Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[(poco) Sforzando]

Which is exactly what he did with his victory speech.

Has to be reinforced with each new day and in light of continuing challenges. Can't just be said as a convenient piece of oratory.

[James]

Saying in essence "mommy he hit me first" is childish and leads nowhere.  We have a new president and a new opportunity in this country.  Focusing on partisan talking points does not help solve any of the problems facing us.

Precisely. It's way too early to judge. People should calm down and see what happens.

[ahinton]

A true president-elect facing opposition should step up to the plate, call for calm, ask for people to give him a fair chance. Not whine about the alleged "unfairness" of the objections. Yeah, it's only been a couple of days but the ball is now in Trump's court, and so far he's fumbling big-time.

Calling for calm is hardly one of Trump's trump cards, is it? - and, in any case, calling for it one thing but achieving it is quite another. Yes, if he does get to the White House, he should indeed be given a fair chance but, again, that's unlikely to happen unless he first gives himself one and convinces the electorate that this is what he has done, is doing and will continue to do.

[James]

Has to be reinforced with each new day and in light of continuing challenges. Can't just be said as a convenient piece of oratory.

Of course. He's only one man, and he hasn't even really started .. but he did step up to the podium and said it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Precisely. It's way too early to judge. People should calm down and see what happens.

Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.

[Karl Henning]

Calling for calm is hardly one of Trump's trump cards, is it?

I don't know why you say so . . . "Throw him out! Lock her up!"

[Karl Henning]

The president-elect's professed hostility towards a free press is "a partisan talking point"?  I ask only for information.

[Rinaldo]

We have a new president and a new opportunity in this country.  Focusing on partisan talking points does not help solve any of the problems facing us.

Opposing bigotry is not 'partisan talking points'. You've got a new president that's been backed by the KKK and you've got racist scumbags joyfully crawling out of the woodwork, because Trump normalised their abhorrent views. Asking people to get behind this guy is asking them to go against common decency.

[James]

Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.

Not being condescending at all - this is your perception which is off base my friend. I sincerely mean that. You're clearly all worked up, instead of getting behind the situation you'd rather bitch and moan. That's fine, but it ain't going to do you or the situation any good, and it won't change anything. It's your time & energy.

[Mister Sharpe]

Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.

I am one afeared. And I'm a ghost...

[BasilValentine]

The overt power advantage of incumbency negates many of those 'sufficient means', unfortunately. If a long-time, powerful senator wants to retain his job until death, it isn't how well he has satisfied his constituents, many of whom are undemanding, after all, but how well he has satisfied the special interests which are vested in him.

I saw the other day that Pat Leahy, senator from Vermont, who was the local DA in my home town when I was growing up, got reelected to yet another term. That is his 8th. By the time it is done, if he lives through it, that will make 48 years. He is generally despised by every Vermonter I know, but no one of significance ever runs against him. I suspect if he ever had to move back 'home', he wouldn't know where it was.  Do you suppose that Vermont wouldn't benefit, after 48 years, by having a different point of view in that senate seat?   

Yes, the symptoms are perfectly clear. Treating them by curtailing the electorate's choices is lazy and foolish. The power advantage of incumbency is now the only counterbalance to the raw power of money. Negating or minimizing it by getting big money and dark money out of the picture is what is needed. Campaign finance reform banning any but personal contributions of limited scope, supplemented by public financing if necessary, would be a start. Lobbying and influence peddling could be criminalized? Obviously, I haven't worked out the details. But treating the disease seems better than treating the symptoms. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Of course. He's only one man, and he hasn't even really started .. but he did step up to the podium and said it.

No, he's not only one man. He's potentially the most powerful man on the planet. Anything and everything he says or does from this time forth is YUUUGELY consequential in a manner that even your posts on Stockhausen are not.

[James]

No, he's not only one man.

My point was, he can't do it all on his own.

[(poco) Sforzando]

My point was, he can't do it all on his own.

Which doesn't obligate any of us to bow down in fawning fealty. Loyalty also consists of holding his feet to the fire.

[ahinton]

Not being condescending at all - this is your perception which is off base my friend. I sincerely mean that. You're clearly all worked up, instead of getting behind the situation you'd rather bitch and moan. That's fine, but it ain't going to do you or the situation any good, and it won't change anything. It's your time & energy.

The only things that might - and I have to say might - change anything now would seem to be (a) his own party turning against him with sufficient vehemence and practical success and/or (b) his being impeached for something or other before he assumes Presidential office in mid-January next; neither seems likely and neither is impossible.

[Todd]

This election was won by a vagary of the electoral college system and not the popular vote

There's nothing even remotely vague about it.  It has been in place since 1788.  If the Clinton campaign did not know how to win the election in this system, it is the Clinton campaign's fault alone.  This complaint is illegitimate.  People who dislike the Electoral College should either pursue a constitutional amendment to change it, or pursue a nationwide strategy of changing state election laws to force all electors to support the popular vote.  The solutions are well known.  Time to get to work.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The Electoral College is how we elect presidents; the popular vote is inconsequential.  After all the media fomenting the false narrative that Trump was de-legitimatizing our elective process, it is Liberals who wish to cast doubt on this election. Why?  Because their candidate lost.  We heard the same garbage in 2000 re: Gore.

Again - the more things change the more they stay the same. 

Interesting to read the Liberal taunt that Trump is the "most powerful man in the world".  He's not, but maybe he can finally begin to change what is wrong with this nation's political culture.

Not a taunt, but a fact stated dispassionately. And I understand perfectly well that the EC is how we elect. But the popular vote should not be discounted either: Trump ought to understand he was elected against substantial opposition; 50% of the country opposes him.

[(poco) Sforzando]

There's nothing even remotely vague about it.  It has been in place since 1788.  If the Clinton campaign did not know how to win the election in this system, it is the Clinton campaign's fault alone.  This complaint is illegitimate.  People who dislike the Electoral College should either pursue a constitutional amendment to change it, or pursue a nationwide strategy of changing state election laws to force all electors to support the popular vote.  The solutions are well known.  Time to get to work.

Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.

[Todd]

Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.

Nice try. 

Your complaint is still illegitimate. 

[ahinton]

Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.

Indeed; a vagary is analogous to the manifestation of a kind of inconsistency and applies to those things that are amenable to such inconsistency.