David:
Since the election, I've noticed a change in my blogging style, and a change in our tones. I thought I'd reflect for a moment, and get your thoughts as well.
Before the election, when Obama was in office, and it looked like a sure thing that Hillary Clinton would follow behind him, I felt an urgency to keep talking politics. No matter what subject we'd introduce, I always felt either a conscious, or unconscious desire to direct the debate back to the flaws of the left, and what I considered the virtues of conservatism. Perhaps it was the defense of the minority to get a message out. In some cases during our blog, I felt almost driven to try to make my points.
In many cases, as I look back through our past blogs, my tone seems a bit edgy. Not in the hip, cool, edgy type of way, but more of the sharp, pointed, angry sort. More so than I intended at the time.
Now that the election is over, I feel much more relaxed, and don't feel the need to really focus so much on politics at all. I certainly don't feel the need to prove my points so vigerously. Perhaps it's easier to be magnanimous when you are the victor. Trump has only been in office a short while, and has certainly done quite a bit more than I think anyone anticipated. And, as expected for someone who is not a politician, some of the things have been done in a ragged, messy fashion, without the polished press-briefings we have come to expect. I've recently introduced some blogs that touch on current events, but are out of the political sphere. These were subjects I thought might be a little bit lighter fair compared to what we had done for awhile. I think I've been taking an emotional breather.
I find that since the election, you seem to be much more focused on politics than we were before. During the recent "hat" blog, you steered the direction to politics without any hesitation. I'm curious if you feel as I did when I was on the presumed losing side of the election? I felt as though I needed to get the message out how wrong the President was. Is this just me, or do you think this thinking drives a great many people? Am I making any sense at all?
Doug:
It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way. That is why I blog with you; I want to actually know what is going on in your head, and why you think the way you do.
David:
Which insinuates you think I am dishonest for the most part. Why? Because I don't see things as you do? Nice.
Doug:
Is that that cool/hip/edgy or sharp/pointed/angry? I don't know what you intend this time. Do you really ask me a question and then assume I answer in a particular way? Not nice.
David:
Neither. I'm simply taking you at your words. You can answer any way you choose, and you chose these words: "It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way." That means you think it is a pleasant change for me to be honest. Not sure how else I should take that. Which brings me back to my hypothesis...
Doug:
But to hear you admit that you "feel much more relaxed" makes me both feel hopeful and terrified at the same time. I feel hopeful because I suspect many people like you feel that "it is over", and you don't need to worry or think about politics for at least four more years. That is great! That means that you will be completely blindsided by the growing backlash against the current agenda.
On the other hand, by not paying much attention (or dismissing the growing resistance in the manner that Trump has) makes me worried for the sake of the country. Some of Trump's mistakes in his first two weeks are really frightening. I think that they are understandable mistakes given that he has no political background, doesn't know much about how our government works, and has surrounded himself by similar people. If those that voted for Trump don't pay attention (or do not get access to authentic news) then we are in a terrible crisis. Without an informed electorate, all bets are off.
David:
Wow. Apparently you didn't get any message at all from the last election.
Doug:
You are right: I did not get the message that progressive politics lost. I got the message that we need to explain our message better to 53,667 people.
David:
Not exactly. Even President Obama recognized that progressive policies were on the ballot. He said so himself: "I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that," Obama said. "But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them." The policies, along with Hillary Clinton, who promised more of the same, lost.
Doug:
Now you start taking Obama at his word? I don't disagree with you on the facts. I'm merely saying that we need to do a better job of describing the message of these progressive policies to those 53,667 people and to all of those people that didn't vote.
David:
But see, you just can't help yourself. This is what I'm saying. We're doing a blog about our changing tones based on whose party controls the White House, and you're attacking Trump and everyone on his team as people who don't know much about our government. Republicans are ignorant and uninformed. And your tone is just what I'm talking about. When Hillary was about to be elected, we were all going to sit around and sing Kum By Yah. But now that Trump is President, we're in for a terrible crisis, and everything is frightening. You insinuate that you and Hillary supporters are informed, while people who disagree with you are obviously uninformed. I'm proposing that if Clinton had won, I'd still be railing against her illegalities (and probably against her pardoning herself...). Perhaps you should take a deep breath and accept that half of the voters in this country are both informed, and yet disagree completely with your analysis of what we, as a country, need to do.
On a side note, you may recall that President Obama, and every president throughout our history (excepting perhaps Lincoln with his cabinet of enemies) surrounded himself with like-minded people while in office (and they were all approved quite rapidly). Why is it a fault of Trump to do what every other POTUS has done?
Doug:
Did I mention his temperament? I find it hard to talk about hats when our new president is scaring the pants (and hats) off of everyone. Trump has started off with the lowest approval ratings in modern times, and this does not compare well with past presidents:
Perhaps you can dismiss all of this to "sour grapes" (as you usually do) and you think that all of the discontent would be present even with a President Jeb!. But as I have repeatedly said, for me this is largely about Trump's temperament. But I think Democrats are starting to smell blood in the water, and are gaining in confidence. It may be too late for reasonable and normal politics (which elected Democrats are always too willing to do). The resistance is forcing their hand.
David:
Hillary would also have started with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history, yet you would have had a much more optimistic view of where things are headed, because she was on your team, and shared your vision. You would have discounted the same chart you're posting right now, and I'd be the one posting it, and comparing her to past presidents.
Doug:
You might have guessed low approval rates about Obama's first, and his second term. But that wasn't true then either. But in your mind, you can imagine a terrifying Hillary Presidency and all of the terrible things I would say. Hard to argue with your imagination. But I will try. I think your biggest misunderstanding of me is that you think that I do things for the same reasons that you do. I don't think I do. For example, if Trump were a normal Republican president, most people (including me) would act like we did during the Bush years: we wouldn't be in the streets protesting, but mildly taking the policy changes that would be inevitable. But Trump is not normal. If the Republicans had a fundraiser "Help Republicans Stop Trump!" I would donate, and there would be no backlash in 2018. But taking back control is the only way that we see out of this mess.
David:
The point of this blog was for us to understand why we see things as they do. Now, you're making assumptions about my perceived assumptions. That's actually pretty funny, but we're not getting anywhere.
But you're wrong, and the facts prove it. Organizing for Action, President Obama's political organization has been gearing up for the past two years for a Republican win in 2016. Their website has training information on how to disrupt Republican town halls, and how to organize protests. You say this is all spontaneous because of Trump's demeanor, but the timeline tells a different story. Any Republican would be facing these types of protests, and Obama was making plans to stay very active in the game for a while, which is unprecedented for a former president. I also find it interesting (from the words-have-meaning analysis) that Organizing for Action was originally Organizing for America. It's not for America anymore, just for action.)
Doug:
Well, that doesn't make too much sense. After all, we all thought that Hillary Clinton would be president. Why would they be gearing up? So it is this group that is responsible for getting me and all progressives into the streets to protest, calling our representatives? Huh. I thought it was for exactly the reasons I stated: Trump's 3-week (so far) Executive Order attacks on democracy.
David:
Then why were protests ongoing before he was ever sworn into office?
Doug:
When he started proving that he is as unstable as President-Elect as he was as a campaigner? Gee, I don't know why people would protest. But maybe he will change when he gets to the oval office. Nope. After few weeks, time to protest! I predict more and more groups will join the protests as time goes on. And it has nothing to do with a conspiracy starting two years ago.
David:
I think you and I are probably representative of the base of each of our political parties. I get most of my news from the internet, but I listen to FoxNews on SiriusXM in the car. You watch MSNBC for the opinion shows in the evening. I was continually agitated by President Obama in much the same way you are upset with President Trump. But the tones we are taking in the blog are very different now than they were when the political tables were turned. I'm just theorizing that one can take a more even tone and relaxed take on things when his party controls things, and the political winds are blowing his way. I think that may be a truism for many Americans.
Look at your Democratic leaders. They've slowed the confirmation process down to a crawl, and the process is moving slower than for any president since George Washington. You call that reasonable and normal politics? It is neither.
Doug:
I disagree... I never wanted to talk about hats during the Obama years. Look back over the topics over the last 100 posts. I am always willing to discuss what I perceive to be wrong, and what could be better. I read a lot of news; chances are if it really happened, I have read about it.
David:
I'm going to introduce a brief defense of the Symbolism of Hats blog. It's clear that you just didn't get it. I was discussing the explosion of tribalism, expressed through the new uniforms of the political parties. We have not seen that type of demarcation in the political tribes in some time, and I find it worrisome. I might also add that the hats blog has received much more blog traffic than some of our other topics. It is number 11 on our all-time blog list, and still gets more hits daily than any other. So, some people are interested in symbolism in our society and how that relates to politics.
Doug:
If you had expressed worry about people wearing Trump Hats and what that symbolized, that would have been interesting. I would even go further about symbolism relating to politics: symbolism has replaced politics. For some, politics is no longer about policy, but rather about symbolic actions. And Trump uses the symbolic action much better than others use actual policy.
David:
See! If you had participated in the Hats blog, it would have been a more worthwhile and interesting post. But you steered it to a discussion on the emollients clause because (back to my original hypothesis) you just couldn't let go of the politics (and apparently still can't).
Doug:
I didn't realize I had so much power to steer you. Too bad you didn't even get a chance to mention your hypothesis. That is Kellyanne Conway power!
David:
I understand how that feels. I just lived through eight years of it. It's difficult to talk about anything else when you feel the country is being pushed in the wrong direction. Perhaps we are just two pages from the same book, or maybe we're one of those books that has one title on one cover, but when you turn the book over, it has a competing title.
Doug:
No! You are wrong. I am not the opposite of you. There are things we could agree with if you let go of that idea. I am not in distress that Trump is a Republican. I am in distress because I believe that Trump doesn't understand our democracy and that he is tearing it apart.
David:
Perhaps we'll have to do a blog about how you feel Trump is tearing democracy apart. So far, he's written legal executive orders that, for the most part, reverse executive orders written by Obama.
Trump is unlike other politicians, which is what drew people to him. Donald Trump, like many Americans, doesn't ask everyone in Washington what they think before he changes things. He just changes things. That's how a CEO would do it. Why wait? But that's a lot of change for a short time in the slow-moving pace of Washington politics. People are more comfortable with the status quo.
Doug:
Your idea of what a CEO would do is weird. CEO's do not want to piss-off customers (nor employees for that matter). People do indeed like stability. Can you imagine yourself complimenting Obama on a rash decision to change things without involving congress or even people in his own administration? I bet you would compliment him. I make myself laugh over your totally consistent views.
David:
I had some Diet Mountain Dew come out of my nose when I read your last comment. That's hilarious! Have you already forgotten all of Obama's executive orders and presidential memorandums? He totally bypassed Congress on a multitude of issues, many of which are continuing to be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. No, I certainly wouldn't compliment him.
Doug:
That's my point! You compliment Trump for doing exactly what you complain about Obama. Forget about what I believe for a moment, and just consider your own views. Do you see the inconsistency? If you believe that I have inconsistent views (that is a different issue that I will argue with) you are agreeing that you, too, have inconsistent views, and laughing about it so hard that you make liquid come out your nose.
Is there a actual difference between the two Presidents already, even though Trump has only been president for three weeks? Yes! Trump has already signed more Executive Orders than Obama did in his first 6 years. Trump hasn't worked with congress at all yet. And yet you casually compliment him as "he just changes things." Just trying to be that dissonant would make my head explode.
David:
Don't bury your head in the sand, brother. Obama had more unilateral orders than any other president in history, bar none. He called them by different names, which was creative, but doesn't change the facts. What's the difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum? Nothing. Undoing Obama's executive orders with executive orders makes sense. It didn't require Congress to do it, and it doesn't require Congress to make it disappear. That isn't dissonant.
Doug:
Obama did not have more "unilateral orders" no matter if you count memoranda or Executive Orders. There are differences between them, but even you count up the totals, there is a vast difference:
David:
Again, you fail to acknowledge Trump won the presidency, and won based on certain promises. He's fulfilling the wishes of those that put him in office. They would be upset if he did not fulfill these pledges.
Doug:
Trump is indeed trying to do what he promised. He promised a "Muslim Ban" and he is trying as hard as he can (without actually talking to congress) to make it come true. Of course, that is unconstitutional. And the idea that "so-called judges" can nix his promise has made Trump use ALL CAPS! Unconstitutional orders and threats against the judiciary branch is why people are protesting. The protest isn't about the promise, it is about trying to implement the promise.
David:
Last time I looked, there wasn't a Muslim ban, or even a proposed Muslim ban. There is a temporary ban on all people coming from seven countries Obama labeled as threats, (which Obama also held up for immigration). And if you're holding out your hope that the Ninth Circuit Court decision will stand, remember, they've been wrong 81% of the time.
Doug:
If that is true, then the Supreme Court will side with you. But guess what? It isn't going to the Supreme Court. Trump has given up on this Executive Order. I'm sure he will draft more, but the Supreme Court will continue to see these for exactly what Trump promised: a Muslim Ban. It will be difficult to argue that it isn't a Muslim Ban, because that is what he promised. You can't have it both ways.
David:
A Muslim ban would be a ban against Muslims. The executive order doesn't say that, in form or in reality.
While the far left lashes out, most of the country is going about their normal lives. When the tea party was protesting Big-Government spending during the past administration, most of America was going on about their lives as well. There are a lot of Americans in the middle who are not as invested in the nitty-gritty. They just want more jobs, a better economy, and a better future for their kids. They don't care so much about who delivers, as long as it gets delivered. Right now, I feel pretty confident that Trump will deliver. You probably thought the same of Obama 8 years ago. Time will tell.
Doug:
Why are you always telling me what I thought? But please, do go back to your life. Relax! Pay no attention to the protests, nor today's Executive Order. But I might not have time to talk about hats. I might be busy organizing a party...
David:
Or, you might continue proving my point. To paraphrase Yoda, "Much anger, you have". Hillary Clinton did not win the election. And now, the tones we take with the blog are reversed. My hypothesis is that when you have leaders in charge of the government that generally believe as you do, you feel more calm. When the other party is in power, it generates fear and loathing. For the Left, this is particularly disheartening, as they preached diversity for the past 8 years, yet now, they're opposed to any idea they disagree with, and want to shut the debate down.
Doug:
Again, it isn't about policy: it is about the loss of democratic principles, such as separation of powers. I do not want to shut down any idea I disagree with. Why else would I be blogging here? I enjoy discussion and problem solving. I do not enjoy sweating over what fresh hell will be tweeted tomorrow morning.
David:
Fresh hell? See, you just can't stop yourself.
Doug:
Stop myself from what? I haven't even really started.
David:
But opposing everything just to oppose everything is not a good message. It is likely to alienate voters rather than build some imagined momentum. (Where is the Occupy Wall Street movement today?) I agree totally that "The Resistance" is forcing the hands of Democratic lawmakers. But those are the far-left base. Be careful, or you'll become the party of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and lose the Senators who are currently sitting in states that Donald Trump won handily. Eight more blue-dog Senators eliminated will give Republicans a super-majority in the Senate. And Eight Senators up for re-election in 2018 reside in red states won by Trump.
Doug:
Which do you think is more likely: (A) Republicans gain a supermajority, or (B) we see the biggest backlash in American history leading to a Democratic Congress and Senate, followed by an impeached President? But, aww, that's cute... giving the resistance some helpful hints about how to fight the power. Perhaps you too can join the resistance! Now there is a nice hat:
David:
Impeachment? For what? Using all caps on a tweet? I think I've made the case that it's easier to have a more reasoned tone when you are winning. When one is in the losing party and powerless, one uses words like impeachment, fear, and blood-in-the-water, and uses Smokey the Bear on fire as prefered imagery. It makes one's tone angrier.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your little pink hat is just too tight.
Doug:
You started out this blog looking back and lamenting that you came across a little too much like a bitter old man. I don't see that you will be any different over the next 100 blog posts, judging from this one. You write condescendingly. You think of yourself as "winning." You think of me as being a member of the "losing party." I don't think that way. I wasn't on the "winning side" for the past 8 years. I am not on any team. I think about what is happening to our country. But I see some hope for our future as we look forward.
Since the election, I've noticed a change in my blogging style, and a change in our tones. I thought I'd reflect for a moment, and get your thoughts as well.
Before the election, when Obama was in office, and it looked like a sure thing that Hillary Clinton would follow behind him, I felt an urgency to keep talking politics. No matter what subject we'd introduce, I always felt either a conscious, or unconscious desire to direct the debate back to the flaws of the left, and what I considered the virtues of conservatism. Perhaps it was the defense of the minority to get a message out. In some cases during our blog, I felt almost driven to try to make my points.
In many cases, as I look back through our past blogs, my tone seems a bit edgy. Not in the hip, cool, edgy type of way, but more of the sharp, pointed, angry sort. More so than I intended at the time.
Now that the election is over, I feel much more relaxed, and don't feel the need to really focus so much on politics at all. I certainly don't feel the need to prove my points so vigerously. Perhaps it's easier to be magnanimous when you are the victor. Trump has only been in office a short while, and has certainly done quite a bit more than I think anyone anticipated. And, as expected for someone who is not a politician, some of the things have been done in a ragged, messy fashion, without the polished press-briefings we have come to expect. I've recently introduced some blogs that touch on current events, but are out of the political sphere. These were subjects I thought might be a little bit lighter fair compared to what we had done for awhile. I think I've been taking an emotional breather.
I find that since the election, you seem to be much more focused on politics than we were before. During the recent "hat" blog, you steered the direction to politics without any hesitation. I'm curious if you feel as I did when I was on the presumed losing side of the election? I felt as though I needed to get the message out how wrong the President was. Is this just me, or do you think this thinking drives a great many people? Am I making any sense at all?
Doug:
It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way. That is why I blog with you; I want to actually know what is going on in your head, and why you think the way you do.
David:
Which insinuates you think I am dishonest for the most part. Why? Because I don't see things as you do? Nice.
Doug:
Is that that cool/hip/edgy or sharp/pointed/angry? I don't know what you intend this time. Do you really ask me a question and then assume I answer in a particular way? Not nice.
David:
Neither. I'm simply taking you at your words. You can answer any way you choose, and you chose these words: "It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way." That means you think it is a pleasant change for me to be honest. Not sure how else I should take that. Which brings me back to my hypothesis...
Doug:
But to hear you admit that you "feel much more relaxed" makes me both feel hopeful and terrified at the same time. I feel hopeful because I suspect many people like you feel that "it is over", and you don't need to worry or think about politics for at least four more years. That is great! That means that you will be completely blindsided by the growing backlash against the current agenda.
On the other hand, by not paying much attention (or dismissing the growing resistance in the manner that Trump has) makes me worried for the sake of the country. Some of Trump's mistakes in his first two weeks are really frightening. I think that they are understandable mistakes given that he has no political background, doesn't know much about how our government works, and has surrounded himself by similar people. If those that voted for Trump don't pay attention (or do not get access to authentic news) then we are in a terrible crisis. Without an informed electorate, all bets are off.
David:
Wow. Apparently you didn't get any message at all from the last election.
Doug:
You are right: I did not get the message that progressive politics lost. I got the message that we need to explain our message better to 53,667 people.
David:
Not exactly. Even President Obama recognized that progressive policies were on the ballot. He said so himself: "I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that," Obama said. "But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them." The policies, along with Hillary Clinton, who promised more of the same, lost.
Doug:
Now you start taking Obama at his word? I don't disagree with you on the facts. I'm merely saying that we need to do a better job of describing the message of these progressive policies to those 53,667 people and to all of those people that didn't vote.
David:
But see, you just can't help yourself. This is what I'm saying. We're doing a blog about our changing tones based on whose party controls the White House, and you're attacking Trump and everyone on his team as people who don't know much about our government. Republicans are ignorant and uninformed. And your tone is just what I'm talking about. When Hillary was about to be elected, we were all going to sit around and sing Kum By Yah. But now that Trump is President, we're in for a terrible crisis, and everything is frightening. You insinuate that you and Hillary supporters are informed, while people who disagree with you are obviously uninformed. I'm proposing that if Clinton had won, I'd still be railing against her illegalities (and probably against her pardoning herself...). Perhaps you should take a deep breath and accept that half of the voters in this country are both informed, and yet disagree completely with your analysis of what we, as a country, need to do.
On a side note, you may recall that President Obama, and every president throughout our history (excepting perhaps Lincoln with his cabinet of enemies) surrounded himself with like-minded people while in office (and they were all approved quite rapidly). Why is it a fault of Trump to do what every other POTUS has done?
Doug:
Did I mention his temperament? I find it hard to talk about hats when our new president is scaring the pants (and hats) off of everyone. Trump has started off with the lowest approval ratings in modern times, and this does not compare well with past presidents:
Perhaps you can dismiss all of this to "sour grapes" (as you usually do) and you think that all of the discontent would be present even with a President Jeb!. But as I have repeatedly said, for me this is largely about Trump's temperament. But I think Democrats are starting to smell blood in the water, and are gaining in confidence. It may be too late for reasonable and normal politics (which elected Democrats are always too willing to do). The resistance is forcing their hand.
David:
Hillary would also have started with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history, yet you would have had a much more optimistic view of where things are headed, because she was on your team, and shared your vision. You would have discounted the same chart you're posting right now, and I'd be the one posting it, and comparing her to past presidents.
Doug:
You might have guessed low approval rates about Obama's first, and his second term. But that wasn't true then either. But in your mind, you can imagine a terrifying Hillary Presidency and all of the terrible things I would say. Hard to argue with your imagination. But I will try. I think your biggest misunderstanding of me is that you think that I do things for the same reasons that you do. I don't think I do. For example, if Trump were a normal Republican president, most people (including me) would act like we did during the Bush years: we wouldn't be in the streets protesting, but mildly taking the policy changes that would be inevitable. But Trump is not normal. If the Republicans had a fundraiser "Help Republicans Stop Trump!" I would donate, and there would be no backlash in 2018. But taking back control is the only way that we see out of this mess.
David:
The point of this blog was for us to understand why we see things as they do. Now, you're making assumptions about my perceived assumptions. That's actually pretty funny, but we're not getting anywhere.
But you're wrong, and the facts prove it. Organizing for Action, President Obama's political organization has been gearing up for the past two years for a Republican win in 2016. Their website has training information on how to disrupt Republican town halls, and how to organize protests. You say this is all spontaneous because of Trump's demeanor, but the timeline tells a different story. Any Republican would be facing these types of protests, and Obama was making plans to stay very active in the game for a while, which is unprecedented for a former president. I also find it interesting (from the words-have-meaning analysis) that Organizing for Action was originally Organizing for America. It's not for America anymore, just for action.)
Doug:
Well, that doesn't make too much sense. After all, we all thought that Hillary Clinton would be president. Why would they be gearing up? So it is this group that is responsible for getting me and all progressives into the streets to protest, calling our representatives? Huh. I thought it was for exactly the reasons I stated: Trump's 3-week (so far) Executive Order attacks on democracy.
David:
Then why were protests ongoing before he was ever sworn into office?
Doug:
When he started proving that he is as unstable as President-Elect as he was as a campaigner? Gee, I don't know why people would protest. But maybe he will change when he gets to the oval office. Nope. After few weeks, time to protest! I predict more and more groups will join the protests as time goes on. And it has nothing to do with a conspiracy starting two years ago.
David:
I think you and I are probably representative of the base of each of our political parties. I get most of my news from the internet, but I listen to FoxNews on SiriusXM in the car. You watch MSNBC for the opinion shows in the evening. I was continually agitated by President Obama in much the same way you are upset with President Trump. But the tones we are taking in the blog are very different now than they were when the political tables were turned. I'm just theorizing that one can take a more even tone and relaxed take on things when his party controls things, and the political winds are blowing his way. I think that may be a truism for many Americans.
Look at your Democratic leaders. They've slowed the confirmation process down to a crawl, and the process is moving slower than for any president since George Washington. You call that reasonable and normal politics? It is neither.
Doug:
I disagree... I never wanted to talk about hats during the Obama years. Look back over the topics over the last 100 posts. I am always willing to discuss what I perceive to be wrong, and what could be better. I read a lot of news; chances are if it really happened, I have read about it.
David:
I'm going to introduce a brief defense of the Symbolism of Hats blog. It's clear that you just didn't get it. I was discussing the explosion of tribalism, expressed through the new uniforms of the political parties. We have not seen that type of demarcation in the political tribes in some time, and I find it worrisome. I might also add that the hats blog has received much more blog traffic than some of our other topics. It is number 11 on our all-time blog list, and still gets more hits daily than any other. So, some people are interested in symbolism in our society and how that relates to politics.
Doug:
If you had expressed worry about people wearing Trump Hats and what that symbolized, that would have been interesting. I would even go further about symbolism relating to politics: symbolism has replaced politics. For some, politics is no longer about policy, but rather about symbolic actions. And Trump uses the symbolic action much better than others use actual policy.
 |
| Our most-read articles over the past 100 posts. The Cartoon post was picked up in Reddit which made it about 4 times more popular than our next most popular. Older posts have an advantage with pageviews because they accumulate over time. Which makes Right to Fight's 4th place even more impressive. |
David:
See! If you had participated in the Hats blog, it would have been a more worthwhile and interesting post. But you steered it to a discussion on the emollients clause because (back to my original hypothesis) you just couldn't let go of the politics (and apparently still can't).
Doug:
I didn't realize I had so much power to steer you. Too bad you didn't even get a chance to mention your hypothesis. That is Kellyanne Conway power!
David:
I understand how that feels. I just lived through eight years of it. It's difficult to talk about anything else when you feel the country is being pushed in the wrong direction. Perhaps we are just two pages from the same book, or maybe we're one of those books that has one title on one cover, but when you turn the book over, it has a competing title.
Doug:
No! You are wrong. I am not the opposite of you. There are things we could agree with if you let go of that idea. I am not in distress that Trump is a Republican. I am in distress because I believe that Trump doesn't understand our democracy and that he is tearing it apart.
David:
Perhaps we'll have to do a blog about how you feel Trump is tearing democracy apart. So far, he's written legal executive orders that, for the most part, reverse executive orders written by Obama.
Trump is unlike other politicians, which is what drew people to him. Donald Trump, like many Americans, doesn't ask everyone in Washington what they think before he changes things. He just changes things. That's how a CEO would do it. Why wait? But that's a lot of change for a short time in the slow-moving pace of Washington politics. People are more comfortable with the status quo.
Doug:
Your idea of what a CEO would do is weird. CEO's do not want to piss-off customers (nor employees for that matter). People do indeed like stability. Can you imagine yourself complimenting Obama on a rash decision to change things without involving congress or even people in his own administration? I bet you would compliment him. I make myself laugh over your totally consistent views.
David:
I had some Diet Mountain Dew come out of my nose when I read your last comment. That's hilarious! Have you already forgotten all of Obama's executive orders and presidential memorandums? He totally bypassed Congress on a multitude of issues, many of which are continuing to be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. No, I certainly wouldn't compliment him.
Doug:
That's my point! You compliment Trump for doing exactly what you complain about Obama. Forget about what I believe for a moment, and just consider your own views. Do you see the inconsistency? If you believe that I have inconsistent views (that is a different issue that I will argue with) you are agreeing that you, too, have inconsistent views, and laughing about it so hard that you make liquid come out your nose.
Is there a actual difference between the two Presidents already, even though Trump has only been president for three weeks? Yes! Trump has already signed more Executive Orders than Obama did in his first 6 years. Trump hasn't worked with congress at all yet. And yet you casually compliment him as "he just changes things." Just trying to be that dissonant would make my head explode.
David:
Don't bury your head in the sand, brother. Obama had more unilateral orders than any other president in history, bar none. He called them by different names, which was creative, but doesn't change the facts. What's the difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum? Nothing. Undoing Obama's executive orders with executive orders makes sense. It didn't require Congress to do it, and it doesn't require Congress to make it disappear. That isn't dissonant.
Doug:
Obama did not have more "unilateral orders" no matter if you count memoranda or Executive Orders. There are differences between them, but even you count up the totals, there is a vast difference:
And that is just "so far." And as for "he is just undoing Obama" that is crazy. Muslim ban? No. Build a wall? No. Overturn Obamacare? That is law. I don't see anything that comes close to "undoing" Obama.Estimates of from the National Archives and Office of Federal Register show Obama signed 38 memoranda in 2009; 42 in 2010; 19 in 2011; 32 in 2012 and 2013; 25 in 2013 and 31 in 2015. Obama signed only one memorandum during the first seven days of his first term - freezing the pay for White House employees - and none in the first week of his second term.Trump's use of presidential memorandum has been more prolific.
David:
Again, you fail to acknowledge Trump won the presidency, and won based on certain promises. He's fulfilling the wishes of those that put him in office. They would be upset if he did not fulfill these pledges.
Doug:
Trump is indeed trying to do what he promised. He promised a "Muslim Ban" and he is trying as hard as he can (without actually talking to congress) to make it come true. Of course, that is unconstitutional. And the idea that "so-called judges" can nix his promise has made Trump use ALL CAPS! Unconstitutional orders and threats against the judiciary branch is why people are protesting. The protest isn't about the promise, it is about trying to implement the promise.
 |
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
|
David:
Last time I looked, there wasn't a Muslim ban, or even a proposed Muslim ban. There is a temporary ban on all people coming from seven countries Obama labeled as threats, (which Obama also held up for immigration). And if you're holding out your hope that the Ninth Circuit Court decision will stand, remember, they've been wrong 81% of the time.
Doug:
If that is true, then the Supreme Court will side with you. But guess what? It isn't going to the Supreme Court. Trump has given up on this Executive Order. I'm sure he will draft more, but the Supreme Court will continue to see these for exactly what Trump promised: a Muslim Ban. It will be difficult to argue that it isn't a Muslim Ban, because that is what he promised. You can't have it both ways.
David:
A Muslim ban would be a ban against Muslims. The executive order doesn't say that, in form or in reality.
While the far left lashes out, most of the country is going about their normal lives. When the tea party was protesting Big-Government spending during the past administration, most of America was going on about their lives as well. There are a lot of Americans in the middle who are not as invested in the nitty-gritty. They just want more jobs, a better economy, and a better future for their kids. They don't care so much about who delivers, as long as it gets delivered. Right now, I feel pretty confident that Trump will deliver. You probably thought the same of Obama 8 years ago. Time will tell.
Doug:
Why are you always telling me what I thought? But please, do go back to your life. Relax! Pay no attention to the protests, nor today's Executive Order. But I might not have time to talk about hats. I might be busy organizing a party...
David:
Or, you might continue proving my point. To paraphrase Yoda, "Much anger, you have". Hillary Clinton did not win the election. And now, the tones we take with the blog are reversed. My hypothesis is that when you have leaders in charge of the government that generally believe as you do, you feel more calm. When the other party is in power, it generates fear and loathing. For the Left, this is particularly disheartening, as they preached diversity for the past 8 years, yet now, they're opposed to any idea they disagree with, and want to shut the debate down.
Doug:
Again, it isn't about policy: it is about the loss of democratic principles, such as separation of powers. I do not want to shut down any idea I disagree with. Why else would I be blogging here? I enjoy discussion and problem solving. I do not enjoy sweating over what fresh hell will be tweeted tomorrow morning.
David:
Fresh hell? See, you just can't stop yourself.
Doug:
Stop myself from what? I haven't even really started.
David:
But opposing everything just to oppose everything is not a good message. It is likely to alienate voters rather than build some imagined momentum. (Where is the Occupy Wall Street movement today?) I agree totally that "The Resistance" is forcing the hands of Democratic lawmakers. But those are the far-left base. Be careful, or you'll become the party of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and lose the Senators who are currently sitting in states that Donald Trump won handily. Eight more blue-dog Senators eliminated will give Republicans a super-majority in the Senate. And Eight Senators up for re-election in 2018 reside in red states won by Trump.
Doug:
Which do you think is more likely: (A) Republicans gain a supermajority, or (B) we see the biggest backlash in American history leading to a Democratic Congress and Senate, followed by an impeached President? But, aww, that's cute... giving the resistance some helpful hints about how to fight the power. Perhaps you too can join the resistance! Now there is a nice hat:
Impeachment? For what? Using all caps on a tweet? I think I've made the case that it's easier to have a more reasoned tone when you are winning. When one is in the losing party and powerless, one uses words like impeachment, fear, and blood-in-the-water, and uses Smokey the Bear on fire as prefered imagery. It makes one's tone angrier.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your little pink hat is just too tight.
Doug:
You started out this blog looking back and lamenting that you came across a little too much like a bitter old man. I don't see that you will be any different over the next 100 blog posts, judging from this one. You write condescendingly. You think of yourself as "winning." You think of me as being a member of the "losing party." I don't think that way. I wasn't on the "winning side" for the past 8 years. I am not on any team. I think about what is happening to our country. But I see some hope for our future as we look forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!