Interesting take on the essence of Trump. (Not that I necessarily agree with it.)

[homersapien 11,373]

The Strongest Case Against Donald Trump

Trump brings out the worst in Americans. Nikki Haley wouldn’t.

By Conor Friedersdorf

If Donald Trump beats Nikki Haley on Saturday in her home state of South Carolina, where he leads in the polls, he’s a cinch to win the GOP nomination. And if he wins the GOP nomination, he has a very good shot at winning the presidency. So it’s worth entertaining the strongest argument against Trump, which many Americans haven’t heard before: that Trump brings out the worst in many of us—his critics and supporters alike.

To really make this anti-Trump argument, one must go so far as to acknowledge that the anti-Trump coalition has sometimes engaged in unreason, hysteria, and abuses of power. The name for this phenomenon is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

In 2003, the conservative writer Charles Krauthammer coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome to describe “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency––nay––the very existence of George W. Bush.” The idea wasn’t that any opposition to Bush or his policies was deranged, but rather that Bush hatred was causing some of the president’s critics to indulge in preposterous claims, such as asserting that he’d known the 9/11 attacks were coming.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is similar but more intense and widespread. I’m 44. I remember extreme hatred of numerous politicians, including Bill Clinton, Bush, and Barack Obama. But nothing comes close to the reaction to Trump’s presidency. Many Americans hold as an article of faith that Trump is a tool of Russia and a fascistic danger to democracy who ought to be thrown off the ballot in all 50 states and imprisoned for life. They believe, therefore, that pretty much anything critics do to oppose him can be excused as a righteous means to a vital end.

For that reason, during Trump’s presidency, our entire politics was distorted by the reaction to him, not just amo

Of course, I needn’t convince Republicans in South Carolina that Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. Most Republicans see it. Plenty of Trump supporters have complained about it. Trump himself has referred to the idea by name on social media. But if you truly see that a particular man absolutely deranges many of your fellow Americans, doesn’t it follow that you should choose someone else to lead the United States?

Good leaders don’t derange a huge faction of the country they are leading. Good leaders bring out the best in the people. More than anyone, Trump brings out the worst in Americans.

That’s the strongest argument against Trump. It isn’t about his policy agenda, or his character, or the legal charges against him, or his failure to make America great again from 2016 to 2020, an era of COVID lockdowns, peak cancel culture, spiking murders, and riots.

It isn’t about him. It’s about us.

The strongest argument against Trump is his effect on the American people ––and not just his opponents. Trump manages to derange many of his most ardent supporters. The people who stormed the capitol on January 6 were not representative of typical Republicans. But how many of the 450-plus people sentenced to prison for their acts that day would have formed a violent, unruly mob in response to any other politician? Under any other president, they’d have been at school or at work or at home with their family.

Certainly, no one is going to storm the capitol for Nikki Haley. Like any president, Haley would have critics, including a few partisans who’d hit her with unfair, hyperbolic attacks. But these critics likely wouldn’t exhibit symptoms of derangement. Even while serving in the Trump administration, Haley elicited far less hate than its most controversial figures. If anyone fears her, I haven’t encountered them. As president, Haley simply wouldn’t have much effect on the public psyche. And that’s good: Politicians ought to be afterthoughts who quietly serve at our pleasure, not main characters in national life, eliciting fear and loathing.

“Nikki Haley is leading President Biden by 13 points in a new poll of a hypothetical head-to-head match-up,” The Hill reported earlier this month. In other words, she can win the general election, and she can do that without bringing out the worst in all of us.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/republican-primaries-south-carolina-trump-haley/677526/

 

Edited February 23 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, but I do think the author makes some valid points:

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Good leaders don’t derange a huge faction of the country they are leading. Good leaders bring out the best in the people. More than anyone, Trump brings out the worst in Americans.

 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

“Nikki Haley is leading President Biden by 13 points in a new poll of a hypothetical head-to-head match-up,” The Hill reported earlier this month. In other words, she can win the general election, and she can do that without bringing out the worst in all of us.

This is why the posts I see about “having” to vote for Trump because Biden’s worse  are so obviously crap. Every poll shows it.

Ultimately, Haley is a Republican, Trump is maga. And maga has bred like rabbits.

[Gowebb11 9,321]

Our threshold for what he tolerate from politicians has shifted for sure. I remember Mike Dukakis’ political career being destroyed for looking silly while driving a tank in a TV ad. Now multiple criminal indictments don’t even register. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

8 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Our threshold for what he tolerate from politicians has shifted for sure. I remember Mike Dukakis’ political career being destroyed for looking silly while driving a tank in a TV ad. Now multiple criminal indictments don’t even register. 

The most dangerous thing trump ever did politically was to get the covid shots. Everything else is fine.

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

46 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

 Now multiple criminal indictments don’t even register. 

There's just no way for the DOJ to regain any credibility with Republicans.  They pursued the Russian collusion investigation with full knowledge that it originated with his democrat opponent and there was no truth to it. The sole purpose was to hurt Trump politically.  There's no coming back from that.

[alanevans 47]

28 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

There's just no way for the DOJ to regain any credibility with Republicans.  They pursued the Russian collusion investigation with full knowledge that it originated with his democrat opponent and there was no truth to it. The sole purpose was to hurt Trump politically.  There's no coming back from that.

It is always so easy to identify those who did not read or understand the Mueller report…

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

58 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

There's just no way for the DOJ to regain any credibility with Republicans.  They pursued the Russian collusion investigation with full knowledge that it originated with his democrat opponent and there was no truth to it. The sole purpose was to hurt Trump politically.  There's no coming back from that.

Ok so that explains why Republicans don't care about the federal charges against Trump. 

Now explain why Republicans suddenly became 'ok' with Presidential candidates that cheat on their wives with prostitutes, or say things like "I just grab (women) by the pu***", or divorce his wives so he can go buy a new trophy wife from Eastern Europe.

 

The criminal charges are only a small part of the many, many, standards for politicians that Republicans lowered or dropped completely when they decided to support Donald Trump as their leader. 

Edited February 22 by CoffeeTiger

[Gowebb11 9,321]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

There's just no way for the DOJ to regain any credibility with Republicans.  They pursued the Russian collusion investigation with full knowledge that it originated with his democrat opponent and there was no truth to it. The sole purpose was to hurt Trump politically.  There's no coming back from that.

Good point. A better example might’ve been him being found liable for sexual abuse in the civil courts. Never would’ve dreamed 30 years ago a person could still be President after that sort of thing. Of course, Clinton did a lot to lower the bar too. 

Edited February 22 by Gowebb11

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Ok so that explains why Republicans don't care about the federal charges against Trump. 

Now explain why Republicans suddenly became 'ok' with Presidential candidates that cheat on their wives with prostitutes, or say things like "I just grab (women) by the pu***", or divorce his wives so he can go buy a new trophy wife from Eastern Europe.

 

The criminal charges are only a small part of the many, many, standards for politicians that Republicans lowered or dropped completely when they decided to support Donald Trump as their leader. 

You are wrong if you think that some of the things he has done hasn't hurt him with some Republican voters, particularly women. I know personally know two conservative women who would never vote for Biden who have told me that they would never vote for Trump either.  But at the end of the day, Biden's stance on open borders and a couple of other things have alienated a large swath of sane people.  The Russia level harassment of Trump through lawfare is also generating huge pushback from moderates with a sense of fair play.   If that type of lawfare succeeds, I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle. 

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

4 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Good point. A better example might’ve been him being found liable for sexual abuse in the civil courts. Never would’ve dreamed 30 years ago a person could still be President after that sort of thing. Of course, Clinton did a lot to lower the bar too. 

We are going to need a new word to describe what is going on here. Instead of jury nullification we have jury "guiltification". In a political trial, jury selection is everything.  Every single person on this board would tell a judge he could be a fair and impartial juror in a trial involving Trump, and maybe even believe it himself. Yet we all know how everyone on here would vote in a trial involving Trump or Biden, no matter what facts were presented. Trump's case was unique. You have a woman that could not even prove she knew Trump saying he assaulted her.  There was proof her initial timeline was wrong so she said she couldn't remember the month or year or even season.  Yet the jury chose to believe her.  How do you defend yourself from that?  Trump can't get a fair trial in New York or DC with 12 homers and leftfields on the jury.  Now that we know about jury guiltification, and how you can use it to bloody a political opponent,  that tactic won't end with Trump.

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

21 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

We are going to need a new word to describe what is going on here. Instead of jury nullification we have jury "guiltification". In a political trial, jury selection is everything.  Every single person on this board would tell a judge he could be a fair and impartial juror in a trial involving Trump, and maybe even believe it himself. Yet we all know how everyone on here would vote in a trial involving Trump or Biden, no matter what facts were presented. Trump's case was unique. You have a woman that could not even prove she knew Trump saying he assaulted her.  There was proof her initial timeline was wrong so she said she couldn't remember the month or year or even season.  Yet the jury chose to believe her.  How do you defend yourself from that?  Trump can't get a fair trial in New York or DC with 12 homers and leftfields on the jury.  Now that we know about jury guiltification, and how you can use it to bloody a political opponent,  that tactic won't end with Trump.

 

Do not presume to project your shortcomings onto me. Your self-acknowledged inability to be impartial and judge someone on the facts in a trial in no way means it's the same for others.

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

Every single person on this board would tell a judge he could be a fair and impartial juror in a trial involving Trump, and maybe even believe it himself.

[arein0 956]

43 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Every single person on this board would tell a judge he could be a fair and impartial juror in a trial involving Trump, and maybe even believe it himself.

I wouldn't. 

[Gowebb11 9,321]

9 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Yet the jury chose to believe her. 

 Both sides attorneys participate in jury selection and both sides present their case and evidence and the jury makes a decision based on evidence they see and hear. Thats the way it is designed to work. 
 

9 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

How do you defend yourself from that? 

I don’t know. It’s hard to do when you’re heard on audio announcing that you can grab a woman by the p**** and describe how you grabbed a married woman and forcibly shoved your tongue down their throat. It almost leads one to think you’re capable of such an act. 

Edited February 23 by Gowebb11

[Leftfield 2,598]

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Every single person on this board would tell a judge he could be a fair and impartial juror in a trial involving Trump, and maybe even believe it himself.

Just as one might believe that because they're incapable of being impartial, everyone else must be, as well, eh? 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

With regard to the E Jean Carroll case:

E. Jean Carroll, after a victorious $5 million sex abuse and defamation verdict against her sexual perpetrator, Donald Trump, is back in court demanding damages for his post-verdict, relentless defamation of her. Buried in the headlines about E. Jean Carroll’s victory was the reason she was in court in the first place. It may sound surprising, but there would have been no victorious verdict for E. Jean Carroll but for the child sex abuse statute of limitations (“SOL”) movement.

https://childusa.org/the-legal-reform-that-made-e-jean-carrolls-ongoing-victory-possible/

It is interesting that NY allowed a grown woman use this excuse to bring charges against Trump, but hey it is what it is.  I do wonder if anyother woman was able to use this loop hole and bring charges against their accuser not named Trump?  Trump is not being singled out in NY to go after monetary gain, that is obvious.

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

4 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

 Both sides attorneys participate in jury selection and both sides present their case and evidence and the jury makes a decision based on evidence they see and hear. Thats the way it is designed to work.

The problem is that in DC and New York you have a jury pool that is 80 to 90 percent democrats. The prosecution is able to strike every single Republican without running out of strikes.  You will always wind up with a jury that is biased.  They will believe anything the prosecution tells them. This is a new tool in the left's weaponization of the judicial system.

[Gowebb11 9,321]

8 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The problem is that in DC and New York you have a jury pool that is 80 to 90 percent democrats. The prosecution is able to strike every single Republican without running out of strikes.  You will always wind up with a jury that is biased.  They will believe anything the prosecution tells them. This is a new tool in the left's weaponization of the judicial system.

Yeah I agree. That’s the way it is for Democrat defendants in Texas and Alabama with all of the Republican jurors. Totally biased. 

[aubaseball 2,609]

16 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Good point. A better example might’ve been him being found liable for sexual abuse in the civil courts. Never would’ve dreamed 30 years ago a person could still be President after that sort of thing. Of course, Clinton did a lot to lower the bar too. 

I believe it was for slander and not sexual abuse.   

[Gowebb11 9,321]

3 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I believe it was for slander and not sexual abuse.   

Nope. Sexual Abuse. He has since been found liable for slandering her after that verdict. He’s a disaster. 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

Yeah I agree. That’s the way it is for Democrat defendants in Texas and Alabama with all of the Republican jurors. Totally biased. 

Which high profile democrat politician is being prosecuted in Texas or Alabama?  We haven't started playing that game--yet. Hopefully, once we start, we will at least use something that somebody else has been prosecuted for.

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

I believe it was for slander and not sexual abuse.   

Steps to jury guiltification for sexual abuse:

1) Find a woman willing to spin a fairy tale about being raped 30 years ago, even though conveniently not remembering the date, the year, or even the season, so it is impossible for the defendant to refute on an evidentiary basis. Make sure it is a venue where the jury pool is 80% or more Biden supporters

2) Do it as a civil trial so preponderance of the evidence is the standard.

3) A biased democrat judge is a nice addition.

4) Depend on the jury to believe the fairy tale, once you have weeded out all republicans during jury selection.

5) Continue to sue for defamation when the defendant continues to maintain his innocence after the verdict.

[homersapien 11,373]

Cardin, you illustrate perfectly the damage done by trump to our country's legal system and respect for the rule of law.

It will take years for us to recover - assuming we ever do.

Part of me is inclined to think it could be ultimately good for the U.S. for him to get elected again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate how evil he really is and how much more damage he could do. 

He is an existential threat to our democracy - much, much more than any outside enemy ever was.

 

Edited February 23 by homersapien

[Gowebb11 9,321]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Cardin, you illustrate perfectly the damage done by trump to our country's legal system and respect for the rule of law.

It will take years for us to recover - assuming we do.

Part of me is inclined to think it could be ultimately good for the U.S. get elected again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate how evil he really is and how much more damage he could do.  He is an existential threat to our democracy - much, much more than any outside enemy ever was.

 

You may as well send your thoughts to an oak tree. The followers of Orange Jesus don’t care about facts. Or truth. I’ve started to realize and sadly accept that some believe the earth is flat, Taylor Swift is the anti-Christ, and DJT is a blameless victim of persistent global persecution. It’s all one big witch hunt. I’ve said this before: I no longer wonder how Jim Jones got 900 people to line up in a jungle and drink cyanide laced kool aid.