Do Catholics still support Trump

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

As to LBJ, a great deal of his conduct was not really disclosed until years later. I’m sure White House staff would love to have Trump’s outbursts the talk of the town… in 20 years.

People knew about LBJ at the time. It just wasn’t publicized to speak of.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. The proverbial lid was kept on his more outrageous behavior (and we now know the guy was at least seriously depressive, which is kind of scary). But there’s no way to put a lid on Trump. He defies the ability of his staff to do their jobs and keep his worst excesses out of the press.

I’m sure there were times when other presidents, even in the modern era, have shouted and sworn, behaved belligerently or worse, but the point was that they were not doing it proudly in the public eye.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One recalls “MacBird” and the attendant theories that floated around among the elites of the day. No secret to that. It was a Broadway play in which it was suggested that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated.

 

[niceatheist]

There have been whispered conversations about Presidential conduct since almost the beginning. Every once in a while some of it might even leak out while the President in question was still in office. But no President I am aware of proudly went about behaving in that fashion fully in the public eye. Yes, it was reasonably common knowledge, for instance, that FDR had had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer, though it was kept secret for some time that Mercer was present when FDR suffered the cerebral hemorrhage that killed him. By the same token, Kennedy’s womanizing was something of an open secret in Washington.

Yes, part of this was the greater deference to the Presidency back in those days, where reporters tended to bury scandalous stories about the President. But how could you bury any of Trump’s outbursts. He gleefully posts them on Twitter.

 

[PaulinVA]

What’s wrong with being nationalistic?

And who, exactly, among the world’s leaders seriously disagree with him and on what, exactly?

I am not saying that world leaders disagree with Trump’s policies. As he showed yesterday in the immigration meeting, he doesn’t actually have any.

He is unpredictable, in a bad way. I would imagine world leaders are hesitant to reveal information to him, as was alluded to in the beginning of his term, because he has no concept of secrets or the SOP of how heads of state act.

 

[pnewton]

PaulinVA:

Or, you could say he has no clue about policy or negotiation or how bills are passed, and just punted and said, I’ll sign anything".

LOL, or maybe “I will sign anything that includes my wall!”

Actually, I do not think that is such a bad one. I know we have forgotten compromise, but that is kind of how it works. The priority of each party is met to the extent possible first. If Trump is more concerned about security than limiting immigration, and if Democrats are more concerned about helping immigrants than interfering security, there is no reason for compromise to be difficult. This is similar to what Ronald Reagan did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not saying that world leaders disagree with Trump’s policies. As he showed yesterday in the immigration meeting, he doesn’t actually have any.

With all due respect, you’re dodging with this one. If you don’t know whether any world leaders disagree with his policies, you could have just said that instead of shifting to something else. And from what I heard from the meeting, he does have a policy. “Let’s resolve DACA in a way helpful to those people, but in order to agree to it, I require the wall you all authorized, ending chain migration and the lottery.”

Seemed plain to me. Just because he didn’t read out the text of a bill (which is their job to work out anyway) it doesn’t mean he has no policy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, part of this was the greater deference to the Presidency back in those days, where reporters tended to bury scandalous stories about the President. But how could you bury any of Trump’s outbursts. He gleefully posts them on Twitter.

But one has to ask oneself why he does it. Others have their versions, but my suspicion is that, knowing he’ll never get a favorable audience from the mainstream media and that they’ll find a new way to condemn him every day (both true) it’s a way to challenge them, make people doubt them, and to communicate to his supporters that he’s not just being passive in the face of it.

If I was in his shoes, my texts would be different, but I think I would be texting all the time too.

 

[niceatheist]

My theory is that he is talking to his base. I still think it is unwise, and isn’t going to help with 6 in 10 Americans, but that’s my view.

 

[PaulinVA]

With all due respect, you’re dodging with this one. If you don’t know whether any world leaders disagree with his policies, you could have just said that instead of shifting to something else. And from what I heard from the meeting, he does have a policy. “Let’s resolve DACA in a way helpful to those people, but in order to agree to it, I require the wall you all authorized, ending chain migration and the lottery.”

No, I’m not dodging, I’m not accepting your premise that disagreement with policy is the only thing that a world leader could find problematic.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Seemed plain to me. Just because he didn’t read out the text of a bill (which is their job to work out anyway) it doesn’t mean he has no policy.

When you say multiple different things, you have no policy.

 

[guanophore]

When you say multiple different things, you have no policy.

Especially when they are multiple contradictory things!

 

[MamasBoy33]

I have read through almost 100 posts, and still have not read anything that sounds “angry”. I can only surmise that the “anger” belongs to you

Sorry Brother for being angry please pray for me

 

[Shakuhachi]

And we are getting used to it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I thought most of the torture discussion was on water boarding.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“We say to our American friends: is it in your interest to anger a billion Muslims and risk having the hostility of the Muslim world for decades?”

Was that really their reasoning? Because that is flawed.

1. The Iranians would secretly jump with glee at getting rid of Saddam
2. Not all Muslims are the same. Why is there an assumption they’d all be angry AND how is that different from anyone saying they’re all angry wannabe rapist migrants?

An incompetent analysis to say the least.

Though I did appreciate the effort to stop the war.

Then there’s the Oil for Food Program…

 

[Theo520]

I think supporting Trump and respecting the office are two seperate things.

A liberal can oppose Trump yet still respect the office and support him as POTUS.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I’m not dodging, I’m not accepting your premise that disagreement with policy is the only thing that a world leader could find problematic

I’m betting policy is the thing, not personalities. European countries have been led by some exceedingly awful people, and yet the U.S. didn’t act contrary to those countries’ interests because of it. Wasn’t it Lord Palmerston who uttered the well known saying “…nations do not have friends. They only have interests…” (paraphrasing, I think)

And there are even worse leaders than the Berlusconis of the world. How about the leaders of Viet Nam? Horrible, horrible people. And yet, we have common and growing interests with that country. It’s not that our leaders like those awful people. It’s because of a common interest in containing Chinese ambitions.

I don’t think foreign leaders are going to turn against their own national interests just because they might consider Trump unsophisticated or even boorish.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think supporting Trump and respecting the office are two seperate things.

A liberal can oppose Trump yet still respect the office and support him as POTUS.

Similarly, one can find his personality unappealing and still like his policies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When you say multiple different things, you have no policy.

Sounded more like he was saying “…you want this and I can go with that. I want that and you need to go with it too…” I think that’s called negotiation, not absence of policy.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t think foreign leaders are going to turn against their own national interests just because they might consider Trump unsophisticated or even boorish.

No, they won’t. But, at the same time, how do they know if that unsophisticated, boorish President will act in a predictable fashion? Getting into a “Mine is bigger than yours” fight with a nuclear power is troubling to everyone, I would imagine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But, at the same time, how do they know if that unsophisticated, boorish President will act in a predictable fashion? Getting into a “Mine is bigger than yours” fight with a nuclear power is troubling to everyone, I would imagine.

It is probably not in the nation’s best interests that the president act in predictable ways in all foreign affairs. After all, it was almost certain that the Khomeni’s assessment of Reagan as “unpredictable” led to the release of the hostages in Iran on the very day of his inauguration, and almost certain his assessment of Carter as “predictable” was what kept them captive for months and months.

And I doubt “mine is bigger” was anywhere near as troubling to western leaders as “…this means war” was when Carter’s Secretary of State announced that to the world if Russia set foot outside Afghanistant into Iran. That really WAS troubling, since it meant WWIII with a nuclear superpower with thousands of warheads aimed at targets all over the west. “Huh? Nuclear Armageddon over Iran?”