:
|
Self-esteem is a valuable trait for leaders to have. It gives them the confidence that they are fit to rule, and that their decisions are what’s best for their people. There’s also the fact that leaders are the voice of their people. What is better: a leader willing to accept any deal, or a leader too proud to let their country’s interests go unheard?
|
Ego and self-esteem/confidence are not one and the same. I am not criticizing Trump for having confidence – I’m criticizing him for being
egotistic.
:
|
It’s not that the Electoral College benefitted him, it’s that it bowed to the will of their states despite his fears that they were a political oligarchy, and the “rigged system’s” last line of defense. If some random third-party candidate won, and the Electoral College went with them, Trump wouldn’t continue his anti-electorate rhetoric, since it clearly wouldn’t be part of the rigged system there, either.
Basically, he changed his tune because he was proven wrong, and he happily admitted it.
|
So… he claimed it was rigged because he thought he was going to lose, then he unexpectedly won, so now he’s happy and thinks it isn’t rigged? That is not a sign of a proper statesman – you don’t baselessly accuse the system of being rigged
just because you think you’re losing.
So you haven’t changed that:
:
|
“I am going to criticize this system, until it benefits me and then I will change my mind” is pretty basic hypocrisy. You’ve written a lot of words to try and handwave that.
|
But even then, he hasn’t changed his tune, because he’s still
making completely baseless claims about vote rigging!
:
|
In the case that you’re wrong, and Trump turns out to be pretty good/not nearly as bad as people thought, would you be disappointed, or pleasantly surprised?
|
You make it sound like it’s a TV show or something. My metric for Trump being a successful president is based on how the US and the rest of the world’s people come out the other side – and right now he seems to be running roughshod over all sorts of people.
:
|
Ehhh, kind of? The tariff was going to be implemented anyway, since protectionism (which revolves around sabotaging trade relationships) was always one of Trump’s biggest platforms. Any money the United Sates loses out on trade would, hypothetically, be made up for by the return of industry.
|
But the issue here is that Trump is trying to effectively put the genie back in the bottle – he’s not imposing tariffs to protect the producers in America, he’s hoping that killing trade with Mexico will bring industries that are
gone back from the dead.
And again, this doesn’t change the fact that putting tariffs on Mexican trade means that
Americans will be paying for the wall, not Mexicans.
:
|
Again, that doesn’t prove that he’s against the tariff. I’ll concede that it doesn’t really prove he’s for it, either. All it proves is that he knows it’s going to have “a huge impact” of some kind, good or bad.
|
“Imposed” is a very loaded word in that statement which should tell you the intent, and if he was positive he probably would have said so in more certain terms. I doubt the numerous outlets who covered it with negative headlines would have gotten that sentiment from nowhere, either.
:
|
Well, first of all, we need to beat ISIS. That’s another campaign promise of his, so it could go hand-in-hand with ending the refugee crisis. I do know that Trump trusts the judgement of his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis (for example, Trump used to be pro-torture, since ISIS does it, too; however, Mattis convinced him that torture doesn’t work).
|
To be clear, Mattis has not changed Trump’s mind – Trump has just said that
he will leave the decision up to Mattis; he still “absolutely” believes torture works. Don’t spread misinformation.
Anyway, you don’t beat ISIS by pissing off more Muslims and validating terrorists’ anti-US rhetoric and turning away vulnerable refugees.
:
|
You say that I fall back on the “convenient immigrant boogeyman,” yet amidst your defense of your sources, your only rebuttal to mine is that it’s right-wing and anti-Islam. Would I be correct to dismiss your sources just because I don’t agree with them?
|
The issue here is that while I’ve identified
how your source is biased and provided sources to back this up, all you’ve done is say you feel like my sources are biased and described why you
feel they might be biased.
I’m sure. In the meantime, we can enjoy Trump’s
continuing conflicts of interest and
abusing his power for nepotistic ends.
:
|
That implies that only a like-minded crowd of xenophobes would be comfortable siding with Trump.
|
No it doesn’t, and I don’t know why you’re suggesting that. Anyone who feels like they benefit from siding with Trump will do so. The point is that people supporting Trump are enabling him, and he in turn is enabling and empowering some of the worst corners of the political spectrum.
:
|
Likewise, you have my sympathies. Having your visions of international cooperation shattered by Brexit, dreams of a female POTUS canned by Trump’s victory, and witnessing multiculturalism become increasingly rejected by the West (with a rebirth of conservatism leading the charge) must be a nightmare. If it’s any consolation, remember that the political pendulum will eventually swing back to the left.
|
:
|
(Also… Trump’s only a fascist-enabler in the sense that his victory in the election has sparked violent protests run by people unwilling to see the status quo die, who see fit to physically lash out against their detractors, rather than let them be heard.)
|
I feel like I’ve seen this argument before, do they pass out cue sheets for you all to stay on-message or what?