Anonymous Op-Ed from the NYT

[Cow Poke]

802-555-3468

There's a message in that number - if you can find it...

The "555" part is the non-existent "hollywood prefix", but the rest of the number..... I'll be amazed if you're not banned from Tweb for posting that!

[One Bad Pig]

So this sentence had me scratching my head for a while. What exactly are the "broadest of indicators" I'm using

Trump's approval rating among conservatives.

and what is the "something rather specific" I am indicating acceptance of?

General defense of Trump's statements. I have no idea why you can't see that.

My observation is that Trump's statements are generally accepted and/or defended by conservatives. They are seldom challenged (hence the term "tend"). The wide approval rating, lack of any substantive challenge in any of the right-leaning media, and my personal experience (which is a small data point - acknowledged) are the evidence on which I form this view.

Your argument, then, is largely from silence. You are allegedly seeing a lack of any substantive challenge and assuming this equates to acceptance and/or defense of the same.

I haven't told any specific person what they think. I have made a general observation about a group - not particular members OF that group. I specifically used non-superlative language because I am sure there are members of that group that DON'T simply rubber-stamp anything Trump says. It is a broad characteristic of the group. If it doesn't apply to you or CP, then you are part of the minority, IMO.

I still don't see what the fuss is about. You two seem to have taken personally a comment that was about an entire group of people and the tendencies within that group. I think you may be adding things to my post that I did not put there.

You've made a general observation which runs counter to my general experience, causing me to doubt the veracity of your allegations.

[carpedm9587]

The "555" part is the non-existent "hollywood prefix", but the rest of the number..... I'll be amazed if you're not banned from Tweb for posting that!

Close. The 555 is actually a valid prefix, but it is reserved for use by the telephone companies. For example, 555-1212 is always directory assistance. Most of the numbers have never been assigned, so Hollywood knows it can insert those numbers into its programming without fear of actually hitting a real number. Likewise, when IP addresses are displayed, usually one of the numbers is larger than 255 (e.g., 110.278.134.16) because it is not possible for an IP address to take on this value.

And I messed up the number. It was supposed to be 802-555-3468, which translates to 802-555-FIOY - which stands for "Figure it out yourself."

My vengeance for "fify"

[carpedm9587]

Trump's approval rating among conservatives.

General defense of Trump's statements. I have no idea why you can't see that.

Your argument, then, is largely from silence. You are allegedly seeing a lack of any substantive challenge and assuming this equates to acceptance and/or defense of the same.

"Qui tacet consentit" is a common legal concept: he who is silent consents." The entire expression is "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" or "He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree." That version is less ambiguous. There are, and have been, many opportunities for people on the right to speak out against Trump's lies, and most egregious actions. It rarely happens. Trump can name-call like a middle-school bully, and he is applauded. Trump can lie daily, and it is dismissed with "take him seriously, not literally." He can seek vengeance for the slightest of insults, sometimes using his political office to do so, and he is applauded and praised for "not taking it lying down." Trump's behavior doesn't even rise to the level of a moderately mature middle-schooler. I have to believe that most parents would NOT applaud a child of theirs who acts the way Trump does, but all of that is forgiven because he put two people (soon) the right likes on SCOTUS and has cut taxes and regulations that the right doesn't like.

Faust, anyone?

You've made a general observation which runs counter to my general experience, causing me to doubt the veracity of your allegations.

Then I would love to hear someone - anyone from the right - outline the aspects of Trump they find unacceptable and unworthy of the office he holds. So far, except a few "yeah, he spouts off," I haven't heard much.

So here are my two questions.

1) What (if anything) has Trump said/done that you find unworthy of the office and unbecoming of a President of the United States?
2) In what ways has Trump been an extremely poor role model for our children and our citizens in general?

[Bill the Cat]

1) What (if anything) has Trump said/done that you find unworthy of the office and unbecoming of a President of the United States?

I'd counter with a question... Does there exists a legal standard for a code of conduct for a President?

[Cow Poke]

Close. The 555 is actually a valid prefix, but it is reserved for use by the telephone companies. For example, 555-1212 is always directory assistance. Most of the numbers have never been assigned, so Hollywood knows it can insert those numbers into its programming without fear of actually hitting a real number. Likewise, when IP addresses are displayed, usually one of the numbers is larger than 255 (e.g., 110.278.134.16) because it is not possible for an IP address to take on this value.

Yeah, Captain Obvious - I knew that - I didn't mean to use the word "non-existent", except with respect to what the real world can do.

And I messed up the number. It was supposed to be 802-555-3468, which translates to 802-555-FIOY - which stands for "Figure it out yourself."

My vengeance for "fify"

OK, let's go back to being nice.

You first.

[One Bad Pig]

"Qui tacet consentit" is a common legal concept: he who is silent consents." The entire expression is "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" or "He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree." That version is less ambiguous. There are, and have been, many opportunities for people on the right to speak out against Trump's lies, and most egregious actions. It rarely happens.

What "egregious actions" has Trump taken?

Trump can name-call like a middle-school bully, and he is applauded.

Not by me, and not by most here. I have said before, and will say it again, that Trump should mostly shut up, and someone should take away his Twitter access. I don't much like him as a person. I'll also note that the words of Trump's ideological opponents make him look like a choirboy in comparison, and that's no mean feat. Where is your rejection of the foul-mouthed mockings of the left, rising to the level of glorying in his portrayed murder? Spare me your faux outrage.

Trump can lie daily, and it is dismissed with "take him seriously, not literally."

Get back to me when y'all can distinguish between lying, opinion, and hyperbole. If you'd quit diligently making molehills into mountains, perhaps we'd pay more attention to the actual mountains.

He can seek vengeance for the slightest of insults, sometimes using his political office to do so, and he is applauded and praised for "not taking it lying down."

What has he done, beyond words?

Trump's behavior doesn't even rise to the level of a moderately mature middle-schooler.

It's far above that of his ideological opponents. I still don't like it.

I have to believe that most parents would NOT applaud a child of theirs who acts the way Trump does, but all of that is forgiven because he put two people (soon) the right likes on SCOTUS and has cut taxes and regulations that the right doesn't like.

Tolerated, because the alternative is even worse.

Faust, anyone?

Ironic, coming from one who doesn't believe the devil exists.

Then I would love to hear someone - anyone from the right - outline the aspects of Trump they find unacceptable and unworthy of the office he holds. So far, except a few "yeah, he spouts off," I haven't heard much.

If he committed adultery or actual (not imagined by the fever dreams of leftists) treason, that would be wholly unacceptable. If he actually assumed dictatorial powers, that would be unacceptable.

So here are my two questions.

1) What (if anything) has Trump said/done that you find unworthy of the office and unbecoming of a President of the United States?

Legally? Nothing.

2) In what ways has Trump been an extremely poor role model for our children and our citizens in general?

Extremely poor? Meh. What Trump has done thus far doesn't hold a candle to the left's treatment of the office when a Republican has held it for a good 40 years or so. People cheered when Reagan was shot. You have zero moral leg to stand on.

[Tassman]

Woodward's book is typical "anonymous sources" yellow journalism whose gossipy claims have already been dismissed as fabrications by NAMED sources on the record.

Woodward's book is meticulously researched by a two-times Pulitzer Prize winner that reinforces what has been said by other authors and many WH employees and former WH employees about “crazy town”, which apparently is the state of the Trump WH. The “named sources” denials are to be expected and precisely what the anonymous Deep Throat, i.e. Mark Felt, did in the analogous situation of the crumpling Nixon administration.

And what continues to remain conspicuously absent from these cowardly hit-pieces is any actual evidence that Trump has done anything illegal or unethical as candidate or president, which is why the left is now desperately attacking his management style and trying to manufacture a new "crisis" out of whole cloth by spreading these scurrilous lies that low-info morons like you eat up without question.

The ethics and legality of what Trump is doing is a separate question. What’s at issue is whether or not Trump is fit to govern. Many in a position to know think he is not, as Woodward indicates.

You think there's a legitimate "Constitutional crisis" here? Then quote the passage from the Constitution that is supposedly in jeopardy and present your supporting evidence.

If the president of the USA is unfit to govern by virtue of mental incompetence then yes of course there’s a “legitimate Constitutional crisis".

Let's see if you can actually do more than just mindlessly parrot the latest liberal talking points.

You mean as opposed to parroting Trump lies and those of his surrogates.

[carpedm9587]

I'd counter with a question... Does there exists a legal standard for a code of conduct for a President?

The president is subject to the same laws as the rest of us, with only a few notable exceptions. But my question had nothing to do with laws. Clearly someone who breaks laws (and it is not yet clear that Trump hasn't), is not a qualified holder of the office. But my question is not merely a legal one. If I discovered that a president (any president) was trying to use his power as "head of the executive branch" to target his opponents and punish them, I would consider that acting in a way that is unworthy of the office. If I discovered they were using their office to enrich themselves rather than making decisions in the best interests of the people, I would consider that person acting in ways unworthy of the office. Having sex with interns. And so forth.

So the question is, what (if anything) has Trump said/done that you find unworthy of the office and position he holds.

[Mountain Man]

Woodward's book is meticulously researched...

Yeah, he used low-level White House sources who have already been debunked!

"But... but they denied it! That must make it true!"

And I noticed you completely dodged the question about which part of the Constitution is actually in jeopardy. You just mindlessly regurgitated the liberal talking point about mental fitness and mistook it for a substantive argument because that's the narrative you've been spoon fed by the media. Man are you guys gullible.

[Cow Poke]

....yes of course there’s a “legitimate Constitutional crisis"...

Hurry, Chickie Tassie - you must run and tell the king!

[carpedm9587]

What "egregious actions" has Trump taken?

Not by me, and not by most here. I have said before, and will say it again, that Trump should mostly shut up, and someone should take away his Twitter access. I don't much like him as a person. I'll also note that the words of Trump's ideological opponents make him look like a choirboy in comparison, and that's no mean feat. Where is your rejection of the foul-mouthed mockings of the left, rising to the level of glorying in his portrayed murder? Spare me your faux outrage.

Get back to me when y'all can distinguish between lying, opinion, and hyperbole. If you'd quit diligently making molehills into mountains, perhaps we'd pay more attention to the actual mountains.

What has he done, beyond words?

It's far above that of his ideological opponents. I still don't like it.

Tolerated, because the alternative is even worse.

Ironic, coming from one who doesn't believe the devil exists.

If he committed adultery or actual (not imagined by the fever dreams of leftists) treason, that would be wholly unacceptable. If he actually assumed dictatorial powers, that would be unacceptable.

Legally? Nothing.

Extremely poor? Meh. What Trump has done thus far doesn't hold a candle to the left's treatment of the office when a Republican has held it for a good 40 years or so. People cheered when Reagan was shot. You have zero moral leg to stand on.

I was going to write a response, but your responses basically proved my point. I'll leave it at that.

[Tassman]

Yeah, he used low-level White House sources who have already been debunked!

"Debunked" only in your partisan mind. Again, Woodward's book is by a two-times Pulitzer Prize winner, i.e. a credible investigative researcher. It substantiates what is already on record by authors such as Michael Wolff and Omorossa and numerous press reports.

And I noticed you completely dodged the question about which part of the Constitution is actually in jeopardy. You just mindlessly regurgitated the liberal talking point about mental fitness and mistook it for a substantive argument

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Constitution that deals with issues related to presidential succession given the incapacity of a president to govern.

because that's the narrative you've been spoon fed by the media. Man are you guys gullible.

This from a mindless devotee of Breitbart and Trump's official state broadcaster, Fox.

[Charles]

I was going to write a response, but your responses basically proved my point. I'll leave it at that.

I could not agree more with you. There is actually no point in answering when they are so good at proving your points by themselves.

[lilpixieofterror]

I was going to write a response, but your responses basically proved my point. I'll leave it at that.

That’s some good irony right there.