enterprise, and probably has the closest direct experience to being President (albeit, no foreign policy experience).  Reagan is universally touted by conservatives as being a great President, but, to my knowledge, he never ran a business.  He, of course, was Governor of California, and did serve as head of a actors' union.  The profit motive is not one that lends itself neatly to being a driver in government.        

 black321 wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
on 2nd thought, STFU!  Ha, kidding

 kurtster wrote: 
cool
 

 islander wrote: 
You are wrong from the beginning.  I have been paying attention to Trump as a potential candidate since he first made any thoughts about running in the 80's.  I did not recently jump on his bandwagon.  I was onboard as soon as he came down the escalator and said so.

Unlike you who votes their conscience, not that there is anything wrong with that, I did vote for the one I wanted to win, given the choice of only two actual winners and voted for the one of the two who wanted as many of the same things that I wanted.  Take that at face value.  I cannot be anymore straightforward.
.
To everyone else, ok ... I will take the time and compose something thoughtful and that hopefully addresses everyone's questions on a Word doc and put it up for parsing.  It will take some time and it will be rather lengthy as I don't want to do this again.  I will do it.  

obtw ... I have a 4 year degree in business administration from an accredited university that I recently completed in 2007.  I do have some formal training for my perspective.

 black321 wrote: 
I'm with you here. I see the role of president as more of a coach - he motivates people to do the things he wants for a positive overall result. He should be finding the way to get everyone on the same page and working toward the same goal. Trump's style is exactly the opposite. He only gets strength by pitting different camps against each other.  I don't think his style plays well here, much less globally. And global is where we need to be focusing, we need to be citizens of the world - people don't live inside castle fortresses any more because it made more sense to work together as a nation state, /lather /rinse /repeat.

I disagree that we need a business man. Government has a lot of goals and objectives that are contrary to the way businesses do things. We need government precisely because business won't do some of these things.  We could certainly use some more fiscal responsibility, but the idea that only a businessman can do that is not correct. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, are you any of those things?  I honestly don't care at this stage, I just want a yardstick to measure the new administration on under the terms of its own voting base. The switch from the first person singular to the first person plural is merely because this is a public forum and I am certainly not the only one genuinely interested in it. 

For example, if you say your ideal is to see the US economy rejuvenated and for Trump to "bring jobs back", that is an entirely valid claim. We might argue about how best to do this but if that is the stated goal then we can measure the performance of the administration on this goal. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with this end goal is entirely beside the point and a different discussion. 

Likewise if you are pro-life, anti-illegal immigrant or whatever else your goals are, you should have the gumption to stick by them. Why not? If you believe it, then stand by it. Just because a horde of people here might not agree with you shouldn't mean you have to hide. Indeed your man in running the country. So go for it!

What I am saying is that there is a second-level discussion that is just as important as the first level. If we agree to disagree about first-level goals or principles, there is also an entirely valid discussion to be had about whether the policies pursued by the administration are suitable/effective to achieving its own stated goals.

But because I don't know what Trump's voting base is actually looking for, I am asking you. You are one of the few Trump supporters I know who I can ask. The point being, there are a number of things Trump says that are good goals - I heard Conway stating she wants to give under-privileged kids proper schooling, for instance. Which means there may indeed be a number of things we don't have to argue about because we agree. But we might still differ radically on how to reach those goals. Protectionism, for instance, is in my view a fast track to ruining your domestic economy. Likewise, given that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are people who entered on valid visas and overstayed, then there is little point in spending vast sums on building a wall. etc.

 

 islander wrote: 
My biggest complaint with Trump is his policies, whether good intentions or not, do nothing but alienate the other side...giving more reason for rising resentment and hate.  Specific to immigration, we need to fix the system and make the country safer, but the way he implemented this, it did nothing more than give reason for resentment...bringing the terrorist groups into the mainstream, instead of the fringe, as an answer/response to hating the US. 

The idea of a Trump/business man as president is right on...it's just that Trump is the wrong answer to the right questions. 

 kurtster wrote:

 
I think you are painting with entirely too broad of brush here.  I am pretty certain that I have never called you any of those things on your list, and we have had numerous exchanges. If you recall me doing so, let me know. 

 While it is true you have expounded upon your support of Trump, I recall it being more overriding themes than specifics for the future.  I, too, recall you advocating for blowing up of the system without going into really any detail as to what system should be built in its place (nor, for that matter, why it needs blowing up).  I know you are/were a staunch supporter of Trump's vow to build a wall on the Mexican border, but your support is always couched in terms of your overriding view that if we do not have secure borders, we have nothing.  Okay, so we build a wall. And come down on sanctuary cities, another position of Trump's which I believe you strongly support. Then what?  And beyond immigration:  We drain the swamp — whatever the heck that means — and we do so by electing a President who is a businessman  and independent of politics as usual (cannot be bought is the phrase I have heard over and over).  Then what?  NoEnz poses good questions.  You have answered dutifully, but only broadly in the past.  One who advocates blowing up the system should have a vision of what would come in its place. Otherwise, support for blowing up the system is just an expression of emotion and anger and desperation.       

 

   

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I'll posit that Kurtster, like many Trump voters really didn't expect to win. They really just wanted to complain about how bad the system was and that if only their guy was in charge you would see everything get better. But now that they control the house, the senate and the presidency, it's all on them (like they used to rightly say about the first two years of the Obama presidency). They are now feeling the pressure, and realizing that the actual governing piece is hard and you don't get to just ignore the minority.

I bet there is also a healthy dose of WTF with his appointments (drain the swamp?), and his behavior (I'll be presidential), and obvious crony capitalism (Jared Kushner), and a whole host of other items that they got in the grand bargain.

There wasn't really ever a hard goal there other than "make things better", lumped with a dose of "those people" and general disappointment in their own situations.  They won't go on the record now because either their goals are unlikely to be realized, or to ugly to be on the record.

 kurtster wrote: 
I'll chime in and say, I'd like to hear your opinion.  I think its worth remembering the words of Scalia who was found of saying, "I don't attack people, I attack bad ideas.  And there are some very good people, with very bad ideas."  I think that applies to both liberals and conservatives...and I don't consider myself to be part of either camp.