Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1148149151153154169

Comments

  • Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    *Shouldn't have to say this, but this obviously is not ALL white people. But a damn lot of them.
    You know, you could just say "some" or "most" or whatever it is you really mean.
    OK, so there is a problem with most or some. It is an easy out for people to think they are part of the exception when they are probably not. Because the problem is not only the active racists and the racist but won't admit it out loud. It is also loads of people who are racist to some degree but do not realise/accept that they are. And it is the people who are not racist, but don't do anything to diminish racism. Racism is endemic and systemic in the US to the point where if one does not actively fight it, one passively participates in it.
    Identity goes beyond racism, and can be more complex than that. But in the US, white people are the largest group who fear losing their place. So, even if one doesn't think race is real, doesn't think POC are inherently different, one could still vote Trump because, artificial as one might realise colour is, one can still fear to lose that advantage.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Over here the immigrants are largely doing the jobs the British don’t want to do. It must be similar over there. Not many Brits want to do plumbing or picking veg or cockles. They tend to be the jobs immigrants do. There are some better jobs such as nursing but not as a whole. That gives the moaners the ability to say immigrant are taking out jobs without saying what those jobs are.

    I think it's pretty much the same thing in the U.S. The people screaming about locking out the immigrants and building walls are not applying for jobs picking vegetables, serving as motel maids, etc. etc.
  • edited November 2020
    Apropos of trump and not the current direction of the thread, this is brilliant- Trump sings Bohemian Rhapsody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i05gKtHWjGY
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Over here the immigrants are largely doing the jobs the British don’t want to do. It must be similar over there. Not many Brits want to do plumbing or picking veg or cockles. They tend to be the jobs immigrants do. There are some better jobs such as nursing but not as a whole. That gives the moaners the ability to say immigrant are taking out jobs without saying what those jobs are.

    Really? People don't want to be plumbers? If you have a trade you are in clover over here.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    *Shouldn't have to say this, but this obviously is not ALL white people. But a damn lot of them.
    You know, you could just say "some" or "most" or whatever it is you really mean.
    OK, so there is a problem with most or some. It is an easy out for people to think they are part of the exception when they are probably not.
    I think you're greatly overestimating the power of your words to determine what other people will think. But even apart from that, it seems self-defeating to scrupulously avoid using "some" or "most" but then give it all a way in a footnote with "obviously not ALL".
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    *Shouldn't have to say this, but this obviously is not ALL white people. But a damn lot of them.
    You know, you could just say "some" or "most" or whatever it is you really mean.
    OK, so there is a problem with most or some. It is an easy out for people to think they are part of the exception when they are probably not.
    Your footnote presents the exact same out for anyone who wants to use it. It’s a whole lot easier and clearer just to say what you mean, such as “Too many white people fear losing their place, and too many of them deny they have that fear.”

  • There's basically only two routes: say "all" and be wrong, or leave an out. Even if you pick the first that leaves an out, because people who know that "all" is wrong will then dismiss the whole thing.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    *Shouldn't have to say this, but this obviously is not ALL white people. But a damn lot of them.
    You know, you could just say "some" or "most" or whatever it is you really mean.
    OK, so there is a problem with most or some. It is an easy out for people to think they are part of the exception when they are probably not.
    I think you're greatly overestimating the power of your words to determine what other people will think. But even apart from that, it seems self-defeating to scrupulously avoid using "some" or "most" but then give it all a way in a footnote with "obviously not ALL".
    The fact that you complained about it suggests otherwise.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    *Shouldn't have to say this, but this obviously is not ALL white people. But a damn lot of them.
    You know, you could just say "some" or "most" or whatever it is you really mean.
    OK, so there is a problem with most or some. It is an easy out for people to think they are part of the exception when they are probably not.
    I think you're greatly overestimating the power of your words to determine what other people will think. But even apart from that, it seems self-defeating to scrupulously avoid using "some" or "most" but then give it all a way in a footnote with "obviously not ALL".
    The fact that you complained about it suggests otherwise.
    Or maybe my comment just suggests that I'm really missing the eyeroll emoji.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    And then there is the story of Trump liquidating the OC 135B planes that have provided intelligence to the signees of the Open Skies Treaty which allows us to fly over Russian territory. Of course, Russia also had permission to fly over NATO territory--including the US. By liquidation, I mean they are completely destroying the planes and the equipment in those planes. This would meet the constitutional definition of treason.
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    On a more light hearted note, is it wrong to think this year's presidential pardoning of the turkey was practice for January?!
  • Did he pardon the white meat and the dark meat?
  • I noted he did not take any questions from the press.
  • Did he pardon the white meat and the dark meat?

    ROFL
  • Two years ago he pardoned a turkey named Carrot. At the time he joked that Carrot was so disappointed with the election that the bird demanded a recount.

    Okay, not a joke.

    But with Trump, that is as close as you can get.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Two years ago he pardoned a turkey named Carrot. At the time he joked that Carrot was so disappointed with the election that the bird demanded a recount.

    A relevant item:
    Emily Larsen

    BREAKING: Names of the two White House turkeys this year are 'Corn' and 'Cob'

    Urban Dictionary:
    Corncob: Someone who has been brutally owned, yet insists that they are victorious in the online discourse despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. . . .

    In possibly related news:
    Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org

    From the WH: "On Monday, November 30 starting at 7:00AM EST the Office of the First Lady will host a preview of the 2020 holiday décor at the White House.... The First Lady will not be in attendance. "

    I'm guessing Melania is already planning her exit strategy/escape plan.
  • I hope Melania does escape him--and have custody of her son.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Audio has already been leaked of Melania saying she hates being responsible for the Christmas decorations. I'm guessing she's not bothering with the pretence this year.
  • Has there ever been a more visibly reluctant First Lady? Hilary (frankly, to my surprise) even issued a cookie recipe, though visualising her producing a batch is beyond my powers. First Lady was, I'm willing to bet, never part of Melania's life plan.
  • Melancholia suffers, poor lassie, from being such a contrast to the ebullient Michele Obama.
  • Melancholia suffers, poor lassie, from being such a contrast to the ebullient Michele Obama.
    She suffers contrasted to almost every recent first lady in that she appears to be allowed no agency.
  • Has there ever been a more visibly reluctant First Lady? Hilary (frankly, to my surprise) even issued a cookie recipe, though visualising her producing a batch is beyond my powers.

    Yeah, there are layers and layers to that story. It came out of a comment Hillary Clinton made in 1992 [video] during Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. She was getting a lot of flack from conservatives and various journalists for not being a stay-at-home mother so she said:
    I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.

    After she said that it got even worse and she was hounded relentlessly. She wasn't even the first prospective First Lady who'd had a professional career, but I guess most Americans regard movie actress as more of a lifestyle than a job. Seeking to put the nontroversy to rest she produced her recipe for oatmeal chocolate chip cookies and even shared a batch of them with the press pool. After that the press was nothing but kind to Hillary Clinton. [ I really miss the eyeroll emoji ] So basically it's a story about sexism, gender stereotypes, and the American political press' long-term vendetta against Hillary Clinton.

    Because when you look at it objectively it puts the American press in a bad light, it was decided that to pretend this wasn't an example of journalistic bias but a hallowed tradition, so every four years since then Family Circle magazine has featured a "First Lady Cookie Contest". Thankfully the plug was pulled on this monument to sexism in 2020. (In 2016 no one asked Bill Clinton for a recipe, but the oatmeal chocolate chip cookies were reprised and called the "Clinton family recipe".)
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Melancholia suffers, poor lassie, from being such a contrast to the ebullient Michele Obama.
    She suffers contrasted to almost every recent first lady in that she appears to be allowed no agency.

    Yes, you may have a point there...

  • Has there ever been a more visibly reluctant First Lady?

    Jane Pierce comes to mind.
  • First Lady was, I'm willing to bet, never part of Melania's life plan.

    Whilst I find First Lady to be a frankly bizarre job (why should being married to the President be a particularly relevant thing), I'll agree with you that it's rather cramped Melania's style.
  • Poor lady - losing a young son just prior to her husband's inauguration was an understandable reason for taking a back seat for a time, as it were.

    I note that the Wikipedia entry includes the word *melancholia*, BTW.

    Speaking of which, was it not remarked, at the time when her husband was seen to have won the election in 2016, that Mrs T looked as though she was about to vomit?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Whilst I find First Lady to be a frankly bizarre job (why should being married to the President be a particularly relevant thing), I'll agree with you that it's rather cramped Melania's style.

    The official function is White House hostess, someone to organize the domestic details of all the state dinners, receptions, and other social functions and ceremonial events hosted by the White House. By tradition this function has been performed by the president's wife, though this is not always the case. For example, Thomas Jefferson was widowed by the time he assumed the presidency so the duties of White House Hostess were often performed by his oldest daughter, Patsy.
  • First Lady was, I'm willing to bet, never part of Melania's life plan.

    Whilst I find First Lady to be a frankly bizarre job (why should being married to the President be a particularly relevant thing), I'll agree with you that it's rather cramped Melania's style.

    I suppose it's partly apeing the idea of the Queen consort.
  • I suppose it's partly apeing the idea of the Queen consort.

    There is a bit of that. The First Lady also usually concentrates on promoting one particular issue, usually something social and not terribly controversial. This is something else Queen consorts are supposed to do. Some past examples:
    • Betty Ford - treatment for alcohol addiction
    • Rosalynn Carter - mental health
    • Nancy Reagan - fighting drug addiction
    • Barbara Bush - childhood literacy
    • Hillary Clinton - reforming the U.S. healthcare system
    • Laura Bush - childhood education
    • Michelle Obama - children's nutrition
    • Melania Trump - bullying prevention
  • First Lady was, I'm willing to bet, never part of Melania's life plan.

    Whilst I find First Lady to be a frankly bizarre job (why should being married to the President be a particularly relevant thing), I'll agree with you that it's rather cramped Melania's style.

    I suppose it's partly apeing the idea of the Queen consort.

    I'm not so sure. I see this sort of thing hanging on in the church (well, our denom) where all unofficially BUT with 150 years history behind it, the local congregation is led by a pastor (official) and pastor's wife (if any, VERY unofficial but expected). The pastor's wife job (which many rebel against) involves the same stuff that the first lady position does--anything to do with children, education, healthcare, and community events (read: with food). And of course if you're not the right person for that sort of job, or resent it, it's vastly problematic. But when you ARE the right person and don't resent it, it can work amazingly well. As with most of the missionary couples I know, myself included.

    The idea seems to be that the job is too big for a single person to handle, and there is still something in the American psyche that wants family rather than staff-only involvement--even if that family touch is ceremonial only.
  • First Lady was, I'm willing to bet, never part of Melania's life plan.

    Whilst I find First Lady to be a frankly bizarre job (why should being married to the President be a particularly relevant thing), I'll agree with you that it's rather cramped Melania's style.

    I suppose it's partly apeing the idea of the Queen consort.

    I'm not so sure. I see this sort of thing hanging on in the church (well, our denom) where all unofficially BUT with 150 years history behind it, the local congregation is led by a pastor (official) and pastor's wife (if any, VERY unofficial but expected). The pastor's wife job (which many rebel against) involves the same stuff that the first lady position does--anything to do with children, education, healthcare, and community events (read: with food). And of course if you're not the right person for that sort of job, or resent it, it's vastly problematic. But when you ARE the right person and don't resent it, it can work amazingly well. As with most of the missionary couples I know, myself included.

    The idea seems to be that the job is too big for a single person to handle, and there is still something in the American psyche that wants family rather than staff-only involvement--even if that family touch is ceremonial only.

    Oh, believe me, pastor's/vicar's/minister's wives have been kept busy a lot longer than the last 150 years. :p
  • No doubt. The ref was to my particular denomination.
  • I can still hear the way the wife of the Vicar of the Church Of My Yoof used to intone the dread words 'Oooooh.....ALBERT!!!!', following the commission of some error of speech or action by the said Reverend Albert...
    :flushed:
  • If congregations expect to get two "employees" for a price of one poorly-paid person, they need to do some rethinking.

    (I say that as the former spouse of a clergy person.)
  • In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If congregations expect to get two "employees" for a price of one poorly-paid person, they need to do some rethinking.

    (I say that as the former spouse of a clergy person.)

    Yeah, well, that's where some of the rub comes in.

    Though I will say that in the churches I've been in that have this habit, there is no staff and everything is volunteer-run. So it's more a case of other people's opinions on what you ought to volunteer to do (which also sucks, because what if I'm not gifted at that?).
  • (Not much Fre
    mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.

    (I heard some amazing Orthodox choral music in Poland. I wonder if the tradition holds there. They were into some very heavy close harmony).
  • The Slavic O's have some amazing music, probably best suited to the "western" ear of all the O churches.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.

    Wow! I'm glad that was never expected of me. I absolutely love music -- from the congregation or an audience. I'm somewhat tone deaf, however, when it comes to singing (and I have taken ear training and sight singing, to no avail). I can't imagine what a choir would sound like if I were the director!
  • mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.
    It’s common in many (not all) African American churches for the pastor’s wife to be referred to and addressed as “First Lady.”

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.
    It’s common in many (not all) African American churches for the pastor’s wife to be referred to and addressed as “First Lady.”

    I did not know that.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.
    It’s common in many (not all) African American churches for the pastor’s wife to be referred to and addressed as “First Lady.”

    I did not know that.

    I only knew it because I binge-watched Greenleaf a couple of months ago (I do recommend it, hammy and melodramatic though it is).
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    In Orthodoxy commonly the priest's wife -- who has her own job title: Matushka (slavic), Presvytera (Greek), Khouria (arabic) -- is commonly expected to be the choir director.
    It’s common in many (not all) African American churches for the pastor’s wife to be referred to and addressed as “First Lady.”

    I did not know that.

    I only knew it because I binge-watched Greenleaf a couple of months ago (I do recommend it, hammy and melodramatic though it is).

    It is portraying a scene that is relentlessly hammy and melodramatic.
  • News Flash: Vladimir Putin has warned that the USA will now be controlled by Americans!
  • Michael Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor convicted of lying to the FBI, has received a full pardon. I'm guessing we're going to see a lot of these in the coming weeks. We could even make a game of it. Which of Trump's former associates are going to get the presidential Get Out of Jail Free card? Who's going to be left to rot?

    My guess is that Paul Manafort 35207-016 will probably get a pardon, though Trump will probably save that one until the last minute.

    Michael Cohen 86067-054 and Rick Gates 35208-016 are probably out of luck because they cooperated with investigators and Trump hates squealers.

    Thoughts?
  • The question is, will he try to pardon himself? Some are saying if he tries to do that the Supreme Court may have to step in.

    Again, remember Trump can only issue federal pardons.

    States still have the right to conduct and prosecute under their own laws.
  • But only Democratic-controlled states will pursue him and that can be spun as partisan justice.
  • @Gramps49, but can he pardon himself before he is convicted of a crime?
  • Receiving a presidential pardon doesn't keep you from being subpoenaed, and it does prevent you from pleading the 5th (incriminate you? you're immune to prosecution for these crimes). It also does not apply to crimes at the state level. This could be a very interesting Winter and Spring.
  • @Gramps49, but can he pardon himself before he is convicted of a crime?

    Heard a guest on NPR, last week, who said T might be able to temporarily turn the presidency over to Pence; then Pence could pardon T, and turn the presidency back over to his boss. (The guest was not saying this would be a good thing!)

    Of course, would Pence give back the presidency?

    And yes, any such pardon wouldn't apply to crimes at a state or local level.
This discussion has been closed.