President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

Bernie, I want to add something I hope is obvious--I in no way took your response as being connected to my anecdote about my perplexity over my mother's sudden shift in politics, and I took no offense to your response, other than the point I tried to engage you on--my justification for what you (and many others) see as TDS. I totally get how I come off on the issue of Trump. I have never been so one-sided in my thinking on any other public figure, and I know I don't respond to Trump or his supporters as evenhandedly as I try to view and respond to most other issues or people. But I've tried to make a case for why I do that.

I also hear you on the majority here needing to be mindful of not forcing away dissenting views. While I was often frustrated by Baldgriff's stances on gun issues, it did bum me out that another person with minority views here felt the need to step away. While I disagreed with him on many issues, I tried not to make him feel attacked. I try to take that stance on most things, but sometimes don't do that as well when it comes to Trump-related issues. But folks should make allowances for me on that front...you know, cuz, I have that syndrome and all .

[Bernie Brewer]

Bernie, you know I like you and respect your continued call for respectful discourse, my good sir, so take this response with that in mind. I think when you use the term Trump Derangement Syndrome you are being condescending and dismissive to those vehemently opposed to Trump's presidency for what they feel are very valid reasons. It is a little perplexing to me, because I know you are not a fan of Trump, and you've acknowledged many negative things about him, but it is also clear that you don't see him the same way I do. You may see parallels between how some react to Trump and how some reacted to Obama, and you don't see it as healthy or normal to have so such a visceral and negative reaction to the person who, for better or worse, is our president. You've tried several times to soften the intensity of the negative response to Trump by highlighting some behaviors and stances of Trump's that may be positive, like the potential for him to denuclearize N. Korea (which I don't think will happen), to show that not everything he does should get a knee-jerk reaction of negativity, and that maybe he is not, in every way, so very different from other politicians. But I don't see it that way.

I fully admit that I feel, write, and talk about Trump in a way that is different and more angry than I have about any other president, or even any other politician or public figure, in my lifetime. But I don't think my more intense reaction is an overreaction, because I don't see Trump as just another shade of gray on the political spectrum. He isn't just another politician I don't agree with. My reaction to him is more extreme, because he is more extreme. Whereas you may think it is myopic, unhealthy, and counter-productive to be continually enraged by Trump, I think it is a necessary response to combat the normalization of a political figure that in so many ways is antithetical to our country's greatest ideals. Trump may share many ideals with other right-wing politicians. He may occasionally act as they would act, and talk as they would talk. And I agree that my visceral response to him, as someone who disagrees with those stances, would be counter-productive to healthy dialogue, if that is all I was reacting to. But he is more and less than just a far-right president. He represents to me an existential threat to my idea of an ideal America. He represents to me the very worst of us, pandering to racists, bigots, misogynists, pushing and prodding to erode the 4th estate, and the vital checks and balances of the three branches of government. I have no doubt, based on actions and words, that he would happily toss aside our whole system of government to take on the mantle of king/despot/dictator, if we let him. He does not believe in or support democracy. He is a wanna-be despot who, if we allowed him, would eliminate the checks and balances of our system, tear up the first amendment, eliminate due process, and regress all of our country's slow, painful, unfinished progress toward equality and fair treatment and opportunity for all, not just white males.

If you can accept that is how I see Trump, that is who I think he is, and that is what I think he represents, than I think you will be able to accept that I don't think it is deranged to respond to him in an unprecedented way. The fervor of those who fight against Trump may seem so extreme as to suggest mental illness to you if you see Trump and the movement that elected him as just another swing from left to right, a regrettable election of a crass showman, but not someone, deep down, so very different from other politicians or political movements. But I don't see Trump that way. For me, it would be deranged not to rail against him, given who I see him to be.

I can, and do, accept that this how you see Trump. And, as I said in my response to Teenwolf, I have tons of respect for you and I will not make any apologies for Trump. I'm not a fan, as you noted, and I understand the outrage, or to use your words the "visceral and negative reaction," to the man's general shittiness as a human being. In many ways, I'm right there with you! When I use Trump Derangement Syndrome I am attempting to be as outrageous as some our other posters are or have been on this Board, but in the countering snarky way. Am I wrong to sink to this level, I think addressed this in the response to Teenwolf as well. Am I wrong to betray my own call for, and personal belief in, respectful engagement and discourse, probably, not probably, yup, yup I am. It is over the top. But, there is difference between rational recognition and reactions to Trump, and reactions that are over the top. Can I provide examples? No, not at the moment, nor do I chose to, but it seems like the Supreme Court definition of pornography to me, I know it when I read it. And it gets written a lot, not by you, on this Board.

[Bernie Brewer]

Bernie, I want to add something I hope is obvious--I in no way took your response as being connected to my anecdote about my perplexity over my mother's sudden shift in politics, and I took no offense to your response, other than the point I tried to engage you on--my justification for what you (and many others) see as TDS. I totally get how I come off on the issue of Trump. I have never been so one-sided in my thinking on any other public figure, and I know I don't respond to Trump or his supporters as evenhandedly as I try to view and respond to most other issues or people. But I've tried to make a case for why I do that.

I also hear you on the majority here needing to be mindful of not forcing away dissenting views. While I was often frustrated by Baldgriff's stances on gun issues, it did bum me out that another person with minority views here felt the need to step away. While I disagreed with him on many issues, I tried not to make him feel attacked. I try to take that stance on most things, but sometimes don't do that as well when it comes to Trump-related issues. But folks should make allowances for me on that front...you know, cuz, I have that syndrome and all .

It is obvious. You don't have TDS, but it is pretty clear how you feel about. TDS is an irrational and over-reactive response to all things Trump. Your reacts are rational and, well, I get it.

As for Baldy, I didn't agree with him on everything he wrote either, but I understood his thoughts on guns and valued his opinions on other issues. I feel very similar to him on the gun laws and I am also not a gun owner. I know this will be a slippery slope, but I think his point was that the guns aren't the problem, its the users of the guns. Someone with bed intentions will find away, regardless of laws. Penalizing law abiding citizens doesn't feel like the right answer. If it were, and I apologize for this being potentially "too soon," but if it were Canada would be outlawing white rental vans today! Yes, its an absurd comparison, I know, but is it?

[Sour Masher]

As for Baldy, I didn't agree with him on everything he wrote either, but I understood his thoughts on guns and valued his opinions on other issues. I feel very similar to him on the gun laws and I am also not a gun owner. I know this will be a slippery slope, but I think his point was that the guns aren't the problem, its the users of the guns. Someone with bed intentions will find away, regardless of laws. Penalizing law abiding citizens doesn't feel like the right answer. If it were, and I apologize for this being potentially "too soon," but if it were Canada would be outlawing white rental vans today! Yes, its an absurd comparison, I know, but is it?

I can't speak for others, but personally, by far, the biggest frustration I had with Baldgriff's stance on gun regulations and laws was his argument that, as a general rule, laws are useless and that we as a society should not pass laws that reflect our shared societal sense of right and wrong, because those laws only restrict law-abiding people and don't stop people from doing bad things. Time and again, I and others like B-Fly, who made the case more elegantly than me, tried to counter that point, with notions that laws do stop some people who don't have pristine internal morality from doing bad things, but Baldgriff never really defended that position in a way that acknowledged the responses people made to that notion. While you may be a gun's right advocate, I don't think you agree with the notion that laws in general serve little to no purpose, and do more harm, by restricting liberties and freedoms for folks to do as they please, than good, by stopping folks from doing bad things. I consider myself sympathetic to libertarian ideals in some ways, but that particular stance just seems really wrong-headed to me. Ours is a nation of laws. Yes, there is such a thing as over-regulating or having too many laws that restrict us too much, and there are freedoms we should not give away, but Baldgriff was consistently against the notion of new laws in general, so any time potential laws were brought up as a partial solution to gun issues, he'd make that case.

[Bernie Brewer]

I can't speak for others, but personally, by far, the biggest frustration I had with Baldgriff's stance on gun regulations and laws was his argument that, as a general rule, laws are useless and that we as a society should not pass laws that reflect our shared societal sense of right and wrong, because those laws only restrict law-abiding people and don't stop people from doing bad things. Time and again, I and others like B-Fly, who made the case more elegantly than me, tried to counter that point, with notions that laws do stop some people who don't have pristine internal morality from doing bad things, but Baldgriff never really defended that position in a way that acknowledged the responses people made to that notion. While you may be a gun's right advocate, I don't think you agree with the notion that laws in general serve little to no purpose, and do more harm, by restricting liberties and freedoms for folks to do as they please, than good, by stopping folks from doing bad things. I consider myself sympathetic to libertarian ideals in some ways, but that particular stance just seems really wrong-headed to me. Ours is a nation of laws. Yes, there is such a thing as over-regulating or having too many laws that restrict us too much, and there are freedoms we should not give away, but Baldgriff was consistently against the notion of new laws in general, so any time potential laws were brought up as a partial solution to gun issues, he'd make that case.

Now this is slippery slope and I am not sure I want to go down this rabbit hole. But, see, here's where we read Baldy differently, and, this is probably the wrong thread for this, but...

I didn't read his responses as trying to say we shouldn't have laws, or that laws are useless, I read it to say that we already have laws and he is fine with those. But, he was trying to say that we don't need more laws that only further restrict the rights of law abiding people who already follow those restrictive laws. The people who don't follow the laws will find a way to not follow some other law if you take away their access to guns. Further, though I am not a libertarian as he sees himself, I think we should enforce the laws we have and that includes enhanced background checks, taking guns away from mentally ill individuals or criminals (known felons), and increase the age limit for the purchase of guns. We should also ban bump stocks and enhancers that are intended to make semi-automatics into automatics. These common-sense changes that aren't really changes at all. They are rather mandates to do what the current laws require. The Government Agencies need to share data bases, so another Ft. Hood doesn't occur and the Waffle House Kid should never have gotten his guns back.

[Sour Masher]

Now this is slippery slope and I am not sure I want to go down this rabbit hole. But, see, here's where we read Baldy differently, and, this is probably the wrong thread for this, but...

I didn't read his responses as trying to say we shouldn't have laws, or that laws are useless, I read it to say that we already have laws and he is fine with those. But, he was trying to say that we don't need more laws that only further restrict the rights of law abiding people who already follow those restrictive laws.

Yeah, I agree, wrong thread. And I probably shouldn't be trying to speak for someone who isn't currently posting here to clarify his stance.

[Bernie Brewer]

Yeah, I agree, wrong thread. And I probably shouldn't be trying to speak for someone who isn't currently posting here to clarify his stance.

You caught me in mid-edit, for what ever my additional comments are worth, which is probably not much!

[Hornsby]

Quit making me agree with Hornsb...oh, never mind.

LOL...I knew that I could entice you to the dark side.

To the point of this latest group of posts on this thread, I think that people are kind of missing the point. Yes, IMO, Trump is an awful President, and seemingly, an equally awful human being. The biggest issue is the people that he employs, and surrounds himself with. THEY'RE the ones doing the majority of the damage, or at least attempting to.

Ben Carson today states that the poor need to contribute more towards housing.

His choice to head the VA turns out to potentially be a drunk driver and Dr. Feelgood.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator is accused of bilking the US taxpayer on a multitude of levels.

Steve Mnuchin likes to also bilk the taxpayer, and travel on their dime to an utter excess.

Mick Mulvaney told banking execs that when he was a Congressman, he openly told lobbyists that he'd only meet with them is they contributed to his campaign. He DID talk to his constituents for free, he claims.

And this is just the last several days. These are the petty thieves and thugs that need do be swept out. And in order to do that, organization is needed and support for the candidate, any candidate, who'll enforce the rule of law, and have some moral decency.

Thanks God for the Judiciary, the only thing keeping Trup and company even remotely in check.

[Sour Masher]

If the undying adoration and support of Trump from the KKK and Neo-Nazis don't give the casual Trump fan cause to reflect on the man, maybe the continued admiration of Trump expressed by Kanye West will make those people look in the mirror. Narcissist game recognizes narcissist game, I suppose. Kanye West wants to be the next Trump. He is already renaming Air Force One after himself. This is what the country has come to.

It is just so amusing to me that the man who famously told the world Bush didn't care about black people in the wake of Katrina supports Trump. George Bush not only cared more about black people than Trump, he cared more, and did more, for black people not named Kanye West than Kanye West.

[Sour Masher]

LOL...I knew that I could entice you to the dark side.

To the point of this latest group of posts on this thread, I think that people are kind of missing the point. Yes, IMO, Trump is an awful President, and seemingly, an equally awful human being. The biggest issue is the people that he employs, and surrounds himself with. THEY'RE the ones doing the majority of the damage, or at least attempting to.

Ben Carson today states that the poor need to contribute more towards housing.

His choice to head the VA turns out to potentially be a drunk driver and Dr. Feelgood.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator is accused of bilking the US taxpayer on a multitude of levels.

Steve Mnuchin likes to also bilk the taxpayer, and travel on their dime to an utter excess.

Mick Mulvaney told banking execs that when he was a Congressman, he openly told lobbyists that he'd only meet with them is they contributed to his campaign. He DID talk to his constituents for free, he claims.

And this is just the last several days. These are the petty thieves and thugs that need do be swept out. And in order to do that, organization is needed and support for the candidate, any candidate, who'll enforce the rule of law, and have some moral decency.

Thanks God for the Judiciary, the only thing keeping Trup and company even remotely in check.

All true, and a good reminder to keep our eye on the real issues, although I'd argue Trump being Trump is the reason he put these people in power. And, sadly to me, him putting the worst people possible in these positions, to undermine and sink these government agencies, is a big part of Trump's appeal for a lot of his supporters.

[Teenwolf]

Couple things:

Thing 1 - I want to be clear that I apologized to BG via PM for some genuinely harsh comments, and he was very kind in his response to me. I backed out of his final thread several pages before the rest of you pushed him off the cliff... I keed... I sincerely hope he comes back, and also hope that if he does come back, he stops talking about guns, for his own mental health and ours. Some things, we just shouldn't touch.

Thing 2 - Being a Canadian, I don't really know anybody with personal accounts of brainwashed Trump supporters, so I apologize for using the story of Sour Masher's mother to make my point. My point was BB and others using language like DTS is dismissive of people who suffer from real-world consequences... I feel like the level of insanity of this Presidency is obvious to any observer, and to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Trump critics doesn't track with the historic level of chaos taking place. I take issue with the notion that it's much better to just respect the president, no matter what he says or does to tarnish the country or its reputation.

Thing 3 - Think back to the Iraq War, and try to remember how this message "respect the president!" was shouted from every conservative media outlet. I have a memory burned in my mind of a Christian radio show host proclaiming "everybody send your prayers to our President, Mr. Bush, who's being attacked so mercilessly..." still gives me shivers, but eerily similar to Trump's supporters today. Don't send your prayers to the people of Iraq currently being bombed to oblivion, direct those prayers to the President! *This would have engaged my GWBDS at the time, surely... I said some offensive things to conservatives on this board back then, and I'm sure it changed no minds. However, the point remains: people like me who loudly shouted about how effed up Iraq was, that criticism was legit, and yet you STILL heard this nonsense that not supporting the War effort or the President was somehow anti-American. Remember the Dixie Chicks? My strong reactions are based on the recollection that people weren't loud enough in denouncing the Iraq War effort, or those denouncements were simply dismissed as anti-American out of hand. No more excuses, from either side. I give credit to Trump's media yes-men for seemingly holding Trump to task on his anti-interventionist stance (although I simultaneously fail to understand the subsequent massive increases in military spending with no intentions of foreign intervention)...

I'm glad we're all talking about making a conscious effort to be more respectful to each other. I'm close to an original member on this board and I feel gutted when I drive people to want to quit RJ, because I myself have been put in that position, and let myself down when I put that feeling on others. However, talking with vitriol about serious political issues? Great, be more pissed off, just keep it on target, there's more than enough scummy politicians and corporate d-bags for us to take apart without turning on each other. Can I get an AMEN?

[Bernie Brewer]

Couple things:

I'm glad we're all talking about making a conscious effort to be more respectful to each other. I'm close to an original member on this board and I feel gutted when I drive people to want to quit RJ, because I myself have been put in that position, and let myself down when I put that feeling on others. However, talking with vitriol about serious political issues? Great, be more pissed off, just keep it on target, there's more than enough scummy politicians and corporate d-bags for us to take apart without turning on each other. Can I get an AMEN?

For the last part, I’ll give you the Amen! If I can ask an honest question to you and some others, who is it on this Board who is actually “supporting” Trump. I’m not seeing anyone blindly supporting him, much less supporting him. I’ve seen some people who are attempting to provide a more moderated voice who probably agree with a significant amount of what you say but just not everything.

Horns just posted his scorecard on today’s Trimp events. Regarding Mulvaney, here is a link to the article which references his comments at an American Bankers Meeting in which the writer noted that she wasn’t certain if the comments were meant Tongue in cheek or not. The NYT took them as fact. Not sure.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you,” he said. “If you were a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception — regardless of the financial contributions.”

https://www.americanbanker.com/opini...t-to-democrats

I find the comments from the Dems interesting. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

[Hornsby]

For the last part, I’ll give you the Amen! If I can ask an honest question to you and some others, who is it on this Board who is actually “supporting” Trump. I’m not seeing anyone blindly supporting him, much less supporting him. I’ve seen some people who are attempting to provide a more moderated voice who probably agree with a significant amount of what you say but just not everything.

Horns just posted his scorecard on today’s Trimp events. Regarding Mulvaney, here is a link to the article which references his comments at an American Bankers Meeting in which the writer noted that she wasn’t certain if the comments were meant Tongue in cheek or not. The NYT took them as fact. Not sure.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you,” he said. “If you were a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception — regardless of the financial contributions.”

https://www.americanbanker.com/opini...t-to-democrats

I find the comments from the Dems interesting. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

It's politics, it's older than the Roman empire to seize an event and try to turn it to your advantage, you know that. The GOP did it for 8 years to Obama, the Dems did it for 8 years to Bush before that, the GOP did it for...you know the drill.

I suspect that the writer of the article that you quoted from has a bit of a bias herself...I imaging the American Banker website would lean a bit to the right, but who knows? It's her interpretation of Mulvaneys comments, not a denial from Mulvaney himself, nor a clarification...

In the end, it means nothing, it's too soon, and the sheer weight of what some perceive as the wrongdoing is going to make the difference, if there's a difference to be made. Not one incident, no matter how it's perceived.

[Bernie Brewer]

It's politics, it's older than the Roman empire to seize an event and try to turn it to your advantage, you know that. The GOP did it for 8 years to Obama, the Dems did it for 8 years to Bush before that, the GOP did it for...you know the drill.

I suspect that the writer of the article that you quoted from has a bit of a bias herself...I imaging the American Banker website would lean a bit to the right, but who knows? It's her interpretation of Mulvaneys comments, not a denial from Mulvaney himself, nor a clarification...

In the end, it means nothing, it's too soon, and the sheer weight of what some perceive as the wrongdoing is going to make the difference, if there's a difference to be made. Not one incident, no matter how it's perceived.

Hey, politics is politics. You’re absolutely correct that the Dems and Republicans are noted sayers of partisan things. And, I wasn’t saying you were wrong, just attempting to provide some additional context. And, having some knowledge of the industry, I’m confident that Bankers and thier respective lobbies, which the ABA is, do lean right.

[chancellor]

LOL...I knew that I could entice you to the dark side.

LOL. Actually, I've always held that had Hillary's organization not been rife with arrogance and entitlement, and Hillary herself campaigned in those states you referenced, she'd probably have won. And likely easily. My argument was always with the silly blame game ("It was Cohen's fault. It was the Russians. FoxSeanO'Reilly...you get the point) rather than just owning up and saying "My fellow Democrats, I apologize for never getting my sorry ass into Wisconsin. For some reason, despite Wisconsin having a GOP governor, and GOP House, and a GOP Senate, my polls showed the state in the bag and I didn't want to go there."

Or something similar, but less snarky.