3 ms·

> So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what

> So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what is "presidential" and what is not? Otherwise we descend into the domain of things being verboten and the retort of "well it's common sense" and so forth.

eloff 7y ago
However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.
- jtdev 7y ago
  People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
  - krapp 7y ago
    I mean, literally more people wanted Clinton than wanted Trump, per capita. Not that it actually mattered, given the way the US electoral process works, but the premise that Clinton was overwhelmingly unpopular is an exaggeration. She just wasn't popular enough in the right states. It's true that a lot of Democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, but I suspect more of them flipped to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jtdev 7y ago
      We’ll see how the DNC’s strategy of crapping on a giant portion of the electorate works out... once again...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    2,868,686 more people wanted Clinton over Trump. If "people didn't want Clinton", they wanted Trump even less.
caconym_ 7y ago
At some point we have to be willing to be intellectually honest about who speaks and acts with respect and integrity and who does not. E.g. when Trump says there were "very fine people, on both sides" of a white supremacist rally, what should we make of that? Should we quibble over implausible re-interpretations of his words and conclude that maybe he meant something other than what's obvious? Should we say hey, okay, maybe Nazism and white supremacist movements deserve another look because, like, everything's relative, man, you know? When Trump uses racist and sexist dogwhistles (e.g. "a young woman governor") to denigrate to his political opponents, what's the takeaway there? Is that okay? Is that a man worthy of respect, of sitting in the Oval Office? When Trump suggests that we should inject ourselves with "disinfectant" to cure COVID, am I supposed to conclude that he is so smart I just can't possibly understand the genius behind his words (it's so simple!) or should I throw that on the pile of evidence that he's an ignorant person with no capability and/or inclination for understanding complex issues? If I thought everything was relative, I'd have to think nothing mattered more than anything else, and the logical next step would be to lay down in my bed and wait for the sweet release of death. We live in a world that is not black and white, but we have to do the best we can to be better people and hold our leaders to high standards. Intellectual honesty is the first step, and it's what the GOP and their more intellectually accomplished adherents lack.

eloff 7y ago

However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.

jtdev 7y ago
People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
- krapp 7y ago
  I mean, literally more people wanted Clinton than wanted Trump, per capita. Not that it actually mattered, given the way the US electoral process works, but the premise that Clinton was overwhelmingly unpopular is an exaggeration. She just wasn't popular enough in the right states. It's true that a lot of Democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, but I suspect more of them flipped to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jtdev 7y ago
    We’ll see how the DNC’s strategy of crapping on a giant portion of the electorate works out... once again...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  2,868,686 more people wanted Clinton over Trump. If "people didn't want Clinton", they wanted Trump even less.

caconym_ 7y ago

At some point we have to be willing to be intellectually honest about who speaks and acts with respect and integrity and who does not. E.g. when Trump says there were "very fine people, on both sides" of a white supremacist rally, what should we make of that? Should we quibble over implausible re-interpretations of his words and conclude that maybe he meant something other than what's obvious? Should we say hey, okay, maybe Nazism and white supremacist movements deserve another look because, like, everything's relative, man, you know? When Trump uses racist and sexist dogwhistles (e.g. "a young woman governor") to denigrate to his political opponents, what's the takeaway there? Is that okay? Is that a man worthy of respect, of sitting in the Oval Office? When Trump suggests that we should inject ourselves with "disinfectant" to cure COVID, am I supposed to conclude that he is so smart I just can't possibly understand the genius behind his words (it's so simple!) or should I throw that on the pile of evidence that he's an ignorant person with no capability and/or inclination for understanding complex issues? If I thought everything was relative, I'd have to think nothing mattered more than anything else, and the logical next step would be to lay down in my bed and wait for the sweet release of death. We live in a world that is not black and white, but we have to do the best we can to be better people and hold our leaders to high standards. Intellectual honesty is the first step, and it's what the GOP and their more intellectually accomplished adherents lack.