Liz Peek: What Trump DIDN'T do in 2017: President's hysteria-prone critics must be sorely disappointed

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

3 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Exactly, why have high standards for our leaders anymore?

when were high standards a requirement? 

[eieio 1,594]

For those of us who saw the USA going in the wrong direction for the last 8  even 16 years….Trump has given us hope. He is also delivering real change. He is more qualified and suited for his role as President at this time than anyone else I can think of.   2018 is off to a great start!!

[Dashinka 24,492]

20 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Constitutional qualifications are not the only qualifications that count. The president is a leader and needs to have the respect of the public to be effective.

Apparently, enough people from enough states felt he was qualified enough to give him the electoral college which is the most important factor in determining who sits in the Oval Office.

[Dashinka 24,492]

19 hours ago, bcking said:

Regardless of our (and the general population's) opinions of Trump, he still remains qualified to sit as President. The issue of qualification is pretty pointless. There are millions of people "qualified" to sit as President, because the requirements are quite small.

 

Just because someone is qualified for a role, doesn't mean they are well suited to that role. The question has never been about his qualifications (unlike what people did with Obama, questioning his place of birth). It has been about whether he is well suited for the role. 

 

For that you would have to ask what people expect of their President (ignoring political agenda), and compare that to how people view Trump.

 

For example - I expect a President, regardless of political party, to refrain from public name calling and shaming. Trump fails on that account, quite spectacularly. 

 

As for the original article:

 

While obviously political opinions are quite heated in this country right now, I would hope that we all sincerely believe that none of us WANT World War 3. I would hope that none of us are actually "disappointed" that it hasn't happened yet, regardless of our President. I disagree with how he acts on an almost daily basis, and I disagree with a lot of what he stands for. I'm not, however, "disappointed" that he didn't cause World War 3.

So is the whole twitter name calling issue the biggest item?   Personally, I could not care less, Trump bites back which quite honestly is refreshing coming from someone in the GOP.  So often the GOP are just door mats to the DNC and their media allies.  If people truly ignored Trump the man and actually look at his policies and plans, many would see they actually agree with much of it. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Boiler 45,482]

16 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Exactly, why have high standards for our leaders anymore?

Ask the Dems, there were the ones that put up Hillary.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So is the whole twitter name calling issue the biggest item?   Personally, I could not care less, Trump bites back which quite honestly is refreshing coming from someone in the GOP.  So often the GOP are just door mats to the DNC and their media allies.  If people truly ignored Trump the man and actually look at his policies and plans, many would see they actually agree with much of it. 

Interesting question. For me there are a couple of things that I do agree with him on (or at least I don't disagree strongly enough to care). Part of that is difficult to judge though because at least for me the role of President isn't really about the details of policy. If I agree/disagree with bills or policies am I disagreeing with the President, or with members of Congress? His personality is such a big deal to me because I think that is one of the most important aspects of his job. I care less about the personality of an individual Senator of Representative, and more about their opinions on policy. 

 

I think parts of the tax bill that was passed is a good idea. I think the things that really worried me were removed before it was passed, which I'm glad about. I think certain items were crazy to even put on the table (the proposal to tax graduate students for everything, for example). So in the end they removed the really bad stuff in my mind. Do i think it is going to create some massive boost to our economy? Not really. I think we are already doing well and have been doing well for a reasonable time even before Trump. Big corporations may bring money back to the US, but will that help lower/middle class people? Maybe a little but it will disproportionately help the shareholders and wealthier players far more. But when we talk about the tax bill, how much of that was really Trump vs. Legislators? The biggest thing that stands out for me with Trump and the tax bill was all the times he talked it up and said how much it would "hurt him" and his family. That was incredibly dishonest and to me the way he "advertised" and "supported" the bill was his biggest contribution, and so that blatant dishonesty is important to me.

 

While it's not exactly clear what he personally thinks about healthcare, I don't agree with any of the bills that they tried to pass. I thought they were all very bad ideas. While we have a system with a lot of problems now, I don't think any of their proposals would have fixed any problems. 

 

Immigration - I don't support illegal immigration, but I absolutely supported the DACA program and I don't agree with using it as some kind of "bargaining" chip. I wouldn't be so flippant with people's lives. 

 

Foreign Policy - I've already said here that I disagree with moving our embassy in Israel. I think he is walking a very very fine line with North Korea, but part of me feels like we should just "get it over with" so I'm actually not as bothered as probably many more left leaning people are. I think Trump has had a real impact on our international prestige and the role we play. I think it's intentional, and I don't necessarily agree with it. Changes to our relationship with the UN, leaving the Paris Accord etc...

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

19 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Ask the Dems, there were the ones that put up Hillary.

You just triggered the MDL

[Boiler 45,482]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I

 

Immigration - I don't support illegal immigration, but I absolutely supported the DACA program and I don't agree with using it as some kind of "bargaining" chip. I wouldn't be so flippant with people's lives. 

 

DACA is for illegals.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Boiler

[bcking 3,157]

28 minutes ago, Boiler said:

DACA is for illegals.

In my opinion it's more nuanced than that. The people that DACA is for didn't choose to come over as illegal immigrants. They were minors. They have now grown up here and I believe we should support them as best we can.

 

I don't support the means with which they already came, but for them that is in the past. We can support policies to try to curb illegal immigration in the future while still supporting DACA. 

 

Ideally one day we won't need DACA because no one will qualify. That isn't today.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You just triggered the MDL

 

   Was that the intent of this thread? It doesn't seem like it worked. Perhaps it may be time for some people to get a new shtick?

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Was that the intent of this thread? It doesn't seem like it worked. Perhaps it may be time for some people to get a new shtick?

There are absolutely people who get "triggered" on the left. They just don't seem to frequent these forums. Yet we have multiple threads created with surprising frequency that seem to just say "OMG this must trigger them!". Since it doesn't seem to do that hear, it just makes them look a little sad like they really want attention but aren't getting it.

 

I try to respond sometimes in a meaningful, thoughtful way...though I don't know why I bother with some of them.

[TBoneTX 45,273]

53 minutes ago, bcking said:

The people that DACA is for didn't choose to come over as illegal immigrants. They were minors. They have now grown up here

It's a shame that they must suffer, but their parents should have thought of that before coming illegally.

 

The most just compromise might be what an acquaintance suggested to me:  "Yeah, DACA kid, you can stay, on the condition that your illegal parents submit themselves for deportation."

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

In my opinion it's more nuanced than that. The people that DACA is for didn't choose to come over as illegal immigrants. They were minors. They have now grown up here and I believe we should support them as best we can.

 

I don't support the means with which they already came, but for them that is in the past. We can support policies to try to curb illegal immigration in the future while still supporting DACA. 

 

Ideally one day we won't need DACA because no one will qualify. That isn't today.

The DACA folks may have been brought over as children, but should they be rewarded for the illegal actions of their parents?  To me, illegal is illegal, if you were brought into the US as a minor by an adult violating the law then I could be in favor of not giving them a permanent bar from legal immigration in the future, but I don't believe in a special program for them to citizenship, so using it as a bargaining chip does seem appropriate.

[bcking 3,157]

21 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

It's a shame that they must suffer, but their parents should have thought of that before coming illegally.

 

The most just compromise might be what an acquaintance suggested to me:  "Yeah, DACA kid, you can stay, on the condition that your illegal parents submit themselves for deportation."

I acknowledge that there are some more difficult situations. If I kid was brought over at 6 months of age, and they are now 14 I don't think it's fair on them to uproot their life and send them home. They may not even speak their native language. It's easy to just "blame the parents", but bottom line we shouldn't blame or punish the child.

 

In that situation how would you deport the parents? What would you do with the child? Put them into foster care if they want to stay in the US? If there parents are causing any trouble, have no record here in the US I'd lean on the side of doing what's best for the child and in that case it would be best for them to stay. That may be the Pediatrician in me coming out though.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The DACA folks may have been brought over as children, but should they be rewarded for the illegal actions of their parents?  To me, illegal is illegal, if you were brought into the US as a minor by an adult violating the law then I could be in favor of not giving them a permanent bar from legal immigration in the future, but I don't believe in a special program for them to citizenship, so using it as a bargaining chip does seem appropriate.

We disagree then. I would never punish a child for the actions of his parents. I wouldn't see allowing the child to stay as a "reward", especially if it is the only life they have ever known or the one they have known during their developmental years (school age and beyond).  

 

I only brought up DACA when you mentioned how people may agree with Trump more if they ignore his personality. This is a case where I don't agree with him (or you it seems). So even ignoring personality, I still disagree with Trump