Frum On Trump -- In Hindsight
The President is pathetic -- and it probably protects the country.
The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg asks David Frum -- a senior writer for the magazine (and a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush) -- to reflect on his cover story, "How to Build an Autocracy," published back in March.
Frum told Goldberg -- as Goldberg puts it -- that if autocracy came to America, it would be not in the form of a coup but in the steady, gradual erosion of democratic norms.
I asked Frum to analyze his March cover story. Did he overplay or understate any of the threats? "The thing I got most wrong is that I did not anticipate the sheer chaos and dysfunction and slovenliness of the Trump operation," he said. "I didn't sufficiently anticipate how distracted Trump could be by things that are not essential. My model was that he was greedy first and authoritarian second. What I did not see is that he is needy first, greedy second, and authoritarian third. We'd be in a lot worse shape if he were a more meticulous, serious-minded person."
Chauncey Gardner would be an improvement.
From the time they were nominated, I had a strong preference for Trump over Clinton for pretty much this reason. My worst nightmare is an activist President with a compliant Congress (LBJ and Dubya are the prime examples from their respective parties), and I knew Congress wouldn't cooperate with Trump no matter which party controlled it.
Rex Little at September 10, 2017 9:40 PM
Help, I Can't Stop Hooking Up With Trump Supporters:
https://www.glamour.com/story/hooking-up-with-trump-voters-essay
Snoopy at September 11, 2017 5:50 AM
I want someone to tell me what is authoritarian about Trump. What authoritarian proposals has he made? What authoritarian actions has he taken? It was Obama who created DACA out of thin air with an executive order, yet Trump is "authoritarian" for pointing this out.
Trump is a lot of things, and a fair number of those things are doofus. But I don't get "authoritarian" from him. I especially get a laugh out of people who paint him as a social conservative -- such people are projecting their own fantasies.
Cousin Dave at September 11, 2017 6:52 AM
Yep Cousin Dave. And this whole piece is Frum's self projection. It has amazingly little to do with reality. It is more telling what kind of president Frum would want to be if he were in Trump's shoes.
Ben at September 11, 2017 6:57 AM
I worry a lot less about Donald Trump imposing an authoritarian government on the US than I did about his predecessor or his opponent in the election.
For one thing, Trump does not have the support for doing this. He has neither compliant Congress or other government authority nor an army of followers willing to overthrow the democratic institutions of the country to place him in an authoritarian position.
He has not ruled by executive order as his predecessor did or his election opponent was sure to do. When his travel ban was struck down, he challenged the ruling in court, lost, and revamped the order to more closely comply with the court's ruling. When the subsequent ban was struck down, he accepted it and moved on.
His administration has not, thus far, issued "adjustments" to recently-passed laws, issued "dear colleague" letters reinterpreting and expanding established laws, or refused to present treaties to the Senate for ratification claiming these international agreements are mere executive policies.
He has, thus far, heeded the long established limits on presidential authority and exercise of power. He will not go down in history as a great president, perhaps not even as a mediocre one, but he also will not go down in history as a frustrated authoritarian.
Conan the Grammarian at September 11, 2017 8:09 AM
"Hurricanes are helping the Coast Guard improve its brand"
Not exactly Trump's words. I think what he said was the Coast Guard's performance in response to the hurricanes greatly improved its brand. Only a woman or a Democrat would think there was something wrong with that comment praising the Coast Guard's impressive courage and competence.
"Tourism, I can tell you this — tourism, you're going to go up like 10-fold with the expenditure of no money so I congratulate you".
This is an obvious exaggeration meant to be reassuring to the people of Guam, to encourage them not to fear the bloviations of the North Korean dicktator Kim. Thank God it's Trump, and not Clinton or Sanders, dealing with that grandiose little turd. The diplomatic fellations of Obama, Bush and Clinton certainly didn't do much to impress that shit stain.
Ken R at September 11, 2017 8:54 AM
"He will not go down in history as a great president, perhaps not even as a mediocre one, but he also will not go down in history as a frustrated authoritarian."
I'm half betting Trump gets remembers as Regan part deu. I'll be laughing my head off if people start talking about Saint Donnie like they do talking about Saint Ronnie today.
Ben at September 11, 2017 9:13 AM
@Cousin Dave:
What is authoritarian about Trump you ask?
Maybe firing Comey for not shutting down an investigation? Declaring the free press an "enemy of the people" and shutting them out of press briefings? Promising to "lock up" his opponent during the campaign? Publicly questioning the legitimacy of a "so-called judge" for ruling against him? Staffing the administration with so many family members? Pardoning Arpaio? Congratulating Islamist Erdogan on his power grab? Fawning over foreign strongmen? The endless lies? The weird post-campaign rallies? And those are just the first few that spring to mind.
Are any of these things normal in your parallel universe?
No, not the slightest hint of authoritarian tendencies here...
But you're right about one thing though: There is nothing remotely "conservative" about Trump.
Rivet Newt at September 11, 2017 11:55 AM
Rivet, you seem to have a selective memory or to have forgotten a few things:
"Maybe firing Comey for not shutting down an investigation?"
"Declaring the free press an 'enemy of the people'..."
"...and shutting them out of press briefings?"
"Publicly questioning the legitimacy of a "so-called judge" for ruling against him?"
"Promising to "lock up" his opponent during the campaign?"
"Pardoning Arpaio?"
"Congratulating Islamist Erdogan on his power grab? Fawning over foreign strongmen?"
"The weird post-campaign rallies?"
Conan the Grammarian at September 11, 2017 1:02 PM
Oh, and...
"Staffing the administration with so many family members?"
Conan the Grammarian at September 11, 2017 1:48 PM
I like how Conan doesn't specify which former President he's referring to in each separate point. I'm certain someone out there is thinking, "Obama didn't do all those things!"
Fayd at September 11, 2017 2:26 PM
@Conan:
Wrong on all counts.
1. Trump never got his story straight on why he fired Comey, finally admitting outright it was because of "this Russia thing". All on public record, if you were to bother to Google it.
2. Yes, being called an "enemy" by a sitting president is obviously a lot more serious than being called a nabob or an asshole. Is this even a serious comparison?
3. Name a recent administation that comes anywhere near this one in number of reporters and outlets it has frozen out.
4. It was President, not Candidate, Trump who was lashing out at the "so-called judge" in February, revealing his thoughts on a co-equal branch of government.
5. His apparent understanding of the separation of powers during the campaign was dismal, and did not improve after inauguration (see above).
6. Trump pardoned an authority figure who demonstrably believes himself above the law, which means he is OK with authority figures ignoring courts. Otherwise, why did he pardon him?
7. Which other Western leader went out of his way to congratulate Erdogan on his referendum? Should Trump get "chummy" with Maduro or Mugabe too? He doesn't seem to have much problem picking on leaders of Western democracies, though.
Rivet Newt at September 11, 2017 2:27 PM
Rivet
Trump will no doubt take some actions that are questionable. All presidents have. You act as if he's the first to do this and by that measure, the worst. He's not even close. The presidents who came closest to being actual dictators were Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. They were presidents during significant emergencies and were thus given some leeway by a sympathetic public. Trump has neither a national emergency nor a sympathetic public, so he'll have to toe the line.
As I said before, Trump will not go down as a great president. But he won't go down as the guy who installed a dictatorship in the US, or even as the guy who tried. He can't. The presidency is maddeningly restricted from becoming a dictatorship, by both law and custom.
And he certainly isn't the first president to muse that dictators have it easier than presidents. Both GW Bush and Barrack Obama have commented on that. As has Winston Churchill. Yet, none of them tried to install themselves as dictators, no matter how many overreaching executive orders they issued.
Conan the Grammarian at September 11, 2017 3:13 PM
"1. Trump never got his story straight on why he fired Comey, finally admitting outright it was because of "this Russia thing". All on public record, if you were to bother to Google it."
The fact that you think his "story" about why he fired Comey is more important than his constitutional authority to do so is telling.
And not in a *good adult understanding the powers of government and the constitution* kind of way.
Isab at September 11, 2017 3:13 PM
It occurs to me, Rivet, that we're referencing two different incidents in the "so-called judge" incident.
I'm referencing candidate Trump questioning the impartiality of a Mexican-American judge during the campaign. I believe you're referencing his insulting a judge who blocked his travel ban.
As for presidents denigrating "a co-equal branch of government," that's nothing new. Andrew Jackson flat out refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision. Lincoln was openly disdainful of Chief Justice Roger Taney - deservedly so, considering Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Lincoln even went so far as to insult him in his inauguration speech as Taney sat mere feet away. Lincoln later ignored Taney's ruling that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and suspended it anyway. Teddy Roosevelt feuded with his good friend, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes saying, " I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that." His cousin, FDR, tried to pack the Supreme Court to get his way when the Court invalidated whole sections of his New Deal program.
So, open disdain for the judiciary is nothing new in the US, despite it being a co-equal branch of government.
Conan the Grammarian at September 11, 2017 3:33 PM
Now Conan you forgot the time Trump got two scoops of ice cream when everyone else only had one. If that isn't a clear and present danger to the republic then Rivet just doesn't know what he is talking about. Or that time Trump went off and had dinner with his family and didn't invite the press. Once that happened we all knew it was all over. ;)
Ben at September 11, 2017 3:53 PM
I like the part where Hillary isn't President.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 11, 2017 11:17 PM
I like the part where Hillary isn't President.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 11, 2017 11:17 PM
Me too Gog. Recalling the conversation we had about forein policy on this board serveal years ago;
The alternative to Trump was never a null set.
Isab at September 12, 2017 12:22 AM
@Conan,
You defend the behavior described above by pointing out it is within a president's power, which you take to be unlimited. By that measure, there can be no valid criticism of any president at any time.
But the choices he has made thus far broadcast loud and clear some pretty authoritarian tendencies and preferences.
His are not the words and deeds of a friend of liberty and the rule of law.
Rivet Newt at September 12, 2017 5:53 AM
Youse guys is rilly harsh. I think Frum was sincere then and is sincere now... And he's forgotten more about conservatism than the rest of us will ever know: Impugning his motives seems churlish.
> The alternative to Trump was
> never a null set.
Stop— You can't take it back. You wanted Donald Trump to be president in an active, forehand manner; and now he is.
Crid at September 12, 2017 7:03 AM
"You wanted Donald Trump to be president in an active, forehand manner; and now he is."
Yep. And for the time being, I'm OK with it. Not thrilled, but OK.
As for our friend Rivet Newt, who is obviously a activist sent here by a Google Alert and not realizing that this isn't Reddit and that people here actually remember stuff and can write a reasoned argument:
"Maybe firing Comey for not shutting down an investigation? "
Yep. The same Comey that the Democrats were demanding be fired, back when they thought Hillary was going to win.
"Declaring the free press an "enemy of the people" and shutting them out of press briefings? "
Yep. The "free press" that constantly compares all Republicans to Hitler. The free press that, in the face of a massive natural disaster, obsesses over the First Lady's shoes. The same free press that works to prevent stories from being published about Robert Menendez' corruption trial, and refuses to identify him as a Democrat when they can't avoid talking about it. The same free press that promised that candidate Barack Obama would "have a glow about him" and kept reminding us of his perfectly creased pants. The same free press that created an industry-wide secret mailing list to coordinate stories with Party press releases. The same free press that feeds debate questions to their preferred candidate in advance. The same free press that continues to lionize Walter Duranty for acting as a propagandist for Stalin. "Enemy of the people" might be a bit strong, but "smug, ignorant partisans" is a factually accurate description.
"Promising to 'lock up' his opponent during the campaign? "
Many other people have been imprisoned for doing what she did, regarding the classified info. It's transparent that she skated because she's a powerful politician, and established in a lot of citizens' minds that Washington has one rule for themselves and another rule for everyone else. This was a primary factor in Trump winning.
"Publicly questioning the legitimacy of a 'so-called judge' for ruling against him?"
You're talking about the judge in Hawaii who enjoined the travel ban? Liberal Alan Dershowitz has called that one of the worst-reasoned rulings he's ever read. Basically the ruling said that Trump cannot be allowed to have the powers that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, but other Presidents whose political views are more in line with those of the judge can. So much for co-equal branches of government.
"Staffing the administration with so many family members? "
As has been pointed out, they are advisory positions and the President can name anyone he wants, and every President going back to WWII has had an unofficial staff of friends, allies and cronies. It was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who established the "Kitchen Cabinet" as a Presidential prerogative.
"Pardoning Arpaio? "
Not a good move, but it was a catch-22 situation. To do otherwise would have granted legitimately to the judge who held Arpiao in contempt for not following the judge's order to nullify federal laws. Remember what happened the last time states tried to nullify federal laws?
"Congratulating Islamist Erdogan on his power grab? Fawning over foreign strongmen? "
Well, he could have drawn a red line...
"The endless lies? "
Name-calling, unsupported by evidence.
"The weird post-campaign rallies? "
It was Democrat Bill Clinton who established the permanent campaign as a feature of American Presidential politics.
"And those are just the first few that spring to mind."
If this is the best of the list that the activist organization sent you to spam across Web sites, don't bother with the rest. You'll get intellectually chewed up here.
Cousin Dave at September 12, 2017 8:13 AM
Rivet, I'm not defending Trump's behavior. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to criticize a president for that kind of behavior, you'd better clear your calendar and put some coffee on, 'cause you'll be here awhile.
Or is it just that you want to criticize Trump? 'cause that's understandable. But criticize him for what he's done or said, not some authoritarian tendencies and preferences you imagine him to have.
A president's power is far from unlimited. Most of our presidents have gotten frustrated with the limits on presidential power at some point.
In fact, I pointed out that "The presidency is maddeningly restricted from becoming a dictatorship, by both law and custom." And I even linked an article from POLITICO about the restrictions on the powers of the presidency.
All kinds of presidents exhibited frustration with the limits on presidential power and the difficulties of working with the other branches of government; overstepping their bounds at some point. And some of them were accused of having authoritarian tendencies and preferences, too.
Unless, of course, you have the ability to read his innermost thoughts and desires, you can't say for sure he has authoritarian tendencies and preferences. You can only project your own irritation at his winning the election.
As for Trump's innermost thoughts, I'm not sure he has innermost thoughts. I don't get the impression he's a very deep person. But everyone kept saying Obama was a deep thinker and I didn't get the impression of great depth with him either.
Maybe we don't need a deep thinker at the helm right now. Maybe, to paraphrase La Rochefoucauld, we got the government we deserve and need right now.
I think that's a difficult concept for most Trump critics to grasp.
Conan the Grammarian at September 12, 2017 8:31 AM
"If this is the best of the list that the activist organization sent you to spam across Web sites, don't bother with the rest. You'll get intellectually chewed up here."
That sure is an impressive amount of side-stepping, point-missing, mischaracterization, name-calling and whataboutism. Is that the closest thing you have to an intellectual chewing up? Consider this regular Advice Goddess reader unchewed.
Rivet Newt at September 12, 2017 8:40 AM
That sure is an impressive amount of side-stepping, point-missing, mischaracterization, name-calling and whataboutism. Is that the closest thing you have to an intellectual chewing up? Consider this regular Advice Goddess reader unchewed.
Rivet Newt at September 12, 2017 8:40 AM
Your sock puppetry talking points do not persuade. Holding your breath til you turn blue might be more effective.
Isab at September 12, 2017 1:01 PM
- Encouraging police brutality - check
- Attorney general supporting right of police to take personal property in the absence of charges - check
- Attorney general wants to bring back Draconian and failed drug war policies - check
- Pals around with local law enforcement whose jails regularly lead to death of inmates - check
- Pardons a sheriff whose conviction wasn't for his repeated failure at his job, his torture of people in his jail, the many deaths on his hands, but for failure to obey a lawful ruling of the court. This is an assault on the rule of law. Though a legal and constitutional one (the pardon power is plenary.
- Expresses admiration for murderous authoritarian Putin - check
- Closely advised by white nationalists Bannon and Miller - check
- Uses power of government to enrich himself - check
- Alienates democratic allies - check
- Fires top law enforcement officer over failure to heel - check
...
One can argue, as Conan has done, that most of what Trump has sought to do in these areas has failed. He is, after all, not very informed about how the U.S. government works. (and a buffoon). But the authoritarian impulse is clear. Given the chance, Trump would be despotic boob. We can only hope our nation's checks and balances hold until this shitbag GFTO.
Also, for those who want to respond to this with whataboutism - get fucked, also, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and other presidents also displayed authoritarian tendencies. As people in a country we hope to be a free one, Donald Trump is a cancer.
Dean Wormer at September 12, 2017 7:52 PM
"You defend the behavior described above by pointing out it is within a president's power, which you take to be unlimited."
Somebody has a reading comprehension problem. Conan didn't do this.
"Pardons a sheriff whose conviction wasn't for his repeated failure at his job, his torture of people in his jail, the many deaths on his hands, but for failure to obey a lawful ruling of the court."
Perhaps you don't know what the court's requirement was: to quit looking for Hispanics in searching for illegal aliens - from a nation which almost by definition is Hispanic. I wonder if you know that Arpaio lost the 2016 election; you may find satisfaction in watching his successor operate by searching other demographics for having come from Mexico.
Radwaste at September 12, 2017 10:29 PM
Arpaio repeatedly ignored a lawful court order. He's subject to the laws of the US. If he would have stopped his illegal behavior and that of his deputies, he wouldn't have been found guilty of contempt. His pardon -while legal - repudiates the rule of law.
Dean Wormer at September 12, 2017 10:58 PM
I find it interesting Dean that you admit all past presidents have the exact same 'authoritarian tendencies'. It practically sounds like a job requirement. That is also why most of us don't care. With no significant change over the past 100 years why get all grumpy over the latest guy.
Ben at September 13, 2017 5:36 AM
I am amused how some folks on this board are twisting themselves into knots to try and explain away some of Trumps clearly authoritarian behavior as acceptable simply because they believe his actions are within his designated authority limitations (note they do not advocate that he is using that authority appropriately... this is a critically important distinction).
The problem with this line of argument is that the listed powers of the president are such that they can act in authoritarian ways even within the limits of that power... they have been given wide latitude to use their personal judgment on purpose.
The point is that when they have used that judgment improperly even within the proscribed limits of their afforded power they can *still* be designated as an authoritarian. The important point here is that the inappropriate use of designated powers can *still* make a president an authoritarian.
The firing of Comey is a great example here. While we can all agree that the director of the FBI works within the executive branch and hence is under the umbrella of the president. We should also be able to agree that the matter of inappropriately removing someone from an investigation has already been established by precedent from the Nixon presidency with the Saturday Night Massacre and overall Watergate scandal. Nixon had the authority to fire those people... he just used that authority inappropriately. That was the problem, not that he was exceeding his authority.
Being an authoritarian isn't simply about acting outside of ones listed powers... it is ALSO about the misuse of ones listed powers (for example using them to obstruct a lawful investigation).
This is why the articles of impeachment laid out within the constitution include a provision for "high crimes", which is something that only applies to government officials. Often times this term gets confused with things like treason, but that isn't what it is specifically talking about. A high crime includes things like abuse of authority and unbecoming conduct.
In other words, our own founding fathers recognized that the broad powers of the presidency could be misused if they fell into authoritarian hands and provided a mechanism to remove someone from office should those powers be misused.
They didn't simply stipulate that the only problem was *exceeding* the listed powers... it is also a problem if a government official misuses or abuses those listed powers.
As a result any argument stating that Trump is acting within his authority without ALSO explaining why those actions were appropriate and non-abusive completely misses the point when we are talking about authoritarian tendencies.
Artemis at September 13, 2017 6:26 AM
Ben, this is that whataboutism I was talking about. None of them compare - in my lifetime, only Nixon was similar in his contempt for the limitations of the law and the limitations of the office. That you and so many others excuse Trump's awfulness is a bad sign for our country.
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 6:27 AM
Also... in reference to the pardoning powers of the president.
In principle the president could choose to pardon EVERYONE convicted of a federal crime all at once.
They could choose to do this because they have unilaterally decided that they do not agree with any criminal statutes on the books and also don't agree that the judiciary should have the power to lock anyone in prison.
Just because a president *could* do this wouldn't be an excuse that they weren't an authoritarian who just completely undermined two other independent branches of government.
The ultimate question here isn't whether or not Trump *can* take certain actions. The question is whether or not taking those actions constitutes an abuse of his constitutionally delineated powers.
I have yet to see any commentary here defending his actions as appropriate and proper.
Artemis at September 13, 2017 6:35 AM
Appropriate and proper? Hell, no President since maybe Eisenhower has met that standard, IMO.
Congress, the courts, and the media all despise Trump and will block him as much as they can. That would not be the case if Clinton were President, especially if Congress were to go back to the Democrats next year. That's why I'm glad Trump won.
Rex Little at September 13, 2017 7:31 AM
"None of them compare - in my lifetime, only Nixon was similar in his contempt for the limitations of the law and the limitations of the office. "
Nah. Franklin Roosevelt made Nixon look like an amateur. He was, after all, the President who ordered mass incarcerations of American citizens of Japanese descent, and threatened to pack the Supreme Court explicitly to get it to rule his way on policy issues that he was keen on.
"Just because a president *could* do this wouldn't be an excuse that they weren't an authoritarian who just completely undermined two other independent branches of government."
The problem is that you'd have to go back and condemn a whole lot of previous Presidents under this standard. It's pretty clear that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich because Rich's wife funneled a lot of money to the Clinton Foundation. You can argue "that's not authoritarianism, that's just plain corruption", but corruption is an inherent characteristic of an authoritarian state.
"The firing of Comey is a great example here."
Not sure I'm buying it yet. Yes, the optics were bad. But it's pretty clear that Clinton was going to fire Comey had she won, since the Democrats were nearly unanimously calling for it prior to the election -- they turned on a dime as soon as they realized that Comey could be used as a political weapon against Trump. A lot of Democrats were privately happy to see Comey go, after the mess he made of the Hillary email investigation. And given that independent Congressional and special prosecutor investigations have turned up near nothing on Trump colluding with Russia (and a fair amount on the FBI colluding with a Democrat oppo-research firm), Trump's firing of Comey looks pretty legit. The error he made was not doing it on Inauguration Day.
"Arpaio repeatedly ignored a lawful court order. "
The court order put Arpiao in a legal catch-22, where there was no course of action available to him that would not have resulted in him violating a law. This was because the court ordered him to disobey federal immigration law. In retrospect, Arpaio should have resigned; the court would then have had no legal grounds to continue to hold him in contempt.
As far as impeachment goes: When you get down to it, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. The judicial branch has no authority whatsoever over impeachment proceedings. That said, anyone seriously pursuing impeachment of a federal official had better be pretty sure that they will succeed, because it's political egg on the face otherwise. The GOP made a big mistake trying to impeach Clinton when it was obvious that they didn't have the votes in the Senate to convict. The Democrats are in the same situation now (which is why the politically wiser leadership is trying to tamp it down): The number of votes they would need to get to a 2/3 majority in the Senate is more than the number of GOP seats up for election in 2018.
Cousin Dave at September 13, 2017 8:05 AM
Not even Ike. Kermit Roosevelt, with Ike's blessing, overthrew the lawfully elected president of Iran (Mohammad Mosaddeq) and installed the Shah as absolute monarch.
If we're going to condemn Trump for merely congratulating Erdogan on winning a vote (albeit one fraught with as many irregularities as that one was), we must also condemn past presidents for their "admiration" of authoritarians.
Stepping out side the presidency, what about Edward Kennedy's outreach to the Soviets for help in defeating Ronald Reagan in the 1984 election or Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to meet with Bashar al Assad in open defiance of President Bush's efforts to diplomatically isolate the Syrian dictator? How about Jimmy Carter's blood-drenched post-presidential legacy of cozying up to third world dictators and validating their "elections?" Or how about when 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan dictator, Daniel Ortega, criticizing Reagan's policy toward Nicaragua. Or are only Democrats allowed to get chummy with dictators and invite foreigners to intervene in US elections without criticism.
Granted, none of this shows in any way that Trump does not have an authoritarian bent. It merely shows that his critics are hellbent on condemning Trump for anything (two scoops of ice cream? really?) while ignoring past precedent and are engaged in a self-indulgent hysteria that he'll try to become a dictator.
Even if he does try, he'll fail and be impeached.
The system our founding fathers set up simply has too many checks and balances for a president as unpopular as Trump to set himself up as a dictator. So, he'll act within the constraints of his office and be called a frustrated authoritarian by his critics, just like the presidents before him.
Agreed that firing Comey was in fact a legitimate exercise of executive authority. As was Nixon's firing of Cox.
However, there were differences between the two incidents. Cox was an appointed special prosecutor investigating specifically the president's alleged coverup of wrongdoing by his subordinates; Comey was an administrator of an executive department with many ongoing investigations (including one of the former Secretary of State, an investigation many felt had been badly bungled).
Cox had the support of the opposing party, in fact one could say interference of the opposing party. Kennedy forced AG Richardson to swear at his nomination hearings that he would not fire Cox. Comey did not have the support of the opposing party. The Democrats had earlier urged Obama fire Comey, thus precluding an investigation of one of their own.
Cox's firing "...pushed Congress to accelerate impeachment proceedings on the grounds that the president had abused [his] power...." There is no general consensus that Trump's firing of Comey was an abuse of power, whereas even Republicans felt that Nixon had gone too far this time.
Conan the Grammarian at September 13, 2017 9:56 AM
"This was because the court ordered him to disobey federal immigration law."
This is simply not correct. The court ordered him to stop ordering his deputies to racially profile latinos and target them for traffic stops and other interventions based solely upon race. Arpaio proudly refused to do so, and was rightly convicted of misdemeanor contempt of court for his actions.
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 12:02 PM
Well Wormer you are just going to have to get used to it. I don't see any significant issue there. I'm fine with the Comey firing. The man was clearly don't doing his job. I'm great with ending the dreamers EO. The original EO was clearly unconstitutional. Even the Arpaio pardon I don't care about. Pretty typical and irrelevant. The only thing so far that bothers me is Sessions. I don't like his unreasonable drug warrior philosophy. But if that is the price I pay for the rest then that is a price I am willing to pay. You may feel Trump is awful. But that is just your opinion. Not objective fact. And quite a few people don't share that opinion with you.
Ben at September 13, 2017 12:30 PM
Ben, I didn't write anything about Comey – that was someone else – though I suspect that may end up being a massive self-own, because it spawned the Mueller investigation. As someone who was in DC at the height of the Starr investigation of Clinton, I'm cognizant of how far those kinds of things go, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of his inner circle find themselves in serious legal jeopardy as a result.
I'm glad you agree on Sessions. He is the most troubling of Trump's appointments, and who is most likely to do real harm to large numbers of Americans.
I'm also OK with the fact that not everyone shares the perception that Trump is uniquely awful in American history. My hunch is the proportion who don't share that opinion will dwindle over time as Trump's character becomes harder to hide.
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 12:42 PM
"The court ordered him to stop ordering his deputies to racially profile latinos and target them for traffic stops and other interventions based solely upon race. "
The vast majority of people from Mexico are Latino. Your partisanship is preventing you from acknowledging that. Facts matter. In a situation where the vast majority of people who are breaking a law are of a certain group, telling lawmen to stop "profiling" that group is tantamount to prohibiting them from enforcing the law. What laws exist, and which ones are priority for enforcement, are prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches respectively. The judicial branch has no say-so.
Cousin Dave at September 13, 2017 1:17 PM
"The vast majority of people from Mexico are Latino. Your partisanship is preventing you from acknowledging that."
No, I'm well-aware of that fact.
"In a situation where the vast majority of people who are breaking a law are of a certain group, telling lawmen to stop "profiling" that group is tantamount to prohibiting them from enforcing the law."
"The judicial branch has no say-so."
Of course the judicial branch has a say in what kinds of law enforcement behaviors do and do not violate people's civil rights. This is literally the entirety of Supreme Court jurisprudence in criminal cases!
I struggle to see how you can be making this argument in good faith.
Do you think it's OK for cops to harass and detain people without charges, simply based on the color of their skin, just because there's some chance they might have committed a violation of the law at some other time?
Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to latinos in Arizona?
It's possible to enforce the law without violating civil liberties. Our justice system, imperfect thought it is, is predicated on that fact. Otherwise, we're all subject to the whims of guys with badges and guns.
Arpaio is a goddamned monster, and was a shitty sheriff to boot. His abuses cost the county tens of millions of dollars, he failed to prosecute many serious crimes while pursuing his anti-illegal crusade, and many people died due to abuse and the appalling conditions in the jail he ran.
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/wait-do-people-actually-know-just-how-evil-this-man-is
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 1:54 PM
Trump may be an *an authoritarian* in a bunch of lefty wet dreams but the fact remains that he was the only one of the two major party candidates that didnt go all in on evicerating the first and second amendments to the Constitution.
If those ever go, you socialist faux libertarians will develop a whole new appreciation for what a real *authoritarian* government looks like,
Isab at September 13, 2017 2:04 PM
Isab,
"I'm going to open up our libel laws"
D. Trump, fan of the First Amendment, lol
Criticizing president a fireable offense - S. Sanders, Trump press secretary
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 2:35 PM
And then there was the war on the 4th amendment (due process) on the college campuses which a Trump appointee has now cancelled.
Scream all you want about what people say,( it is a common lefty tactic) I prefer to watch what has actually happened in this country under democratic administrations. It hasnt been a pretty pcture for either tax payers or liberty lovers.
Most of us didn't get to vote for our preferred candidate because they weren't on the ballot. It is really fortunate that a majority of the electoral college states still recognized the lesser of two evils.
Isab at September 13, 2017 2:57 PM
The First Amendment does not, nor was it intended to, protect you from the consequences of exercising your free speech rights. Just ask Brendan Eich or Cole White.
Conan the Grammarian at September 13, 2017 3:11 PM
Conan, that's a fair and accurate point about the First Amendment. Goes to the authoritarian argument perhaps, but not a 1a issue.
Dean Wormer at September 13, 2017 5:11 PM
Conan Says:
"There is no general consensus that Trump's firing of Comey was an abuse of power, whereas even Republicans felt that Nixon had gone too far this time."
Conan, this is essentially a meaningless statement at this point given how partisan things have become.
It isn't clear to me at this point what republicans in congress today would consider to be an abuse of power when/if a republican party member is sitting in the oval office.
Similarly, it isn't clear to me at this point what republicans in congress today wouldn't consider to be an abuse of power when/if a democratic party member is sitting in the oval office.
What I see is a group of avid sports fans cheering with glee when the ref misses a call for their team and foaming at the mouth when the ref misses a call for the opposing team.
We need rule of law and a consistent code of ethics/behavior that is universally applied.
Just take Ben's statement here:
"I'm fine with the Comey firing. The man was clearly don't doing his job. I'm great with ending the dreamers EO. The original EO was clearly unconstitutional. Even the Arpaio pardon I don't care about. Pretty typical and irrelevant."
His statement isn't about what is right or proper or legal or justified by acceptable precedent... it is about whether or not he is personally bothered by the course of action.
In other words, the concern isn't rule of law when one agrees with the action.
We are devolving into a nation driven by passion and not by reason.
This is dangerous.
Artemis at September 13, 2017 10:44 PM
Ben Says:
"I'm fine with the Comey firing. The man was clearly don't doing his job. I'm great with ending the dreamers EO. The original EO was clearly unconstitutional. Even the Arpaio pardon I don't care about. Pretty typical and irrelevant."
Ben, you appear to have very different standards here that are not in fact justified.
What is the legal basis for your claim that the firing of Comey was fine and the pardoning of Arpaio was fine... but the dreamers EO was "clearly unconstitutional"?
Presidents have traditionally possessed wide discretionary latitude in deciding how laws are to be enforced and with what priority different laws are enforced given the limited resources of the federal government.
There is nothing "clearly unconstitutional" about choosing to focus deportation efforts on illegal immigrants that weren't brought over as children.
His EO didn't make it legal, it outlined where the focus and priority would be.
That is also pretty typical.
So exactly why have you categorized this item differently from the rest?
You don't seem to be using the same standards across the board.
Artemis at September 13, 2017 11:02 PM
Isab,
I have no strong feelings for or against gun rights afforded by the 2nd amendment.
I am however quite curious what on earth you think the current incarnation of the 2nd amendment has to do with the following statement:
"If those ever go, you socialist faux libertarians will develop a whole new appreciation for what a real *authoritarian* government looks like"
Exactly what do you suppose a handgun and rifle is going to do for you when the united states military possesses rail guns that can fire supersonic shells from hundreds of miles away to hit a precise target from off shore?
When the country was founded the musket you owned was more or less identical to the firearms available to the military.
Things are different today and the 2nd amendment means fuck all in terms of defending yourself from the government.
It is a meaningless security blanket at this point.
Artemis at September 13, 2017 11:09 PM
Isab Says:
"And then there was the war on the 4th amendment (due process) on the college campuses which a Trump appointee has now cancelled."
The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of personal property.
The 5th amendment is the due process amendment.
I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer...
Artemis at September 13, 2017 11:18 PM
"Exactly what do you suppose a handgun and rifle is going to do for you when the united states military possesses rail guns that can fire supersonic shells from hundreds of miles away to hit a precise target from off shore?"
Im sure you are right Artemis. All it takes is superior firepower from a very small military force to completely subdue a civilian population of 400 million spread out unevenly across roughly 380 million square miles.
I guess that is why we won in Vietnam and are winning in Afghanistan.
Glad to hear you live on the coast though. No point in you having a gun.
Isab at September 14, 2017 5:21 AM
Arty, DAPA was ruled unconstitutional. DACA is a minor rewrite of DAPA. It just didn't get taken to court.
And no I don't have different standards there. They are completely justified. Comey blatantly wasn't doing his job. The Hillary investigation was a political joke. It is very clearly not the job of the FBI to exonerate someone at a press conference. That is the DOJ's job. Since the election Comey also made it very clear he would not work with Trump. Firing someone for not doing their job isn't controversial.
Ben at September 14, 2017 5:54 AM
I would mostly agree with that. It would be difficult these days to get Congress to pass a joint resolution saying the sky is blue or that water is wet. Blame for that partisanship sits on both sides of the aisle.
Trump making a deal with Schumer and Pelosi may bring about a return to the deal-making that properly characterizes actual governance.
That willful ethical blindness extends both ways and is a feature of both parties.
Similarly, it should also be unclear to you what Democrats in Congress would not consider an abuse of power if a Republican is sitting in the Oval Office. Or what Democrats in Congress would consider to be an actual abuse of power if a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office.
Bill Clinton lied under oath. Obama far exceeded his proper authority. Yet, the Democrats were silent on all counts. Hillary's e-mail scandal (in blatant violation of clearly delineated State Department policy) and the refusal of any prominent Democrats to acknowledge her wrongdoing also spring to mind. "A silly mistake" is about all they'll cop to.
Republicans actually have a slightly better track record over time on these things. Barry Goldwater, a prominent Republican, led a delegation of Republican Congressmen and Senators to the White House to urge Nixon to resign. No prominent Democrats urged Clinton to resign.
Trump has already been criticized, at times severely, by members of the Republican Congressional delegation. Donald Trump is a more hemmed-in president than any in history. If he becomes a danger to the republic, look for both parties to send him packing.
Conan the Grammarian at September 14, 2017 5:59 AM
Ben Says:
"Arty, DAPA was ruled unconstitutional. DACA is a minor rewrite of DAPA. It just didn't get taken to court."
Well I am certainly glad you are here to unilaterally adjudicate whether or not the EO was "clearly unconstitutional" or not when by your own admission it wasn't actually taken to court.
Can you please tell me exactly when we dissolved the supreme court and placed you as the united states judiciary arbiter?
All snark aside... I have no problem with you claiming that you believe it to be unconstitutional. However that is a non-expert opinion that could easily be wrong.
My point is that it isn't at all clear in this case if the EO exceeded presidential authority until it goes to court.
In that regard it is the same as the other items on the list, which could in principle be deemed to be executive overreach by congress should they be so inclined to evaluate things.
Artemis at September 14, 2017 6:38 AM
Conan Says:
"I would mostly agree with that. It would be difficult these days to get Congress to pass a joint resolution saying the sky is blue or that water is wet. Blame for that partisanship sits on both sides of the aisle."
I am not trying to make this a republican vs democrat thing as if the other side of the aisle is a bunch of innocents. I have my own issues with the democratic party that I would be happy to highlight were I to believe that folks here were too smitten with them.
"That willful ethical blindness extends both ways and is a feature of both parties."
I understand what you are saying, but if I were to make one amendment to what you are saying I would call it a bug and not a feature.
What we are currently seeing is not how a republic should function. This behavior is extremely corrosive to the process.
The gears have all rusted out and we are just screeching along in my opinion.
Artemis at September 14, 2017 6:45 AM
Isab Says:
"Im sure you are right Artemis. All it takes is superior firepower from a very small military force to completely subdue a civilian population of 400 million spread out unevenly across roughly 380 million square miles."
Well I am certainly glad you counted infants and 70+ year olds amongst the civilian fighting population.
Few enemies are more fierce than a squad of infants with loaded hand guns.
"I guess that is why we won in Vietnam and are winning in Afghanistan."
These fighters have not been using civilian weapons Isab.
You have actually made my point for me. In order to resist would require the intervention of a foreign government supplying military style weapons that are not covered under the 2nd amendment.
The items that are actually covered under the 2nd amendment will do absolutely nothing regardless of your fantasy about holding up against air craft carriers and tanks.
Artemis at September 14, 2017 6:51 AM
Texas was one of several states that were threatening to take DACA to court if Trump didn't rescind it. The outlook for DACA's survival didn't look much better than DAPA's. It was generally conceded that both EOs were, if not blatantly unconstitutional, at least extra-constitutional, and that DACA, like DAPA, would not survive a legal challenge.
I think Trump did the best that could be done to hold off the threatened legal challenge and still show some compassion to children brought here illegally who grew up here.
Conan the Grammarian at September 14, 2017 8:19 AM
Sure. "Feature" does make it sound positive.
Both parties, in their partisan zeal, have forgotten Ronald Reagan's advice: Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get ... I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.
No, but they will enable a resistance movement to be armed should the government devolve into a dictatorship. And they do enable people to defend their homes against intruders.
Conan the Grammarian at September 14, 2017 8:49 AM
And, if I liberally interpret the 2nd Amendment, all types of arms are covered by it. Prior judicial interpretation and the advancement of weapons technology beyond what is practical for home use have led the courts to accept limitations on the types of arms covered.
A "well-regulated" militia would, in the parlance of the 18th century mean an organized cadre of citizens well-trained in and intimately-familiar with their weaponry along with the standard drill of the day. The anticipated regulator would not, in that day, have been the federal government, but the people themselves. The Founders intended the people to be independently armed.
Conan the Grammarian at September 14, 2017 9:38 AM
"Can you please tell me exactly when we dissolved the supreme court and placed you as the united states judiciary arbiter?"
Last week Arty. Didn't you get the memo. There should have been a memo.
Ben at September 14, 2017 2:47 PM
Conan Says:
"It was generally conceded that both EOs were, if not blatantly unconstitutional, at least extra-constitutional, and that DACA, like DAPA, would not survive a legal challenge."
and
"And, if I liberally interpret the 2nd Amendment, all types of arms are covered by it. Prior judicial interpretation and the advancement of weapons technology beyond what is practical for home use have led the courts to accept limitations on the types of arms covered."
Alright... so in the first instance you speculate that a provision supported by liberals is in some sense unconstitutional when it hasn't actually been adjudicated by the supreme court because in your estimation it was "generally conceded" to be so (you do not provide evidence that it has been generally conceded, but I suspect this is not actually the case outside of those on the conservative part of the political spectrum).
Then in the second instance you take an already well established result that has been settled by the supreme court involving the extent and reach of the 2nd amendment and decide to "liberally interpret" the provision to include all types of arms.
Don't you see what you are doing here Conan?
This is what I am talking about by people twisting themselves into knots to justify the behavior on their side of the political aisle.
Why are you "liberally interpreting" the constitution in violation of settled constitutional law in one case... and in the other case declaring something to be "blatantly unconstitutional" when it hasn't even been challenged in court?
Why couldn't we "liberally interpret" the powers delineated in Article 2 to provide the president with the latitude to have this discretion?
You are using two completely different standards of constitutional interpretation depending upon if the item under discussion is a liberal political view point or a conservative one.
Atremis at September 15, 2017 3:11 AM
Benji Says:
"Last week Arty. Didn't you get the memo. There should have been a memo."
I mean sure, I got a memo... but it was scribbled in crayon, was filled with typos, and it looked like someone had chewed the edges of the paper.
Next time you send me a note for the refrigerator please have an adult check it for you.
I'm still proud of you even if the other kids make fun of you.
Artemis at September 15, 2017 3:19 AM
Just trying to get down to your level Arty. Obviously I didn't go low enough.
Though I am glad you shortened thing up. Normally even your insults come in five page paragraph form and take so long to get to the point everyone has fallen asleep before you get to the punch line. I mean, yes it is only four paragraphs but they are short ones.
Ben at September 15, 2017 5:41 AM
Benji,
Why are you such a sensitive little whiner?
You are the one who initiated snark in this thread before I even showed up with your little digs at Wormer:
"Well Wormer you are just going to have to get used to it."
And
"You may feel Trump is awful. But that is just your opinion. Not objective fact. And quite a few people don't share that opinion with you."
Yet when I essentially say the same thing to you... that your non-expert opinion regarding the constitutionality of an EO is not objective fact, you pitch a fit and get all upset that you are being "insulted".
In your own parlance you are being a fucking snowflake.
You can dish it out but as soon as someone tosses the same back your way suddenly you revert to being an injured and sensitive infant.
Artemis at September 15, 2017 7:36 AM
Also I will point out that the snark started from your end as well with regard to me here with all of this patronizing pet name nonsense:
"Arty, DAPA was ruled unconstitutional. DACA is a minor rewrite of DAPA. It just didn't get taken to court."
You don't get to call people by pet names after they have shown you the respect if initiating a conversation with you as an adult and then bitch and moan about how they have insulted you and aren't being nice.
Good grief... if the phrase "dish it out but can't take it" applied to anyone it would be you.
A good lesson for you to learn is that you should expect to be treated the way you treat others.
If you talk down to other people, don't act all shocked, surprised, and hurt when they talk down to you in return.
Artemis at September 15, 2017 7:48 AM
You need to look up what respect means Arty. I only handed it back to you when you couldn't resist dishing it out. As you say "If you talk down to other people, don't act all shocked, surprised, and hurt when they talk down to you in return."
Ben at September 15, 2017 2:39 PM
Ben,
I am calling BS on your claim that you were just handing back disrespectful conversation.
Please show me exactly what I said to you on September 13, 2017 11:02 PM that was disrespectful.
All I did was disagree with you and ask you to back up your claims with explanation and evidence.
That is how adults hold conversations with one another.
If all it takes to trigger you is someone asking you to clarify your points then this isn't about you being disrespected.
It is about you being unable engage in mature discourse.
So please demonstrate how I dished out disrespect to you first... because I am claiming that is the opposite of how things evolved.
My contention is that you expect to be respected even when you don't show respect to others. Life doesn't work that way.
Artemis at September 15, 2017 7:22 PM
I'm not going to do that because I am both lazy and there really isn't any point. You've clearly got this social blindness issue. It seems you really can't tell when you are being insulting or patronizing even when it is very blatant. That is why Isab calls you a troll and Crid just launches into insults at the drop of a hat at you. After so many times where you were blatantly insulting and pointlessly so people just skip all the middle parts and get straight to the insult trading. It saves time and ends up with the same result.
Mostly I'm curious if you have these same problems in face to face interactions or if your social blindness is purely a textual based thing? Unfortunately by the nature of these problems you aren't capable of making that determination. After all you don't think you have problem with text when it is clear to numerous people that you do. But you might find someone you trust and ask them for an honest evaluation. Just remember you can't get angry at them or lash out just because you don't like the answer they give you.
As for why any telling you which lines you used that are insulting is pointless, you won't believe me. You will come back with how you don't feel that way but you will try to avoid the word feel in your response. A pile of words will be written about how I'm wrong and you are right. All of which only shows your complete lack of understanding about how communication works. Even what I've written here I give less than a 5% chance you will comprehend and accept. Instead you will most likely respond with a word salad that boils down to 'Artemis is right and everyone else is wrong all the time'. Which is why people spend more time talking about you or insulting you than talking with you.
Ben at September 16, 2017 5:11 AM
Ben Says:
"I'm not going to do that because I am both lazy and there really isn't any point."
You have no integrity.
You accused me of being disrespectful to you therefore justifying you being disrespectful in return and when asked to prove it you say you are too lazy and there is no point?
Let's be honest here... you started tossing insults and when I tossed them back your way you started to whine and cry that I was being mean to you.
I cannot hold a conversation with someone as dishonest as you.
"That is why Isab calls you a troll and Crid just launches into insults at the drop of a hat at you."
No Ben... it is because they are also bullies who can dish it out but cannot take it.
Neither of them actually defend anything they say with facts or evidence either.
Honest people who have integrity I never have any issues holding a conversation with.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 6:02 AM
Ben,
I will also point out that you had already started being disrespectful to another poster here BEFORE you started in with the same shit on me.
This isn't an issue on my end of the spectrum. This is an issue with how you choose to interact with others.
Frankly I don't care if you insult me.
I only care when you are so thin skinned that you pitch a fit and throw a tantrum when the disrespect is returned to you.
You get what you give... you have no reasonable expectation of free shots.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 6:09 AM
And thus my prediction came true.
Ben at September 16, 2017 8:57 AM
Ben,
You are awfully proud of yourself for making a "prediction" that was guaranteed to be true:
"Even what I've written here I give less than a 5% chance you will comprehend and accept."
This was your prediction AFTER you stated that you refused to provide substantive evidence to prove your point.
This is really the crux of the issue for you Ben, isn't it?
The problem isn't that I am disrespectful to you... the problem isn't that I am rude.
The problem is that I refuse to blindly accept whatever nonsense you say when you adamantly refuse to provide evidence and facts to back up what you are claiming.
When I ask you questions, that is when you resort to tossing insults and being disrespectful toward me... and then you whine and complain and cry when I am not nice in return.
Get over yourself.
As for you, Crid, and Isab... using this cadre as evidence of an issue in communication on my end is ridiculous.
The three of you are assholes. All 3 of you are constantly insulting people on this forum... you haven't all just decided to select me out of the crowd.
You for example were a patronizing ass to Wormer before you even started responding to me.
So why do you suspect the problem is with everyone else when you and the people you are talking about are constantly initiating insults to others.
You are what I shall now refer to as a hemorrhoid... it is a special type of asshole that shits all over other people, but is so thin skinned and sensitive that you get overly irritated when someone else rubs you the wrong way.
Here is a tip... if you are that sensitive and delicate you shouldn't be instigating fights with other people.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 9:42 AM
I mean seriously... your evidence that I have an issue getting along with folks is that I have problems maintaining a polite relationship with Isab?
The same Isab who just randomly tosses out gems like these:
"bunch of lefty wet dreams"
This isn't a person that is kind, or friendly, or reasonable with folks she disagrees with.
Decent people don't just insult folks left and right and expect to be treated nicely in return.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 9:47 AM
When everyone is a bully but they converse civilly with others the commonality isn't them. It is you.
Above I made a prediction. Even knowing that prediction you were unable to change your behavior and prove that prediction false. You just can't help yourself. "Decent people don't just insult folks left and right and expect to be treated nicely in return." is the heart of your problem with people on this site. Your inability to recognize your own regular insulting and demeaning behavior is why I brought up social blindness.
Ben at September 16, 2017 10:49 AM
Ben,
We are only talking about 3 people... that isn't everyone.
You were an ass to Wormer... then you were an ass to me.
Your justification for being an ass to me is that 2 other people are also asses to me.
That is illogical and stupid when you even admit this:
"Crid just launches into insults at the drop of a hat"
That means I am the problem and not Crid?
Really???
You admit that this particular guy starts tossing insults for no reason at all and it is my fault for failing to have pleasant conversations with them?
Good grief Ben, just own the fact that you are an asshole.
You aren't a nice person and yet you expect to be treated kindly.
Again... please prove that I started disrespecting you in this thread on September 13, 2017 11:02 PM when I opened our conversation.
I will make my own prediction that you cannot and will not do it... and it isn't because you are lazy... and it isn't because there is no point.
It is because you know as well as I do that I was mature and polite when I started conversing with you and that it was in fact you who threw the first punch.
It was also you who first started bitching and moaning how you got hit back. Stop being a whiny little cry baby and grow up.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 12:34 PM
Ben Says:
"Above I made a prediction. Even knowing that prediction you were unable to change your behavior and prove that prediction false."
Also... this is quite stupid.
You predicted that I would disagree with you despite the fact that you presented no reasonable evidence to support your case, and therefore you declare triumph?
So what would have been your failure... if I just agreed with everything you said?
Go fuck yourself.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 12:37 PM
Ben,
Lastly, this part is also BS.
"Your inability to recognize your own regular insulting and demeaning behavior is why I brought up social blindness."
I know when I am being rude and snarky to people. When I am rude and snarky I am doing it on purpose in response to their rude behavior.
In other words... I am not "socially blind"... you are just being dishonest in terms of admitting that you threw the first punch and hence deserved to be hit back.
To prove my contention that I am aware, the following quote should suffice:
"All snark aside..."
In other words, I responded to you in a snarky way on purpose because you were being a patronizing jackass.
See how I proved you wrong?... I quoted evidence in support of my case.
You are wrong on all counts and I predict that you will not admit to being wrong about everything and giving me a sincere apology.
See... I can play the prediction game too.
Artemis at September 16, 2017 1:37 PM
Leave a comment