Is the Trump presidency that bad?

[SharmaK]

for better or worse of the nation obama was the worst president for me personally, where as Trump for all the media bluster against him, has had just about zero impact on me personally so far (revise after my taxes come in).

I can’t argue against your personal experiences and impacts. The thread is really about his impact in general on the country and the world.

I’m hoping I’ll make out OK on the taxes but I fear that taking money from the people that need it more than me isn’t going to be a freebie. There’s going to be a reckoning I’m sure.

[Ibelsd]

I was judging him since he started campaigning and he has done little to change the fact he is unsuited. As far as being worst person to hold the position, I believe he is the absolute worst. As far as his role, you’re right, time will tell and that’s my point: he may end up being able to do so little that other presidencies may have a much worse effect on the country.



We should probably argue whether NN is good or bad but elsewhere but I see it as bad. And the fact he is implementing his campaign promises, which were bad anyway, just adds to his bad presidency.



I don’t think Trump said a dumb thing though. He made a racist statement that wasn’t supported by facts - his claim was that Haiti and African immigrants wouldn’t have passed his merit-based immigration rules; and that Norway would.

Durbin may not even be the only source but he is certainly the one shouting out Trump’s racism. That should be known by Americans and the world. Trump relies and depends on Twitter, an open, unmoderated, free platform to explain himself. Durbin is just following the protocol set by Trump himself: live by public opinion and die by it.

That the media have spent way too much time on the matter is neither here nor there: if you don’t like it, don’t consume it.

First, I was not trying to debate on NN. You would agree, though, that there are people who oppose it, right? That's all I am saying. Using that as an example for Trump's ability is just imposing your opinion on the matter. It says nothing about Trump's success or failure.

Second, you are extrapolating what Trump said regarding Haiti and Africa to fit your narrative about Trump. Again, I am not defending his comment. If you believe it was racist, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It isn't a fact. However, I am pointing out that his comment behind closed doors was only problematic from a national interest perspective because Durbin made it an issue by reporting it to the media. Durbin was the initial source and no one has bothered to question why he'd leak a comment by the President when he believes the comment is harmful to U.S. interests.

Third, I never claimed the media spent too much or too little time on anything. Either support this claim or retract it. Whether I choose to consume it has nothing to do with the argument I made.

Finally, you are now claiming you are judging Trump's presidency based, in part, on his candidacy??? That does not even make sense. Let's be clear. Your opinion is that he's the worst president ever and the fact is that we are just a year into his Presidency. Your mind is made up. I don't even understand your supposed point which is twisted and makes little to no sense.

[SharmaK]

First, I was not trying to debate on NN. You would agree, though, that there are people who oppose it, right? That's all I am saying. Using that as an example for Trump's ability is just imposing your opinion on the matter. It says nothing about Trump's success or failure.

I don’t know if there are “people” that don’t like NN. It’s usually companies who want to take advantage of consumers. Title 2 was to prevent companies from doing terrible things. It’s not a matter of opinion bad, it’s objectively bad.

Second, you are extrapolating what Trump said regarding Haiti and Africa to fit your narrative about Trump. Again, I am not defending his comment. If you believe it was racist, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It isn't a fact. However, I am pointing out that his comment behind closed doors was only problematic from a national interest perspective because Durbin made it an issue by reporting it to the media. Durbin was the initial source and no one has bothered to question why he'd leak a comment by the President when he believes the comment is harmful to U.S. interests.

I don’t see any national security issues. Trump’s America is already inward looking and attacking the global institutions that took two world wars to put in place. Being racist on top of that is but a small blister on a gaping wound he has inflicted on America’s actual national security.

Third, I never claimed the media spent too much or too little time on anything. Either support this claim or retract it. Whether I choose to consume it has nothing to do with the argument I made.

If you don’t consume it then why do you care what the media does or talks about?

Finally, you are now claiming you are judging Trump's presidency based, in part, on his candidacy??? That does not even make sense. Let's be clear. Your opinion is that he's the worst president ever and the fact is that we are just a year into his Presidency. Your mind is made up. I don't even understand your supposed point which is twisted and makes little to no sense.

He’s objectively bad at nearly every single metric you could measure on: national security, diplomacy, education, immigration, respect of the world and America’s place, supporting KKK, against police crime on blacks, and so on. He’s universally ignorant, clumsy, ill-read on all the important topics. The only thing saving the country are the people outside of his administration that are preventing him from implementing his direct wishes.

[Ibelsd]

I don’t know if there are “people” that don’t like NN. It’s usually companies who want to take advantage of consumers. Title 2 was to prevent companies from doing terrible things. It’s not a matter of opinion bad, it’s objectively bad.

This is absurd. Even if this were factual (which you'll have to support), companies are made up of people. They get to vote. Their interests matter. Your argument does not refute my point. Of course you are expressing an opinion. There are levels to absurdity and you are reaching all of them here with this line of 'reasoning'.

I don’t see any national security issues. Trump’s America is already inward looking and attacking the global institutions that took two world wars to put in place. Being racist on top of that is but a small blister on a gaping wound he has inflicted on America’s actual national security.

Several Democrats and media have claimed his comments harmed national security. I never claimed YOU made this accusation.

If you don’t consume it then why do you care what the media does or talks about?

Did I claim I didn't consume the news?

He’s objectively bad at nearly every single metric you could measure on: national security, diplomacy, education, immigration, respect of the world and America’s place, supporting KKK, against police crime on blacks, and so on. He’s universally ignorant, clumsy, ill-read on all the important topics. The only thing saving the country are the people outside of his administration that are preventing him from implementing his direct wishes.

No. He's subjectively bad per your opinions. And you are making a lot of stuff up as you go along. You are certainly free to have opinions, but they are not objective. I can take any item in your list and turn it around and claim they are good. That'd be me giving you my opinion (not saying it is my opinion). Then you add ad hom attacks such as being ignorant and clumsy, which are, by definition, subjective claims. Perhaps, the most interesting thing about this thread is hearing a liberal try, and completely fail, to discern objectivity from subjectivity.

In the end, though, we return to my original rebuttal to the OP. Objectively assessing a president takes time. It is never done in the moment due to the emotions of the day. On top of that, there is no room to properly assess how his policies will impact the U.S. in the future. And yes, playing prognosticator as you are doing is a subjective effort. Most laughably, you cannot even imagine an argument from those who disagree with you. Certainly, anyone who has disagreed thus far (within the context of this thread) are evil corporations (not people).

[SharmaK]

This is absurd. Even if this were factual (which you'll have to support), companies are made up of people. They get to vote. Their interests matter. Your argument does not refute my point. Of course you are expressing an opinion. There are levels to absurdity and you are reaching all of them here with this line of 'reasoning'.

Nope. It is still objectively worse - don’t forget this was triggered by acts such as AT&T blocking FaceTime.

No. He's subjectively bad per your opinions. And you are making a lot of stuff up as you go along. You are certainly free to have opinions, but they are not objective. I can take any item in your list and turn it around and claim they are good.

OK. Tell me how AT&T blocking or charging for FaceTime activity is a good thing?

Then you add ad hom attacks such as being ignorant and clumsy, which are, by definition, subjective claims.

Trump’s ignorance is objectively true - he literally doesn’t know how the world works or how government is done. The accounts of him not knowing things are leaked all the time from people that have to explain things to him!

In the end, though, we return to my original rebuttal to the OP. Objectively assessing a president takes time. It is never done in the moment due to the emotions of the day. On top of that, there is no room to properly assess how his policies will impact the U.S. in the future. And yes, playing prognosticator as you are doing is a subjective effort. Most laughably, you cannot even imagine an argument from those who disagree with you. Certainly, anyone who has disagreed thus far (within the context of this thread) are evil corporations (not people).

Well, you are right he is only one year in and my point is really that his presidency may not be so bad. As long as the rest of the government makes sure he doesn’t implement his worse policies.

However, we are debating is whether he is the worse president and that can be determined from his actions thus far: which have been ignorant, racist, misogynistic, clumsy and poorly worded. I don’t see any room for opinion here - there are things he did that were all those things. And given that no other president has been ignorant, for a start, on that one measure alone, he is the least ignorant and therefore the worse. Then it’s downhill from there.

[Frank Apisa]

Nope. It is still objectively worse - don’t forget this was triggered by acts such as AT&T blocking FaceTime.

OK. Tell me how AT&T blocking or charging for FaceTime activity is a good thing?


Trump’s ignorance is objectively true - he literally doesn’t know how the world works or how government is done. The accounts of him not knowing things are leaked all the time from people that have to explain things to him!



Well, you are right he is only one year in and my point is really that his presidency may not be so bad. As long as the rest of the government makes sure he doesn’t implement his worse policies.

However, we are debating is whether he is the worse president and that can be determined from his actions thus far: which have been ignorant, racist, misogynistic, clumsy and poorly worded. I don’t see any room for opinion here - there are things he did that were all those things. And given that no other president has been ignorant, for a start, on that one measure alone, he is the least ignorant and therefore the worse. Then it’s downhill from there.

I agree, SharmaK.

I wish him well, nonetheless. I don't want him to fail, because he will not pay the price for failure...we, and the people of the rest of the world, will.

When he ran I thought it a joke...the whim of a guy with enough money to make an attempt for the sake of the publicity. I saw him as a boor and an incompetent...and as someone who just didn't measure up to what I would want in a president. I never thought for a second enough people in America could be shallow enough to vote for him.

He did get elected...and he has conducted himself even lower than my best case scenario for him.

And still there ARE people who defend him and his presidency...including my brother, sister-in-law, several cousins...and lots and lots of dear friends.

It has become, in my opinion, a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

[SharmaK]

I wish him well, nonetheless. I don't want him to fail, because he will not pay the price for failure...we, and the people of the rest of the world, will.

I don’t want him to fail the country but I wouldn’t mind if all his policies failed too since they’re generally harmful.

And still there ARE people who defend him and his presidency...including my brother, sister-in-law, several cousins...and lots and lots of dear friends.

There’s nothing wrong with that either. There should be debate on all the issues and if only done accidentally Trump has pushed many vital issues to the fore: racism, immigration, the powers of the presidency, the checks and balances within government, and most important of all, voting.

I don’t believe Trump won the election so much as Clinton and the DNC lost it.

It has become, in my opinion, a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

It’s only mad because we have to choose between a corrupt DNC nomination process which cheated Sanders throughout the primaries versus a party of paranoid, socially regressive, corporate shills.

[Ibelsd]

Nope. It is still objectively worse - don’t forget this was triggered by acts such as AT&T blocking FaceTime.

OK. Tell me how AT&T blocking or charging for FaceTime activity is a good thing?


Trump’s ignorance is objectively true - he literally doesn’t know how the world works or how government is done. The accounts of him not knowing things are leaked all the time from people that have to explain things to him!



Well, you are right he is only one year in and my point is really that his presidency may not be so bad. As long as the rest of the government makes sure he doesn’t implement his worse policies.

However, we are debating is whether he is the worse president and that can be determined from his actions thus far: which have been ignorant, racist, misogynistic, clumsy and poorly worded. I don’t see any room for opinion here - there are things he did that were all those things. And given that no other president has been ignorant, for a start, on that one measure alone, he is the least ignorant and therefore the worse. Then it’s downhill from there.

No. It is not "objectively" worse. This is, by definition, your opinion. The force of gravity, the number of legs you have, the color of the sky; these are questions that have objective answers. Whether the NN is bad or good is your opinion. Furthermore, one could be in favor of the NN and still believe it is correct that Trump's FCC rescinded it with the belief that the NN exceeded their constitutional authority. Again, is this a good or bad thing? The answer is not an objective truth. It is subjective. Until you learn the difference between objective and subjective, there isn't much to discuss here.

[SharmaK]

No. It is not "objectively" worse. This is, by definition, your opinion. The force of gravity, the number of legs you have, the color of the sky; these are questions that have objective answers. Whether the NN is bad or good is your opinion. Furthermore, one could be in favor of the NN and still believe it is correct that Trump's FCC rescinded it with the belief that the NN exceeded their constitutional authority. Again, is this a good or bad thing? The answer is not an objective truth. It is subjective.

You’re right. I see I have to quality my statement. NN is objectively worse for consumers because it allows companies to charge different rates for different services or different rates for the same service from different content providers. It is bad for smaller start ups that might not be able to cut the same deal as more established companies.

Until you learn the difference between objective and subjective, there isn't much to discuss here.

Now that we’re on the same page. Can you now agree that Trump is objectively ignorant about the world and government?

[Ibelsd]

You’re right. I see I have to quality my statement. NN is objectively worse for consumers because it allows companies to charge different rates for different services or different rates for the same service from different content providers. It is bad for smaller start ups that might not be able to cut the same deal as more established companies.



Now that we’re on the same page. Can you now agree that Trump is objectively ignorant about the world and government?

Wow. You still cannot discern the difference. Seeing as how you still cannot seem to separate your opinions from objective facts, no. We are (objectively) factually not on the same page and per my (subjective) opinion, we cannot continue. Furthermore, it is a fact we do not agree and therefore that is an objective truth. As to the nature of our disagreements, those are opinions and subjective.

I honestly cannot believe I have to spell this out to someone who has advanced past the sixth grade. What next? Should we discuss the definitions of up and down? Wet and dry? How elementary do we need to go?

[SharmaK]

Wow. You still cannot discern the difference. Seeing as how you still cannot seem to separate your opinions from objective facts, no. We are (objectively) factually not on the same page and per my (subjective) opinion, we cannot continue. Furthermore, it is a fact we do not agree and therefore that is an objective truth. As to the nature of our disagreements, those are opinions and subjective.

I honestly cannot believe I have to spell this out to someone who has advanced past the sixth grade. What next? Should we discuss the definitions of up and down? Wet and dry? How elementary do we need to go?

If something is objectively true then personal opinions don’t matter. Are you disputing the facts around NN being harmful to consumers and small companies or that Trump is ignorant of politics and the workings of the US government?

[SharmaK]

Relevant: http://www.adweek.com/creativity/bur...-for-whoppers/

This is a semi/tongue in cheek video from Burger King where they try to explain net neutrality by suggesting that people could by a fast track to getting their burgers faster than anyone else. Those that don’t have to wait a set period of time regardless of actual usage. It costs $24 to get your burger quickly otherwise, even if it’s ready, even if the burger is in the server’s hand, the customer doesn’t get it.

This is exactly what NN is like: companies can, for pure profits sake, charge consumers a premium to get high speed access otherwise they will be throttled. NN requires that all data should come at the same rate regardless of its source or destination; it should be treated the same with no artificial slowdowns or advert injections.

[Ibelsd]

Relevant: http://www.adweek.com/creativity/bur...-for-whoppers/

This is a semi/tongue in cheek video from Burger King where they try to explain net neutrality by suggesting that people could by a fast track to getting their burgers faster than anyone else. Those that don’t have to wait a set period of time regardless of actual usage. It costs $24 to get your burger quickly otherwise, even if it’s ready, even if the burger is in the server’s hand, the customer doesn’t get it.

This is exactly what NN is like: companies can, for pure profits sake, charge consumers a premium to get high speed access otherwise they will be throttled. NN requires that all data should come at the same rate regardless of its source or destination; it should be treated the same with no artificial slowdowns or advert injections.

You are trying to get into a debate on NN which we both agreed shouldn't be the topic of this thread. So, you can offer all sorts of arguments on why you favor it. It is still just your opinion. Your link is to someone else's opinion. Furthermore, you have simply dropped my alternate point on this whereas someone could favor the concept of NN and still be opposed to it should they believe it is overstepping the authority of the FCC. Again, these are all opinions and you have tried to conflate your strongly held belief with fact.

I am stating any belief regarding the NN is an opinion. Any claim regarding Trump's intelligence, competence, and knowledge about government is also a belief (i.e. an opinion). Do you have some sort of objective assessment test you can point to regarding his supposed lack of intelligence? Of course not. You are expressing an opinion.

Having an opinion isn't wrong and I am not criticizing you for having one. I am criticizing your lack of ability or general unwillingness in acknowledging that your beliefs are opinions. I am also stating, as it regards to Trump, your opinions are heavily biased and lack depth. First, you are basing your conclusion, in part, on his candidacy (not even as a President). Second, you are judging him based on qualities you find important ignoring how people who voted for him or who disagree with your views may perceive these qualities. Lastly, he has been president for all of one year. He has three years before he finishes his term. Who the hell knows what will happen between now and then? Your prognostication is yet another opinion.

It would be fair to ask whether his first year has been as bad or better than predicted. However, let's be clear, most of that would be based squarely on opinion. I'll say this. Democrats predicted war and fascism from Trump and neither have come to fruition. So, if Democrats are being honest, a Trump presidency, thus far, has far exceeded expectations.

[SharmaK]

You are trying to get into a debate on NN which we both agreed shouldn't be the topic of this thread. So, you can offer all sorts of arguments on why you favor it. It is still just your opinion. Your link is to someone else's opinion.

It’s not opinion that companies will try and earn as much money from consumers. AT&T’s blocking of FaceTime is a perfect example of that. And further, it’s not opinion that this is bad for consumers.

Furthermore, you have simply dropped my alternate point on this whereas someone could favor the concept of NN and still be opposed to it should they believe it is overstepping the authority of the FCC. Again, these are all opinions and you have tried to conflate your strongly held belief with fact.

That’s an irrelevant issue - the point of the FCC is to be provided enough power to enforce NN. Pai’s low touch approach will just bring back service tiers. In fact they’re here already and should be struck down.

Any claim regarding Trump's intelligence, competence, and knowledge about government is also a belief (i.e. an opinion). Do you have some sort of objective assessment test you can point to regarding his supposed lack of intelligence? Of course not. You are expressing an opinion.

Yes. He objectively doesn’t know or understand how government works based on both his tweets and actions. Most recent being his attempt to obstruct Justice by firing the guy investigating him for obstructing Justice.

Having an opinion isn't wrong and I am not criticizing you for having one. I am criticizing your lack of ability or general unwillingness in acknowledging that your beliefs are opinions.

I’ve laid out why my statements are objective. You haven’t objected to them thus far so they stand.

I am also stating, as it regards to Trump, your opinions are heavily biased and lack depth. First, you are basing your conclusion, in part, on his candidacy (not even as a President).

You’re kidding. We’ve had a year of his mistakes in word and deed. I can distinguish between his policy positions which I disagree with and his general incompetence.

Second, you are judging him based on qualities you find important ignoring how people who voted for him or who disagree with your views may perceive these qualities.

How’s who’s going back to when he was campaigning. This is irrelevant as you pointed out yourself.

It would be fair to ask whether his first year has been as bad or better than predicted. However, let's be clear, most of that would be based squarely on opinion. I'll say this. Democrats predicted war and fascism from Trump and neither have come to fruition. So, if Democrats are being honest, a Trump presidency, thus far, has far exceeded expectations.

In that case, in terms of moving his agenda forward he has been a total failure. Other than the tax reform, most of his actions have been EOs overturning Obama’s EO. Hardly a big achievement.

Democrats and some republicans have staunched his power and have provided the checks and balances to prevent him from doing anything too terrible. So that’s another point against Trump’s first year.

So I don’t see how any of this translates as exceeding expectations. I don’t think anyone expects trump to destroy the world!

[Ibelsd]

It’s not opinion that companies will try and earn as much money from consumers. AT&T’s blocking of FaceTime is a perfect example of that. And further, it’s not opinion that this is bad for consumers.

Actually, that is an opinion. Companies tend to maximize profit, but it is not factual or objective to state that companies (implying all) will do anything to maximize profits (implying they do not display ethics). You may believe this, but it is hardly an statement of fact. Some companies will act unethically and some will not. Some will push the limits of ethics and some will be more conservative. How bad was AT&T's blocking of FaceTime? I dunno. If you are a consumer and want an Apple phone and didn't like AT&T, then you take your business elsewhere. Maybe AT&T's actions resulted in heightened competition which was a net benefit for consumers. I don't know. And you don't know. You are just offering your opinion based on your biases and world views.

That’s an irrelevant issue - the point of the FCC is to be provided enough power to enforce NN. Pai’s low touch approach will just bring back service tiers. In fact they’re here already and should be struck down.

Again, in your opinion, the point of the FCC is to be provided enough power to enforce NN. For others, they may believe NN should be legislation passed by our representatives in Congress. They may believe that the FCC is exceeding its authority in trying to impose NN as a regulation. That would be a competing opinion to your own.

Yes. He objectively doesn’t know or understand how government works based on both his tweets and actions. Most recent being his attempt to obstruct Justice by firing the guy investigating him for obstructing Justice.

I see. Your interpretation of his tweets and actions creates an objective truth? So, based on your misunderstanding of fact and opinion, it is an objective fact that you have the formal education of a sixth grader. That is my perception so it must also be an objective truth. No?

Note: I don't really think you have a limited formal education, I am just making a point via analogy. However, I do find this conversation troubling in that you are really having this much trouble discerning fact from opinion.

I’ve laid out why my statements are objective. You haven’t objected to them thus far so they stand.

I've objected to all of them. I have not attempted to debate you on your point of view. I have shown how each and every view you've expressed is opinion rather than fact. If I have overlooked one, please point it out to me. If you cannot, then please retract your statement.

You’re kidding. We’ve had a year of his mistakes in word and deed. I can distinguish between his policy positions which I disagree with and his general incompetence.

I am not sure you can. You've certainly not shown a capacity for this thus far.

How’s who’s going back to when he was campaigning. This is irrelevant as you pointed out yourself.

You said you based your opinions of Trump based, in part, on his candidacy. Are you denying you said this? Your printed words here on ODN are, in fact, objective truths in that they either exist or they do not. So, if you are claiming they do not exist, you would be making a statement of fact which happens to be wrong.

In that case, in terms of moving his agenda forward he has been a total failure. Other than the tax reform, most of his actions have been EOs overturning Obama’s EO. Hardly a big achievement.

Again, this is your view of his presidency. Now, if you would say something like x% of his achievements are EO's, then you'd be making a statement of fact. As soon as you add a qualifier to it (i.e. hardly a big achievement), you have now expressed an opinion.

Democrats and some republicans have staunched his power and have provided the checks and balances to prevent him from doing anything too terrible. So that’s another point against Trump’s first year.

Yes. This system of checks and balances is shockingly new, right? Never heard such a phrase before. Certainly, this new arrangement was made to prevent us from Trump's horrible, terrible, no-good Presidency. Or... maybe the government is working exactly as it was intended. Depending upon your point of view (aka opinion) and all.

So I don’t see how any of this translates as exceeding expectations. I don’t think anyone expects trump to destroy the world!

Not so fast my friend. Actually several pundits and politicians made these sorts of claims:
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/...rump-democracy
"When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, many worried his presidency would be a serious threat to American democracy."

[SharmaK]

Actually, that is an opinion. Companies tend to maximize profit, but it is not factual or objective to state that companies (implying all) will do anything to maximize profits (implying they do not display ethics). You may believe this, but it is hardly an statement of fact. Some companies will act unethically and some will not. Some will push the limits of ethics and some will be more conservative. How bad was AT&T's blocking of FaceTime? I dunno. If you are a consumer and want an Apple phone and didn't like AT&T, then you take your business elsewhere. Maybe AT&T's actions resulted in heightened competition which was a net benefit for consumers. I don't know. And you don't know. You are just offering your opinion based on your biases and world views.

Well acting ethically is all a matter of opinion anyway so I’ll your point here since we are talking about objective facts. However, companies being allowed to block content is objectively bad for consumers. Your idea of moving to another carrier seems to not understand that contracts at the time locked you in. But at least you agree that this is the kind of action that would drive away customers. And then what happens when all the carriers do this? There will be a point where there’s nowhere left to run.

Again, in your opinion, the point of the FCC is to be provided enough power to enforce NN.

Which is all I’m saying.

For others, they may believe NN should be legislation passed by our representatives in Congress. They may believe that the FCC is exceeding its authority in trying to impose NN as a regulation. That would be a competing opinion to your own.

Sure but that’s why Obama made his changes that Trump just reverted. But we are not discussing that - we’re discussing NN itself.

I see. Your interpretation of his tweets and actions creates an objective truth? So, based on your misunderstanding of fact and opinion, it is an objective fact that you have the formal education of a sixth grader. That is my perception so it must also be an objective truth. No?

I didn’t say he had a formal education of a sixth grader. I explicitly said he was ignorant with the workings of the US government, large swathes of the law and international affairs.

Note: I don't really think you have a limited formal education, I am just making a point via analogy. However, I do find this conversation troubling in that you are really having this much trouble discerning fact from opinion.

I too am worried that you are avoiding actual statements and actions that occurred on an almost weekly basis that factually showed his ignorance. I don’t think you have limited education either.

I fear the rest of the debate about Trump isn’t going anywhere if we can’t accept basic facts regarding his general ignorance. I’m going to hold off for a little while, and will respond in due course.

[Ibelsd]

Well acting ethically is all a matter of opinion anyway so I’ll your point here since we are talking about objective facts. However, companies being allowed to block content is objectively bad for consumers. Your idea of moving to another carrier seems to not understand that contracts at the time locked you in. But at least you agree that this is the kind of action that would drive away customers. And then what happens when all the carriers do this? There will be a point where there’s nowhere left to run.


Which is all I’m saying.


Sure but that’s why Obama made his changes that Trump just reverted. But we are not discussing that - we’re discussing NN itself.


I didn’t say he had a formal education of a sixth grader. I explicitly said he was ignorant with the workings of the US government, large swathes of the law and international affairs.


I too am worried that you are avoiding actual statements and actions that occurred on an almost weekly basis that factually showed his ignorance. I don’t think you have limited education either.

I fear the rest of the debate about Trump isn’t going anywhere if we can’t accept basic facts regarding his general ignorance. I’m going to hold off for a little while, and will respond in due course.

1) We are not, and have never, discussed the NN itself. We both agreed it was outside the scope of the OP. I am discussing your belief that your views of the NN are objective.

2) You don't understand my analogy. I can make a claim about your education based on this thread just as easily as you can make a claim about Trump's ignorance based his Tweets (or other equally interpreted sources). You are making interpretations based on your own bias and world view. You are not basing your claim on some sort of Presidential Standard Test which could offer an objective assessment of the President's knowledge.

3) From my second point, I am not ignoring anything. I do acknowledge that whatever views I have of Trump are opinions. And yes, my opinions are based on his public statements and actions. However, I am not so grandiose that I shall declare my opinions to be objective statements of fact.

4) Your final statement says it all when you use the term "basic facts" to describe your own interpretations. In my opinion, you still have not learned to differentiate fact from opinion. So, you are correct, the rest of the debate on Trump will not go anywhere. It cannot, which is the point I brought up several posts ago. Whether due to your rage, intense dislike of the man, are strongly held ideological beliefs, you simply cannot discern fact from opinion. And you are not alone. Trump seems to have this effect on lots of people, mostly progressives like yourself, but not exclusively.

[SharmaK]

1) We are not, and have never, discussed the NN itself. We both agreed it was outside the scope of the OP. I am discussing your belief that your views of the NN are objective.

As am I.

2) You don't understand my analogy. I can make a claim about your education based on this thread just as easily as you can make a claim about Trump's ignorance based his Tweets (or other equally interpreted sources). You are making interpretations based on your own bias and world view. You are not basing your claim on some sort of Presidential Standard Test which could offer an objective assessment of the President's knowledge.

Not true, there have been many accounts on practically a weekly basis for a year on his ignorance. I’m surprised this is even debatable.

3) From my second point, I am not ignoring anything. I do acknowledge that whatever views I have of Trump are opinions. And yes, my opinions are based on his public statements and actions. However, I am not so grandiose that I shall declare my opinions to be objective statements of fact.

Maybe you need to look up what a fact is vs an opinion. If someone doesn’t know something he is by definition ignorant of that information. That’s not subject to debate or opinion. It’s about a shared world of factually reported happenings and tweets.

4) Your final statement says it all when you use the term "basic facts" to describe your own interpretations. In my opinion, you still have not learned to differentiate fact from opinion. So, you are correct, the rest of the debate on Trump will not go anywhere. It cannot, which is the point I brought up several posts ago. Whether due to your rage, intense dislike of the man, are strongly held ideological beliefs, you simply cannot discern fact from opinion. And you are not alone. Trump seems to have this effect on lots of people, mostly progressives like yourself, but not exclusively.

Meh. As I pointed out he’s an awful man but the country is being protected by our wonderful checks and balances. He’s not going to be able to inflict all the doom and gloom some have been projecting.

[Sigfried]

I find Trump to be embarrassing, entertaining, and only occasionally a bit scary.

It's quite clear that he is not a very good leader, and that he is pretty incompetent at politics. In an age where politicians are widely distrusted, that's part of his appeal. While not a good organizational leader, he is a good cheerleader and some folks love him for that.

Partly due to his ineptitude, he hasn't done tremendous damage. I think the tax cuts were a bad idea, restructuring is a good idea, and it won't hurt the economy much, but it may bankrupt the government before too long, especially if he doesn't also reign in spending. We shall see.

The economy is doing well, but it was doing pretty well before he took office. We can at least say he's kept that ball rolling, so he gets credit for that. His immigration policy has been effective (if rather heartless). If you are an illegal immigrant he's a real threat to your life and livelihood. I'm not so I can't say I'll suffer from that.

His foreign policy has not led to any disasters... yet. It hasn't accomplished anything either. ISIS is on the back foot, but again, that was going on as he took office as well. But still, not ****ing it up counts as a win when you are on a positive trend.

He constantly acts like a dolt and embarrasses most of the country. but we can handle that. There is no real tangible harm from looking like idiots when we still sit atop the biggest stockpiles of weapons and the biggest piles of money.

I'm glad to see that for the most part, the American government can survive being led by a relative idiot. (compared to others that have come before him) I don't think Trump has any evil intent, and if he did, I'm happy that he lacks the skill needed to carry it out effectively.

He will probably do the most damage long term by weakening various federal agencies and rolling back environmental progress. The latter is something I do care about and I find his attitude on such things problematic. But still, nothing we can't survive and rectify down the road.

Provided he doesn't get into any wars, and doesn't bankrupt the federal government, we will survive President Trump relatively unscathed.

The worst of Trump is really the way he reflects part of the American political dialog and thinking. If he's a long term trend, that will kick our ass eventually. He's even more polorizing than Obama. I really dislike Trump but I'm determined to try and be fair in evaluating his presidency beyond just his personality and persona. He occasionally does or says things that are reasonable.

What I really want to see is a backlash agaisnt rank partisanship and a backlash against stupidity as a virtue. I'm not really seeing much of either unfortunately. Lots of complaints about partisanship, but most folks are engaging in it anyway.

[Frank Apisa]

I find Trump to be embarrassing, entertaining, and only occasionally a bit scary.

It's quite clear that he is not a very good leader, and that he is pretty incompetent at politics. In an age where politicians are widely distrusted, that's part of his appeal. While not a good organizational leader, he is a good cheerleader and some folks love him for that.

Partly due to his ineptitude, he hasn't done tremendous damage. I think the tax cuts were a bad idea, restructuring is a good idea, and it won't hurt the economy much, but it may bankrupt the government before too long, especially if he doesn't also reign in spending. We shall see.

The economy is doing well, but it was doing pretty well before he took office. We can at least say he's kept that ball rolling, so he gets credit for that. His immigration policy has been effective (if rather heartless). If you are an illegal immigrant he's a real threat to your life and livelihood. I'm not so I can't say I'll suffer from that.

His foreign policy has not led to any disasters... yet. It hasn't accomplished anything either. ISIS is on the back foot, but again, that was going on as he took office as well. But still, not ****ing it up counts as a win when you are on a positive trend.

He constantly acts like a dolt and embarrasses most of the country. but we can handle that. There is no real tangible harm from looking like idiots when we still sit atop the biggest stockpiles of weapons and the biggest piles of money.

I'm glad to see that for the most part, the American government can survive being led by a relative idiot. (compared to others that have come before him) I don't think Trump has any evil intent, and if he did, I'm happy that he lacks the skill needed to carry it out effectively.

He will probably do the most damage long term by weakening various federal agencies and rolling back environmental progress. The latter is something I do care about and I find his attitude on such things problematic. But still, nothing we can't survive and rectify down the road.

Provided he doesn't get into any wars, and doesn't bankrupt the federal government, we will survive President Trump relatively unscathed.

The worst of Trump is really the way he reflects part of the American political dialog and thinking. If he's a long term trend, that will kick our ass eventually. He's even more polorizing than Obama. I really dislike Trump but I'm determined to try and be fair in evaluating his presidency beyond just his personality and persona. He occasionally does or says things that are reasonable.

What I really want to see is a backlash agaisnt rank partisanship and a backlash against stupidity as a virtue. I'm not really seeing much of either unfortunately. Lots of complaints about partisanship, but most folks are engaging in it anyway.

I've highlighted the part that worries me most.

He may very well HAVE TO start a war in order to protect himself...and although I like to think that the generals will stop him from doing so...EVEN THAT will be enough to set our orderly processing into turmoil. Even if the generals act...the act will set a precedent that will haunt us.

While I agree with much of this excellent presentation, Sigfried...I think the danger of Donald Trump is much, much greater than many American suppose.