The Trump Rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Nov 26, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    A look at the calendar (and little math) suggests we've already endured roughly 1% of the era of Trump as President. (Assuming he is a one-termer.)

    I thought the idea of Trump being elected President was so absurd, that I all but eliminated the possibility from my reasoning. Well, history proved me wrong. What that says about millions of my fellow Americans, I'm not sure. I suspect many of them will start to feel differently sooner or later. But I've become somewhat wary of making too many predictions.

    What I am able to control are my own actions. And so I've put together a list of "rules" for myself, to see me through a period that is likely to be challenging for many of us:

    1) Trump is the President-elect. Calling for recounts in battleground states. Whining about the unfairness of the Electoral College. Raising issues about Russian meddling. All of these are useless distractions. They are not going to undo the election. We need to accept that.

    2) As President, Trump will be entitled to the respect due the Office. In the (highly unlikely) event I am called to the White House for a personal meeting, I'll call him "Mr. President" and "Sir." You respect the office no matter what your opinion of the office-holder.

    3) I'll do my best to refer to him by name. He will be President Trump, or simply Trump. Using derogatory fabricated names is childish and largely pointless.

    4) I will not reject, as a matter of course, his actual policy proposals. I will evaluate each and every one on its own merits. If Trump comes up with an idea that really is in the best interests of the United States, its people, and the world itself - I'll support it.

    5) Contrarily, I will oppose, with every means available to me, those proposals and actions that I believe to be harmful or dangerous to the country.

    6) I will make a bona fide effort to understand the point of view of people who voted for Trump. Doubtless, some of them are foolish or misinformed. Some were blindly partisan. And some were motivated by instincts (racism, xenophobia, misogyny) that are detestable. But part of reaching out to people is understanding their point of view.

    7) I will remain confident in the institutional strength of the United States itself. Chances are good that this country will survive a Trump Presidency. The facts that a man with such capricious character has the power to launch nuclear weapons is troubling. But I pray that circumstances will not arise where he might be tempted to use them. And I hold out hope that the mechanism of our National Command authority would, at the end of the day, prevent their accidental or ill-considered use.

    8) I will hold President Trump to the same standards of personal and Executive behavior as previous Presidents. Trump is entitled to a private life. He is entitled to take vacations with his family. It is incumbent on the officeholder to maintain a balance that is acceptable to the American people.

    9) I will not hope for Trump to fail. I will not do or say anything that would cause that to happen. If Trump's Presidency is to end in failure or disgrace, it will be by his own doings. Not mine. And I will reject any scurrilous, untruthful, or trivial articles, editorials, rumors, etc. set forth by any source be it Democratic, liberal, or independents. If we are to ultimately prevail, in any endeavor, it has to be a success based on a foundation of truth.

    10) We will survive this. The United States has survived more serious and deadly challenges in the past. And in most such instances, the country emerged stronger than it did before. I just need to keep reminding myself of this for the next two hundred and three weeks.
     
  2. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #2
    so you are advocating for a big shift over what happened for the last 8 years?
     
  3. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3
    I think that many Republicans and conservatives behaved disgracefully towards President Obama. Not all, by any means. But a great many. I think the leadership of the Republican did the country, and their party, no favors by stymying President Obama at every opportunity. And the questioning of Obama's eligibility to serve was truly revolting. The failure of senior Republicans to firmly quash those murmurings was utterly reprehensible.

    I'd like to think that Democratic, liberal, and progressive people were better than that. Maybe I'm mistaken in that assumption. Certainly, there will be those whose behavior towards Trump will be unseemly and counterproductive. And I will speak out as forcefully against them. But I don't expect Democrats in Congress and the Senate to resort to the levels of complete and destructive partisanship the Republicans did. I foresee no efforts to shut the Government down. If Trump actually comes up with a Healthcare act that improves upon the ACA, I expect Democrats to support it. If Trump proposes childcare or infrastructure spending that benefits the country, I expect Democratic cooperation.

    Torture? Reckless tax cuts going to the 0.01%? The appointment of clearly incompetent individuals to high office? I will join my Democratic elected officials in fighting against them.
     
  4. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #4
    That seems like a reasonable list of "rules".

    However, I can't help noticing that they look just as reasonable regardless of who the President is or would be. If you replaced "Trump" with "Obama", "Bush", "Reagan", or even "Bill Clinton", and eliminated some of the person-directed specifics, then the rules lose nothing in their reasonableness.

    In fact, they look equally reasonable when applied to all political positions: US Representative, US Senator, State Representative or Senator, Mayor, etc.

    If everyone could agree to such reasonable rules regardless of who won what political position, and strive to apply those rules uniformly, then it seems to me that politics overall would end up being a lot more reasonable, and reasoned.
     
  5. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5

    a clear bell sounded from a far mountain in the dawn
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    I think we should keep it the same. The republicans block everything president Trump tries to do.
     
  7. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    So tempting... but let's wait and see how many more 180s he does. That and a few re-picks in the cabinet then the only thing missing is Bill. :D
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Bill would be great for Trumps new department of skirt and panty inspector.
     
  9. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #9
    Wow, yeah... It has just occurred to me to wonder if Kellyanne Conway will be in charge of making sure White House interns get to stick to their official job descriptions. Either that or the WH needs to select interns who look like the average club bouncer but otherwise still qualify for the jobs.

    But then the president-elect said he'd be a different person anyway once he took office...
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    Hillary lived at the White House and Bill still cheated. Ivanka won't be anywhere close.
     
  11. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #11
    Nor Melania, apparently.

    Well, I could see revocation of a lot of press passes in the Fourth Estate's future somewhere down the road. I'm not too proud to say I'll read their last stories with interest.

    No wonder Trump had kept talking for awhile about trying to change the libel laws, when you think on it. I guess his counsel pointed out that's a two-way street. They probably had to read his whole Twitter account to him.
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    Oh ya Melania. That's his wife. Although he'd like it to be his daughter.
     
  13. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    :eek: He'd probably prefer that either one of them only guessed or assumed he was being unfaithful.

    The one he should fear is Conway, or Priebus. Reading the political riot act to him is part of their job description inside an administration. But you know he's so unpredictable. He's aware of what happend w/ Clinton so he might just shrug and say "yeah it happened so what?". We elected a one-off type of president as far as I can tell, so if anything is always possible then double down on that with this guy. I still want his presidency to succeed on behalf of the country but I imagine reading the news some days will make :rolleyes: be an insufficient emoticon for expressing my opinion.
     
  14. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #14
    The thing that worries me about Trump is his apparent choice to keep his wife and young son in New York, rather than the White House.

    That, to me, seems like a recipe for trouble. I see him prowling around the first family private quarters at 4 in the morning and getting into trouble. Whether it's sending off silly Tweets, or cooking up harebrained schemes.

    Trump strikes me as a fundamentally lonely person. He apparently doesn't have many close personal friends. He seems like the sort of guy who'll chat amiably enough with his lawyer and accountant, his business associates, and employees. But he's always got to be the boss. I can't recall ever hearing him speak in what I would term a reflective or contemplative manner. Everything always has to be "the best" or "the greatest ever." When that really is hardly ever the case.

    A wife, and a First Lady, is really the only person who can tell that guy to go to bed. To quit obsessing over something. To take it easy.

    My predictions: People in this country are going to lose patience with Donald Trump's glaring conflict of interest problems. It's one thing to elect him President. It's another thing completely to have Trump© hotels and Trump© golf courses shoved in our faces week-in, week-out. And I also predict that the press is going to find his attempts to stifle them, or shut them out of various events, intolerable. Trump is on thin ice with the Fourth Estate already. I don't believe his honeymoon will last very long in February.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    When I had got to the very end of the transcript of the NYT interview of President-elect Trump on November 22, I was not heartened by his remarks, nor did I come away with the notion that he has any clue what is the mission of the press with respect to any Presidency:

    SULZBERGER: ... I’m going to go to our C.E.O., Mark Thompson, for the last, last question.

    TRUMP: Very powerful man ...

    MARK THOMPSON: Thank you, and it’s a really short one, but after all the talk about libel and libel laws, are you committed to the First Amendment to the Constitution?

    TRUMP: Oh, I was hoping he wasn’t going to say that. I think you’ll be happy. I think you’ll be happy. Actually, somebody said to me on that, they said, ‘You know, it’s a great idea, softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, you’re right, I never thought about that.’ I said, ‘You know, I have to start thinking about that.’ So, I, I think you’ll be O.K. I think you’re going to be fine.

    SULZBERGER: Well, thank you very much for this. Really appreciate this.

    TRUMP: Thank you all, very much, it’s a great honor. I will say, The Times is, it’s a great, great American jewel. A world jewel. And I hope we can all get along. We’re looking for the same thing, and I hope we can all get along well.

    Heh, reading that whole transcript was like reading the storyboards for some really great cartoons.

    Dear Mr. Trump: the job of the Fourth Estate is not to get along well with the President of the USA. Even if you stop tweeting outrage at them in the middle of the night and take a minder [Priebus no less] along with you to an interview in the lion's den.
     
  16. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #16
    I think Trump, and everyone else, just want the NY Times to report fairly. During the campaign, they did not. Let's be crystal clear: For the past year and a half, it has been presenting unbalanced and often unhinged coverage of the presidential race, and anyone who believes otherwise is simply delusional.

    The paper wrote stories that were unrelentingly hostile to Trump and his supporters.

    It allowed reporters to include their personal opinions and political analysis in news coverage.

    It allowed political reporters to spew their animosity to Trump on social media. (I am old enough to remember when reporters maintained the conceit that they did not have political opinions.)

    It published stories about Trump in which it distorted the accounts of interviewees, according to the subjects’ own testimony.

    It published front page stories and editorials with headlines that accused Trump of “lying”--but never so characterized any of Hillary Clinton’s well-documented lies.

    And in a recent letter to readers, the same publisher and the same editor that oversaw this partisan assault are promising to “rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/u...-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html

    Time will tell if the NYT makes good on such changes, but I'm skeptical.
     
  17. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #17
    can I ask why you are calling out only the NY Times? is it because they are the only news outlet that faltered in providing complete, truthful and balanced coverage? or, is it because they are the closest it gets to the truth and you feel they may have drifted slightly off course?
     
  18. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #18
    Hey, just a question: could you list some of Hillary Clinton's "well-documented lies"?

    So far as I know, she mostly hemmed and hawwed in the manner common to politicians -- trying to avoid getting pinned down saying something that might come back to bite her. I don't remember her saying anything on the order of the President not being a citizen, or the father of one of his opponents helping to assassinate Kennedy, or that he'll "spill the beans" about that guy's wife (whatever that means). He said that he lost "hundreds of friends" at the WTC on 9/11. (He also noted that he watched people jump from the towers from the window in his office; a window that is something like four miles away from the site.) And, of course, he's noted multiple times that he watched "thousands and thousands" of Muslims cheering in Jersey City after the attacks, something which we know never happened. He's said that Obama created ISIS, and then that Clinton created ISIS. At one point, he actually said that he knew nothing about David Duke. He came up with this crazy story about general Pershing dipping bullets into pig's blood and then shooting Muslim rebels with those bullets, as if that makes any kind of sense. He's stated as fact that blacks kill 81% of white homicide victims.

    This guy doesn't beat around the bush; he boldly states outright falsehoods with a straight face. Frequently. Lots of lies. Outrageous lies. There is no getting around the fact that this man is a liar.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    Well I think Mr. Trump thinks he hit one out of the park the other day in his interview with the Times, and that the Times will soon settle in as an obedient section of the Trump administration.

    LOL but as you say a it's a matter of "time will tell" whether NYT will adapt or just report what it sees fit to print without fear or favor. Trump would not be the first president to cancel a sub to a newspaper. Other administration officials often enough go on record as cancelling. Rumsfeld cancelled over some Krugman piece. It's a free country, no makes us read the New York Times. Me I like to read it just in case I can find some reason to cancel the thing and believe me sometimes I'm looking when I'm trying to get up the dough for some Apple gizmo caught my eye.

    Meanwhile with respect to a campaign: if one is reporting on what a candidate says, and what he says sounds unhinged then... consider the source is rule one when the reader lays eyes on the piece. Surely no one could object to the catalog of Mr. Trumps tweeted insults, for instance. Just its arrangement is more efficient than having to scroll through them on his account. I'll do you the favor of not providing the link, but it's in the Upshot section of the paper.

    Rule two is yes, do consider what section of the paper a piece runs in. Is it opinion? A blog? Some of the most cogent negative criticisms I read about Mr. Trump were penned by Ross Douthat, a columnist sometimes referred to by mean-spirited folk as "the Times' token rightwinger". He may in fact be that, but surely we don't want his opinions suppressed? Once in awhile (heh...) he has criticized liberal pols and their policies as well. Here is Ross and certainly in very fine form while taking a certain liberal confection to task; surely we wouldn't want to have deprived the public of this piece even though it's just an opinion:


    But back to the neighborhood of the thread topic... rules to live by in a Trump presidency. Here's what I find so amusing. Mr.Trump is a guy who won a Presidential election and yet some of his supporters are enraged. What is that about, anyway? People are going on about their lives now and yet all this rage, over... winning?

    For instance, the other day there was some guy ranting on a plane about how Trump's the president, Trump's the president, yelling at a plane full of quiet passengers and wanting to know if there were any Hillary bees on board the aircraft. The airline apologized and said the man should not have been allowed to continue the flight and they'd be modifying their crew training appropriately. What I can't figure out is why he was unhappy.

    So getting back to the OP's self-assigned rules for living with a Trump presidency, maybe some of the supporters of Mr. Trump should consider adopting a similar program of accepting Mr. Trump's victory and hoping that he governs well for all of America, while also holding him accountable. There's plenty of political spectrum in the Fourth Estate so I'm sure he'll garner positive and negative feedback after his inauguration.

     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    The NYT is the most important daily newspaper in the world. It has an international edition (formerly the Herald Tribune) and its articles are translated and reprinted. The NYT is an institution and as such it can't be ruined by partisan politics. Of course there's nothing wrong in endorsing a candidate, but one sided reporting is inexcusable.
     
  21. citizenzen, Nov 27, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2016

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Liberals (Democrats) should not repeat the same tactics Republicans have during the Obama administration. The only way forward is to be the example of responsible governance, and hope it rubs off on the Right and encourages them to engage in a similar fashion when they find themselves on the losing side of an election.

    I appreciate vrDrew's pledge to do so. I wish more members of PRSI would embrace those principles.

    (hopefully I'll manage to as well)
     
  22. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #22
    Neither. Trump gave an interview with the NY Times. Seemed appropriate to comment about how they did their coverage during the election.

    Do a google search for Hillary Clinton and lies. You'll find plenty.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 27, 2016 ---
    Well, your gal-pal Liz Warren is already on the warpath (pun intended!). She's asking the GAO to investigate the Trump transition because she thinks it's "chaotic". He's been president-elect for less than 3 weeks and she's already waging war with him. This woman needs to butt out and be put in her place. :cool:

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...-transition/hGfvViGnxB8lvmdGKNQBUK/story.html
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    Other than Trump saying the Media was mean to me and printed lies, what proof is there that Trump was harmed by the media bias?
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Your own source lays waste to your claim.

    The article never connects the word "chaos" to Warren's request to the agency. It's a word the writer uses describe the reported state of the White House in transition.

    How you turned it into Warren's motive indicates you either didn't read the article, didn't read it correctly, or intentionally presented a false impression of what the article actually said.
     
  25. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #25
    hmm. those two ideas don't really follow each other in the larger picture. if you want to call out news in general for being lazy, incompetent and self serving I can agree with that. but in that, the NY Times is the pickpocket in a room full of murders and rapists.

    politicians lie and manipulate, that is common knowledge.

    your use of an emoji doesn't excuse your fear and contempt for an intelligent woman in a position of power. the points made in the article seem valid. Trump is showing an ignorance of and disregard for the institution and the process. isn't that something that should be looked into, breaking the rules?
     

Share This Page