0

When Bush was president the GOP shouted "America - Love it or leave it". Any criticism of the sitting president was unpatriotic. Until Obama was elected. Before this ekection the GOP announced it would start impeachment proceedings against Clinton on her first day in office. I can't wait to hear the screams of outrage if the Democrats so much as hint about acting against Trump.

0

When the president is unpopular, it creates a detestable political atmosphere in the country. The french president currently has a popularity rating of about 4%. Here is an <article> from july, when he still had 10%. I don't know if this is the result of his policy, but for years we've had a campaign of systematic criticism against him (it is called Hollande-bashing), and, in the days of internet and social networks, it works. I think there was something similar in the Bush era. Some people may use the same strategy against Trump. I don't particularly like those leaders, but I think smear campaigns are the most hateful things.

Edited by Gribouillis

1

In the case of Obama, the smear campaign consisted of things like "he was not born in America" and "he's a Muslim". In the case of Bush, the "smear" campaign consisted of facts. Similarly with Hillary, the right wing media kept screaming "Benghazi" even after several GOP investigations officially cleared her of any wrongdoing.

The SNL debate parodies had a great line where fake Trump complained that the media was making him look bad by reporting on everything he said and did.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

Wikipedia has a <whole page> about G.W.Bush's popularity. As a citizen, I don't like the idea of following the herd and make my opinions about a leader just because most people think the same. This is the mechanism of smear campaign. Of course many things can probably be criticised in his policy such as starting a war in Iraq with thousands of dead people, but on the other hand, I'm not sure ordinary citizens are in a good position to judge. The world is full of conflicts and threats, and everybody knows that if the americans stay at home, the russians or the chinese will take their place.
In a way I think it is too easy to denigrate a leader for people who do nothing but watch the world events on TV.

Edited by Gribouillis

1

In a way I think it is too easy to denigrate a leader for people who do nothing but watch the world events on TV.

Teddy Roosevelt called it. It's as true today as it was then.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Which leads to this...

The world is full of conflicts and threats, and everybody knows that if the americans stay at home, the russians or the chinese will take their place.

Unfortunately true. Conflicts hate a vacuum. Someone WILL fill that vacuum if America doesn't step up. Pre-Cold-War there was a deal. America willing took the lead, and the other democracies willingly followed her lead. Not everyone was happy with that arrangement certainly, but in general, it worked for America and it worked for a lot of other democracies, and more importantly it was stable. There were two superpowers and you picked one of them to follow or stayed out of the game. Like the game or not, at least the rules to the game were clear and understandable.

Now a lot of people are not happy with that deal and it's more complicated, both in America, which in many ways is tired of always having to lead and getting criticized for how we do it, nor in Europe and elsewhere, which no longer wishes to always follow without question and no longer assumes that America is willing and able to lead, or that their country's and America's best interests are always the same.

Who on "our side" will step into the arena if America withdraws to concentrate on her domestic problems? We might see some new leaders emerging on the World Stage soon because they are unwilling to follow America under Donald Trump.

Votes + Comments
Nice quotation!
0

In a way I think it is too easy to denigrate a leader for people who do nothing but watch the world events on TV.

How would you prefer them to get their information on world events? Print media can be just as biased as TV or the internet. For every fact there is an equal and opposite "fact". As Stephen Colbert aptly put it, "truthiness" works better than truth. If it sounds true (even if it isn't) it is more convincing than an actual fact. If people hear that 37,000 scientists are climate change deniers then it sounds like there is still a lot of legitimate doubt. Unless you also know that the deniers consider anyone with a bachelor's degree in science (computer science counts as does biology, zoology, etc) and even an engineering degree counts as a "scientist". That grouo of 37,000 scientists may only contain 2-3 actual climate scientists and those 2-3 may have ties to big oil. There's "facts" and there's "all the facts".

When you see a video of Obama saying "you didn't build it" you can easily conclude that he is dismissing the efforts of very successful entrepreneurs. If you hear the clip in context you realize he is referring to the infrastructure that these entrepreneurs in turn built on to achieve their success. Most people aren't willing to listen beyond a 10 second sound bite.

In any case, most people will believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest.

There were two superpowers and you picked one of them to follow or stayed out of the game.

Side note - most people hear "first world", "second world" and "third world" and think that refers to developed, developing and under developed countries. In fact, "first world" denotes those countries allied with America,NATO, "second world" to Russian/communist allied and "third world" to the remaining countries that are unallied to either.

In the last debate after Trump refused to say that he would accept the results of the election, critics went wild. Keith Olbermann in one episode of The Closer told Trump to "burn in hell". Now that the election is over we are seeing extreme protests all over the country from the left wing people who are refusing to accept the results of the election. I find this incredibly hypocritical.

0

Now that the election is over we are seeing extreme protests all over the country from the left wing people who are refusing to accept the results of the election. I find this incredibly hypocritical.

One of the great "what ifs" is what would have happened had Trump lost. Would he have accepted the results or would he have called it "rigged"? Would Trump supporters have rioted due to the "rigging" of the election? What I find hypocrtical is that Donald Trump thinks that if he had lost, it would have been because it was rigged against him, yet now that he won unexpectedly, everyone is supposed to believe that he won it fair and square and it wasn't rigged and all the Hillary supporters should accept the result without question. Lots of folks on the left think it was "rigged" in Trump's favor by FBI Director Comey making unnecessary, inappropriate public announcements timed perfectly to damage Hillary. You brought up a few other examples yourself. I believe one of them was the Trump folks trying to trick likely Hillary voters that the election was on a different day than it actually was in order to suppress their vote. Is that "rigging"?

Prayers out to the innocent small businesses who potentially lose money due to vandalism simply for being located in the area of the protests as well as any folks caught up in riots/protests just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully there will be no Reginald Denny incidents this time, but I've already seen a video of a very similar incident.

0

"Wikipedia has a about G.W.Bush's popularity."

It's pretty normal for a president's popularity to decline while they are in office (Obama's graph looks almost the same https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/11/13/why-president-obamas-sinking-job-approval-numbers-matter-a-lot/).

"Now that the election is over we are seeing extreme protests all over the country from the left wing people who are refusing to accept the results of the election. I find this incredibly hypocritical."

The difference is the left-wingers are (for the most part) peacefully exercising their right to protest. They are not a R-wing armed "militia" taking control of gov't buildings (which a jury has just decided is totally a-okay).

Edited by Agilemind

0

Why don't you give him a chance to be a good president ? We still don't know what he will do, only what he said when he was a candidate.

We do know at least some of what he's going to do because he's already appointed one of the biggest climate change deniers to oversee the transistion of power at the EPA and appointed a white-supremist as his chief strategist advisor (Trump has hinted the role is equal to his GOP insider chief of staff).

Also I'm not willing to give him a chance because there has already been an increase in racist-incidents including neo-nazi graffiti, and a KKK celebratory party and more. Trump's response is surprise (I'm assuming it is freigned since he spent the entire campaign spewing hate and has appointed a white-supremist to his staff) and a mild "stop that".

Edited by Reverend Jim: fixed formatting

0

In my opinion, these lawsuits need to be put on hold while he is office because the rights of 300 million+ Americans to have a full-time president outweigh the rights of private individuals to sue.

It's so ironic reading this right after this news broke. Looks like Trump only wants to be a part-time president anyway.

-3

It was a memorable moment in the US history and I hope that the public spoke their mind. Good luck Mr. Trump in your new and involving role. We pray that you will deliver the best for the country. I was eager to follow every bit of the contest. <snip>

Edited by Reverend Jim: Removed spam link

0

Looks like Trump only wants to be a part-time president anyway.

Yep, Trump is now colliding with the realities of the job. He's not going to be able to be "Trump" and be an effective president. Every single move and every minute of his life is planned. He can't just walk down to the corner store on a whim without impacting thousands of lives with the logistics and security concerns. Not that he cares about who he inconveniences, of course, but I think people who brushed off his former antics and took delight in him giving the middle finder to the entire world might find it getting a little old when the inevitable traffic jams occur if Trump decides he just HAS to fly from the White House to Manhattan for a prize fight or a concert or hang out in Trump Tower with no notice at all. The number of cars and people in a presidential motorcade is mind-boggling. Roadblocks and cops directing traffic at every single intersection, and that's when they have time to PREPARE. How many intersections are there between Trump Tower and the nearest airport? How many people does it take to watch every single window along the route for a possible sniper and to seal every single manhole cover along that same route to prevent bombs from being placed? It's gonna get really old and really expensive really quick. And with all that you STILL can't protect one of the most hated men on the planet in Manhattan. Camp David? His resort in Florida? George W's ranch in Texas? His dad's retreat in Maine? Difficult, but achievable. Trump Tower? No way. He's eventually going to be told NO.

On the plus side, any Manhattan hotel owner or police officer in the NYPD must be loving life. Ka-ching. Extra bookings and overtime pay through the roof. New York City taxpayers might not like it so much unless Trump actually starts paying his bills.

Edited by AssertNull

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.