[subego]

This is a good example of a struggle I’ve been dealing with.

On one hand I’m just as revolted by it as everyone else.

On the other hand, Trump suffers from emotional retardation to the point this represents progress.

Is it anywhere near enough? Absolutely not. Will excoriating him for attempts to improve his behavior promote better behavior in the future? Absolutely not.

Does this mean we should cut him slack? I don’t know. As I said, it’s a struggle for me.


In case it appears the question implicitly cuts him slack, I want to reiterate the premise is “our president suffers from crippling emotional retardation”.

[OreoCookie]

I think we should judge President Trump by the same standard we held all other Presidents to. Not more, but certainly not less. So no, no slack should be cut

That doesn't mean we can't be happy when he is trying to emulate the emotional response of ordinary human beings. But we should keep in mind who he is and what his station is.

[subego]

I understand where this is coming from just like I understand how revolting this example from him is.

I mean, a large part of what makes it so revolting is his station. If not for that we could go “there but for the grace of God” and move on.

However, I think this situation is such an outlier, I’m not sure instincts tuned to more common situations give us the best solutions.

Of course, a lot of this depends on what our goals ultimately are, and I can’t say I’m sure of mine. I guess they’re getting out of this with the least amount of damage possible. I don’t know if that means letting it collapse on its own or trying to get it to explode like a grain silo.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I understand where this is coming from just like I understand how revolting this example from him is.

I think it is preferable to help him be the best person he can be. But we shouldn't characterize him as presidential just because he “succeeds” at reading a speech off a prompter. We shouldn't lower the bar to “at least he had the decency to skip golfing if he didn't make time to meet the victims”.

That's why I'm confused why so many (self-professed) conservatives decided that they want to die on hill Trump. Subtract all policy positions from the discussion and just look at what kind of human being he is. Is that the best candidate your party of choice can come up with? Really? Because if that is the best kind of person you think the party of your choosing can come up with, you are effed.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's why I'm confused why so many (self-professed) conservatives decided that they want to die on hill Trump. Subtract all policy positions from the discussion and just look at what kind of human being he is. Is that the best candidate your party of choice can come up with? Really? Because if that is the best kind of person you think the party of your choosing can come up with, you are effed.

I think the math they make is more pragmatic. It's simply that they are seizing this moment (when Rs hold both houses and the Presidency) to act on every wet dream they've ever had. Strike while the iron is hot, as it were. They finally got through massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Next up; Gutting Medicare and Medicaid, and privatizing Social Security. Before the mid-terms.

I'm sure they wish there was a more stable, less erratic Republican in the Oval Office, but Trump is who they have. In some ways, though, Trump is a handy, malleable dupe who is most likely to rubber-stamp anything they send him (as long as FoxNews tells him to, apparently).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's why I'm confused why so many (self-professed) conservatives decided that they want to die on hill Trump. Subtract all policy positions from the discussion and just look at what kind of human being he is. Is that the best candidate your party of choice can come up with? Really? Because if that is the best kind of person you think the party of your choosing can come up with, you are effed.

0 out of 10 Republicans can respond to this without bringing up the C word.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's why I'm confused why so many (self-professed) conservatives decided that they want to die on hill Trump.

What I feel is the relevant historical precedent in this regard is how by the time he left office, all the people who supported Bush 43 insisted they never actually supported him.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I feel is the relevant historical precedent in this regard is how by the time he left office, all the people who supported Bush 43 insisted they never actually supported him.

Perhaps because denial is easier than facing that you made an honest mistake?

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I think the math they make is more pragmatic. It's simply that they are seizing this moment (when Rs hold both houses and the Presidency) to act on every wet dream they've ever had. Strike while the iron is hot, as it were. They finally got through massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Next up; Gutting Medicare and Medicaid, and privatizing Social Security. Before the mid-terms.

I understand your point and I agree this is largely what happened — Republicans got really good at winning elections. But I would argue they aren't achieving any of their goals, because of the lack of average quality of their candidates. Take health care: the Democrats have developed their own vision over the years and the GOP has nothing — apart from undoing what the Democrats did. That's not helpful to anyone, and they will lose as the lack of substance now shows. They aren't even able to agree on a budget even though they control Congress and the Presidency. If I put myself in the shoes of a staunch American conservative, I would find that worrying.