The Apprentice Season 2 - The Second Presidency of Donald Trump

[Holman]

Plus, when we finally get to vote for AOC, a bunch of us are going to get scolded for not putting Bernie in the White House when we had the chance.

[msduncan]

I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.

Very agree. If we're going to get a better world, it'll be by coming together with those we don't see eye to eye with and bringing about change. Maintaining blame and enmity - deserved or not - might feel better, but it could stop us from addressing it.

Agreed, and I'll add this: beating people over the head over something like that from 2016 only serves to PUSH many back over to 'well, asshole.... take THIS." (X) JD Vance, President of the United States.

In 2016, the attacks on Trump's womanizing and such were not too far out of line with traditional character attacks on opposing candidates. You can't always believe them. And he chose a mainstream VP and didn't stray too far off the platform. He was behaving more or less. The election night in 2020 changed alllll of that. He went off the reservation.

[msduncan]

Whoa. (people, click the link and read it all, not just that teaser)

Very much so. It was a fascinating read. And I don't think I've ever seen something so carefully and deliberately written. Every word was clearly planned, checked, and double-checked to ensure that they were covering their asses. As someone who used to write things of that nature for a living (reports on high-liability situations), I just read a masterpiece.

Although I still half expect Trump et al to sue or otherwise go after them.

I found this quote particularly interesting:

There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.

I would guess that this is exactly why they're using Signal, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's a regular thing to keep what's happening officially opaque.

Why in the hell are they using a messaging app to plan and talk about a top secret military action ahead of time anyway? It's mind blowing.

[GreenGoo]

I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.

Because 2016 led to 2024 and rationalizing why it was ok in 2016 and it's "other people" who are the problem in 2024 is just denial.

So you learned your lesson. Great. Against your will and only when things are catastrophic. Kicking and screaming you were dragged into facing reality, while still rationalizing everything to take the edge off.

Now start teaching that lesson to other conservatives if you want redemption, because *someone* voted for this asshat in 2024, and they can't all have been drazzil.

Utility? Maybe not, but letting them quietly stand beside me as we both watch the world burn from the spark they lit, all the while hearing how "this isn't what I wanted", sticks in my craw.

[GreenGoo]

Agreed, and I'll add this: beating people over the head over something like that from 2016 only serves to PUSH many back over to 'well, asshole.... take THIS." (X) JD Vance, President of the United States.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

The idea that you "just didn't know!" in 2016 is complete and utter crap. There was nothing typical about drumpf's candidacy.

As for pushing back? I don't give a crap. What are you going to do? Throw a match on the bonfire? Terrifying revenge at being called out. I hope you don't burn the country down next time out of spite! Assuming anything is left after.

"don't be mean to me or I just might vote against the country's interests again!".

Too funny.

[Holman]

This doesn't help.

We need people to see Trump clearly right here in the now. Punishing them for not doing so earlier is really not the way.

[GreenGoo]

This doesn't help.

Not trying to help. Venting my spleen as my country's economy is needlessly attacked over and over again and it's sovereignty is threatened.

He and I are not friends.

[Blackhawk]

Agreed, and I'll add this: beating people over the head over something like that from 2016 only serves to PUSH many back over to 'well, asshole.... take THIS." (X) JD Vance, President of the United States.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

The idea that you "just didn't know!" in 2016 is complete and utter crap. There was nothing typical about drumpf's candidacy.

It doesn't matter now. It doesn't matter because if we choose to let it matter, we'll just sink further this us-vs-them morass that's turned this country into a dysfunctional powder keg.

Keeping that anger, blame, and hate filled rivalry going will destroy what chance we have left to come (partway) back.

[GreenGoo]

Tough. You tried that after the civil war. Seems to have worked out great.

Everything is still burning with many new fires every day. Forgiveness might be the way forward, but we are a long way from that point.

Honestly, I don't know why you guys don't just dismiss me as a non-American. It's not like I have any say in the matter. Just bile. So. much. bile.

[Blackhawk]

Because we like you, and we respect you. You've got reasons to be angry - good ones. But over the past few weeks you sometimes seem a little... indiscriminate when it comes to targeting it.

[Unagi]

Tough. You tried that after the civil war. Seems to have worked out great.

Everything is still burning with many new fires every day. Forgiveness might be the way forward, but we are a long way from that point.

Honestly, I don't know why you guys don't just dismiss me as a non-American. It's not like I have any say in the matter. Just bile. So. much. bile.

Not entirely non-American.
From my chair. In America.

[raydude]

In 2016, the attacks on Trump's womanizing and such were not too far out of line with traditional character attacks on opposing candidates. You can't always believe them.

I'm gonna stop you right there and point you to this:



That is not a case of "he said, she said" character assassination. That is Trump being a POS caught on tape. WTF.

[Kraken]

I mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.

No. He was clearly unqualified and an amoral sex offender in 2016. He has decades of very public abhorrent behaviour. In a political environment where saying something racist would disqualify you, he was constantly reprehensible for decades.

This is all very publicly available information. He was, however, on a short lived successful "reality" tv show. So...it kind of balances out.

The moment he started commenting on the attractiveness of other candidates wives should have been enough to know he was shit personified. But if that wasn't enough for you, he has thousands of other acts and words that are worse. Not from a "woke" standpoint. From a human being standpoint.

I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.

+1. I do have to pick one nit, though:

As for the masses that ushered him in last year?

Bear in mind that more people voted for someone else than voted for trump (50.2 vs 49.8%), and the "masses" who put him over the top are the millions of Democrats and left-leaning Independents who stayed home. It was a clear plurality over Harris' 48.3, but hardly the mandate trump & co. like to crow about.

[msduncan]

I mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.

No. He was clearly unqualified and an amoral sex offender in 2016. He has decades of very public abhorrent behaviour. In a political environment where saying something racist would disqualify you, he was constantly reprehensible for decades.

This is all very publicly available information. He was, however, on a short lived successful "reality" tv show. So...it kind of balances out.

The moment he started commenting on the attractiveness of other candidates wives should have been enough to know he was shit personified. But if that wasn't enough for you, he has thousands of other acts and words that are worse. Not from a "woke" standpoint. From a human being standpoint.

I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.

+1. I do have to pick one nit, though:

As for the masses that ushered him in last year?

Bear in mind that more people voted for someone else than voted for trump (50.2 vs 49.8%), and the "masses" who put him over the top are the millions of Democrats and left-leaning Independents who stayed home. It was a clear plurality over Harris' 48.3, but hardly the mandate trump & co. like to crow about.

Completely agree, but tens of millions are 'masses' when it comes to a candidate like him.

And yeah...lots of people just didn't vote. That, in my opinion, was because of the things i mentioned above.

[msduncan]

In 2016, the attacks on Trump's womanizing and such were not too far out of line with traditional character attacks on opposing candidates. You can't always believe them.

I'm gonna stop you right there and point you to this:



That is not a case of "he said, she said" character assassination. That is Trump being a POS caught on tape. WTF.

I could count on the carpet fibers in my house the number of womanizing and vulgar off camera politicians in our nation's history, including Kennedy who is counted among the greats. So yeah...it wasn't a huge deal. The big deal happened after the Jan 6 stuff (and things leading up to it) and of course all the power grab stuff since inauguration.

[Unagi]

Kennedy was like Clinton. Not wonderful men.
But both had one family and kids that loved them, in the end.

Please do not try and tell anyone 2016 Trump was on the same level.
I mean. I don’t even know where to start but I know it would be just wasted text.

[YellowKing]

I overlooked a lot of policies in the Republican party I didn't agree with (gun control, abortion) in order to vote for the stuff I did. But I never voted for a candidate I thought was a genuinely bad person. I draw the line at racism and misogyny, I don't care what your politics are. So Trump was a non-starter from the get-go. Watching every season of The Apprentice was all the confirmation I needed the guy was a slimy con man creep - and that was a show designed to portray him in a good light.

it's been shocking to me the number of so-called Christians who bent over backwards to justify voting for a sexual predator (though given the history of the Catholic Church, maybe I shouldn't have been so surprised).

[msduncan]

Kennedy was like Clinton. Not wonderful men.
But both had one family and kids that loved them, in the end.

Please do not try and tell anyone 2016 Trump was on the same level.
I mean. I don’t even know where to start but I know it would be just wasted text.

I didn't say they were on the same level. I said this country (I'm sure others as well) has a history rife with politicians that have ethics problems when it comes to this sort of thing. So it wasn't the sort of thing people would weigh over preventing policies and laws they opposed from being passed by voting for the alternative. Nobody was going to say "hey...some dirt was just dug up on this politician. Let me just toss aside all my ideological positions because he's sketchy". And again.... in 2016, his promised policies and even his enacted policies weren't too far off any other Republican. Perhaps the main difference was his habit of going on Twitter and crowing about things...but that was easier to hold one's nose and ignore than anything he's done post his 2020 loss.

[Zarathud]

Trump is still the same person, but he has since torn down the Republican Party to recreate it in his image.

Trump has no mandate because he denied Project 2025 was his plan, and micro-targeted on social media contradicting messages. His only consistent theme was anti-immigrant, anti-trans, anti-minority, and anti-liberal hate. Now he’s pushing anti-government and anti-foreigner hate.

Where that could once be excused as campaign rhetoric, it’s now policy. Anyone who supports that policy is harming America.

[Unagi]

...So it wasn't the sort of thing people would weigh over preventing policies and laws they opposed from being passed by voting for the alternative. Nobody was going to say "hey...some dirt was just dug up on this politician. Let me just toss aside all my ideological positions because he's sketchy".

But you do admit that there is some level of sketchy that should cause one to actually 'let the other side win'. Or no, is that the problem... That the Dems just have such horrible policies that taking in an obvious snake-oil salesman, womanizing, and porn-star-affair-while-wife-is-pregnant, and oh maybe even a casual rapist to boot - would still be worth it.

[LordMortis]

Trump has no mandate because he denied Project 2025 was his plan, and micro-targeted on social media contradicting messages. His only consistent theme was anti-immigrant, anti-trans, anti-minority, and anti-liberal hate. Now he’s pushing anti-government and anti-foreigner hate.

And keep inflation down, tariffs will "fix" the economy, and the stock market and needs to do better to bring more high paying jobs back to Americans, and tax cuts. Those were consistent with zero details. Much like the secret repeal and replace was in 10s of 1000s of pages of blank binder paper to be revealed and enacted in the first 100 days of 2016 was consistent along with his promise to protect against the repeal of the 2nd amendment by the SC.

[msduncan]

...So it wasn't the sort of thing people would weigh over preventing policies and laws they opposed from being passed by voting for the alternative. Nobody was going to say "hey...some dirt was just dug up on this politician. Let me just toss aside all my ideological positions because he's sketchy".

But you do admit that there is some level of sketchy that should cause one to actually 'let the other side win'. Or no, is that the problem... That the Dems just have such horrible policies that taking in an obvious snake-oil salesman, womanizing, and porn-star-affair-while-wife-is-pregnant, and oh maybe even a casual rapist to boot - would still be worth it.

The issue is separating mud slinging and common character assassination tactics from the truth. And also the consideration of how many alleged skeletons are in the closet of those doing the accusing. Plus, I think it's pretty common knowledge that they media leans left and always has, so it's sometimes difficult to discern truth from political strategy to harm an opponent. The loss in 2020 was different. It wasn't the media or Democratic politicians (or message board people on the internet) telling everyone that Trump was bad -- it was Trump himself ranting and raving on social media and pulling the stunt on Jan 6th that told the tale. It wasn't political character assassination strategy from opponents - it was Trump exposing himself loudly and verbally whereas before he was fairly restrained and played ball as much as he is capable of. Unfortunately there are legions of people who see him as a folk hero somehow, or are angry enough at the left that they simply don't care. Somehow the past 5 years have ceased being about policies, and has really solidified around team-sport politics.

[RunningMn9]

He certainly was far from an ideal candidate in 2016, but he was the official alternative to a plan of policies that are mirror opposites of what people who are not on the left oppose.

So, I don’t have any interest in berating you for choices you made in 2016. But I am curious about something. I’m curious if you have learned anything from the past 9 years. Not about Trump specifically, but has the overall experience taught you anything that might change how you select candidates in the future?

I know many people that select a Presidential candidate based on policies, and it drives me insane for a few reasons. Most notably I’m still stupid enough to believe that the policies of this country should be dictated by legislative means. When I look at Congressional candidates, I look at policies. I don’t believe in letting one person dictate the direction of this country unilaterally. That is the hard work of the legislature.

Anyway, when I look at presidential candidates, I consider two important factors: Competence and Character.

It was obvious to me in 2016 that Trump was utterly bankrupt in both of those departments. But maybe others didn’t want to believe, and rolled the dice? I can live with that.

But from the moment he took office, it was clear to anyone that was watching that he was a disaster waiting to happen because of a lack of character and incompetence. And in 2020 we all suffered immeasurably as a result. And now, it is so much worse as his brain has turned to malevolent pudding.

So my question goes back to “did you learn anything from the experience of Trump that changed how you evaluate presidential candidates in the future? Are policy questions in a president less important than their character or their competence to you now?”

Or are you prepared to do it all again in the name of policies you support, as long as they aren’t quite as insane as this?

Also, given that you are unlikely to be an expert on many/most of the policies you support, do you ever wonder about whether or not you are simply wrong about them, and thus should be more open to alternatives?

[El Guapo]

malevolent pudding.

Love this phrasing. Also would be a great name for a band.

[Blackhawk]

"Actions speak louder than words." It's more than a handy saying, it's a core element of how I view people.

Politicians on every side lie. Campaign promises and policy statements are mostly just advertising slogans. What matters is what people do. In Trump's case, a great deal of his choices and actions showed that he was appealing to anger, hatred, and vindictiveness - even then. His prior actions showed that he had no moral or ethical foundation. The two together were enough to make the alarm bells clang.

With that said, I can accept that some people made a different choice for different reasons - some I'd call legitimate, others not so much. But if they watched his behavior afterwards and said to themselves, "Well that was a mistake - I won't do that again", and are speaking out against them now... Well, I welcome them with open arms. There are things more important than blame.

But at the same time, the atmosphere in the room (OO) is tense. There are people here who have lost jobs, some who stand to lose careers, some have had their personal nature turned into a stigma bordering on a crime, and some (like me) who stand to have our ability to survive threatened. Others have had their entire nation targeted and genuinely hurt. People here are scared. People here are hurt. People here are angry, and rightfully so.

A lot of those people want a target for that anger, and while I think that some of the choices of target aren't the best ones, I think it's important to remember how high emotions are right now, and that reason may not be foremost in peoples' motivations. I may try to point that out (and have become a target myself a few times as a result), but I don't judge or blame them. I'm affected by a couple of the threats listed above, and it's already creating pain and fear in my family. I understand the anger.

[Unagi]

malevolent pudding.

Love this phrasing. Also would be a great name for a band.

You're not wrong, but I'll offer up it's a better also a good Album name.

[msduncan]

He certainly was far from an ideal candidate in 2016, but he was the official alternative to a plan of policies that are mirror opposites of what people who are not on the left oppose.

So, I don’t have any interest in berating you for choices you made in 2016. But I am curious about something. I’m curious if you have learned anything from the past 9 years. Not about Trump specifically, but has the overall experience taught you anything that might change how you select candidates in the future?

I know many people that select a Presidential candidate based on policies, and it drives me insane for a few reasons. Most notably I’m still stupid enough to believe that the policies of this country should be dictated by legislative means. When I look at Congressional candidates, I look at policies. I don’t believe in letting one person dictate the direction of this country unilaterally. That is the hard work of the legislature.

Anyway, when I look at presidential candidates, I consider two important factors: Competence and Character.

It was obvious to me in 2016 that Trump was utterly bankrupt in both of those departments. But maybe others didn’t want to believe, and rolled the dice? I can live with that.

But from the moment he took office, it was clear to anyone that was watching that he was a disaster waiting to happen because of a lack of character and incompetence. And in 2020 we all suffered immeasurably as a result. And now, it is so much worse as his brain has turned to malevolent pudding.

So my question goes back to “did you learn anything from the experience of Trump that changed how you evaluate presidential candidates in the future? Are policy questions in a president less important than their character or their competence to you now?”

Or are you prepared to do it all again in the name of policies you support, as long as they aren’t quite as insane as this?

Also, given that you are unlikely to be an expert on many/most of the policies you support, do you ever wonder about whether or not you are simply wrong about them, and thus should be more open to alternatives?

It definitely will make me pay closer attention to several things:

- Does this person crave power at all costs? Or at least do they show signs that they do, and in a greater way than typical politicians. If they do? Avoid.
- Does this person hold the rule of law in high regard? If they don't. Avoid
- Is this person capable of being a Statesman? Reagan (my all-time favorite) was the consummate Statesman. He made friends even with his congressional foes (the famous surprise party thrown by Tip O'Neil for example).

I cringe when people (or Trump himself) tries to compare himself to Reagan. Hell, I cringed when people did that prior to 2020. He's no Reagan and never has been.

[RunningMn9]

We might even be able to simplify the questions.

Is this candidate trying to do what they believe is right for the country? Is this candidate earnest in what they believe? Do they believe in making a better version of America?

I don’t for a second believe that Trump is trying to do what he believes is right for the country. He is only capable of doing what he believes is right for himself. I don’t believe he’s earnest in anything. He’s the most disinterested human being I’ve ever seen. And his vision of America is a nightmare.

Contrast that with GWB. On all counts, I would answer the opposite way. I could live on GWB’s America. I could live in John Kerry’s America. Or Obama’s. Or McCain’s. Or Romney’s. Or Clinton’s. Or Biden’s. Or Harris’s.

All of those candidates present such a stark contrast to this uniquely unqualified puddin’ head.

My hope is that should such a moment arise in the future where again we are faced with this kind of autocratic threat, that they aren’t thinking about policies.

[Holman]

We might even be able to simplify the questions.

Is this candidate trying to do what they believe is right for the country? Is this candidate earnest in what they believe? Do they believe in making a better version of America?

I don’t for a second believe that Trump is trying to do what he believes is right for the country. He is only capable of doing what he believes is right for himself. I don’t believe he’s earnest in anything. He’s the most disinterested human being I’ve ever seen. And his vision of America is a nightmare.

Contrast that with GWB. On all counts, I would answer the opposite way. I could live on GWB’s America. I could live in John Kerry’s America. Or Obama’s. Or McCain’s. Or Romney’s. Or Clinton’s. Or Biden’s. Or Harris’s.

All of those candidates present such a stark contrast to this uniquely unqualified puddin’ head.

My hope is that should such a moment arise in the future where again we are faced with this kind of autocratic threat, that they aren’t thinking about policies.

I would add the caveat that, very often, a person is dead wrong about what is right for the country. Sincerity isn't enough.

[Unagi]

Oh, but if they are sincere - they (in theory) would be open to understanding why their idea is 'wrong' and adjust it accordingly.

[msduncan]

We might even be able to simplify the questions.

Is this candidate trying to do what they believe is right for the country? Is this candidate earnest in what they believe? Do they believe in making a better version of America?

I don’t for a second believe that Trump is trying to do what he believes is right for the country. He is only capable of doing what he believes is right for himself. I don’t believe he’s earnest in anything. He’s the most disinterested human being I’ve ever seen. And his vision of America is a nightmare.

Contrast that with GWB. On all counts, I would answer the opposite way. I could live on GWB’s America. I could live in John Kerry’s America. Or Obama’s. Or McCain’s. Or Romney’s. Or Clinton’s. Or Biden’s. Or Harris’s.

All of those candidates present such a stark contrast to this uniquely unqualified puddin’ head.

My hope is that should such a moment arise in the future where again we are faced with this kind of autocratic threat, that they aren’t thinking about policies.

I would add the caveat that, very often, a person is dead wrong about what is right for the country. Sincerity isn't enough.

I think what RM9 was getting as was: he might have disagreed with some or many of the things GWB (for example) did, but his winning wasn't a clear and present danger to the country. It was just having to tolerate policies he didn't like, and also (very important) he knew that the President respected the balance of power between the three branches of government and wouldn't try to subvert it. So, if one of the President's policies violated the Constitution, they'd accept the ruling as an example. We have no such hope with Trump.

Bonus: any of the names he listed wouldn't use an app to plan a military action and mistakenly invite random people to it.

[RunningMn9]

I’m not talking about a preferred candidate. I’m talking about the base acceptability of the candidate. And I’m talking most importantly about what should disqualify candidates.

For example, Mitt Romney and John McCain would have supported and done things that I don’t agree with them that they are best for the country. But the fact that I disagree with them doesn’t mean a whole lot. I’m not any more qualified to judge that than they are.

But I would vote for either of them in a heartbeat if the alternative was some chimera of Trump that professed 100% agreement with me about policy issues.

Which is why I asked whether MSD ever truly contemplates that he might be wildly wrong about one or more policies that he believes in. Basing my vote on policy alignment - given my lack of expertise on most policies….just doesn’t seem like a great strategy.

[Holman]

Oh, but if they are sincere - they (in theory) would be open to understanding why their idea is 'wrong' and adjust it accordingly.

I don't think that's how this works.

We've just given GWB and Mitt Romney as examples of politicians who were sincere in their desire to do right for America. In my view, many of their policy views were dead wrong about that. Is there any world in which they could have been persuaded to adopt strongly different views? I voted for their opponents precisely because of their views.

Conservatives can try the same exercise with Obama or Biden or even FDR.

Ideology and political commitments might matter more than simple sincerity.

[RunningMn9]

I think what RM9 was getting as was: he might have disagreed with some or many of the things GWB (for example) did, but his winning wasn't a clear and present danger to the country. It was just having to tolerate policies he didn't like, and also (very important) he knew that the President respected the balance of power between the three branches of government and wouldn't try to subvert it. So, if one of the President's policies violated the Constitution, they'd accept the ruling as an example. We have no such hope with Trump.

That’s pretty close to what I’m saying, with one tweak. It’s not just that I would have to tolerate policies I don’t like, it’s that I also might be wrong about those policies (they might be better or worse than I believe).

But fundamentally the system works because the person holding the office is on the normal spectrum of political behavior.

What just happened with the leak is a good example. Had I spilled that kind of classified information into the wild like that - with such reckless disregard for OpSec, I would have been terminated and in custody by the end of the day.

When asked about it hours later, Trump had no idea what anyone was talking about, and didn’t care in the slightest once informed.

And that isn’t in any way surprising. Which is why I’m hoping that MSD will never focus on policies again unless we are comparing “normal” candidates. Which might take a while as the left starts to eat their own and radicalize in response to this insanity.

[RunningMn9]

And in any other Administration, everyone in that chat would be on the ropes for resignation. In this case, literally nothing will happen.

[Blackhawk]

It’s not just that I would have to tolerate policies I don’t like, it’s that I also might be wrong about those policies (they might be better or worse than I believe).

That is beautiful. You have my vote.

[msduncan]

Which is why I’m hoping that MSD will never focus on policies again unless we are comparing “normal” candidates. Which might take a while as the left starts to eat their own and radicalize in response to this insanity.

Stated like that, I can answer this way:

- Given two normal candidates with normal amounts of political baggage: I'll go with policies
- Given one candidate that isn't normal (like Trump) vs a normal candidate, I'll go with integrity(normal), as I did this time.

As for examining my positions on policies, I'll give a couple examples:

- I do think the incredible amount of government waste that occurs in these departments should be cleaned up. I do NOT support how Elon Trump or Donald Musk is doing it, the methods they are using, the crash teams with no clearance being involved -- basically the entire business. So my position that it should be cleaned up hasn't changed, but I certainly would just keep it status quo rather than have someone do what they are doing.
- I think immigration has been a mess for a long time. I still fundamentally think that we shouldn't be an open door -- NOBODY else in the world is. However once again - this administration has just gone bonkers with it, illegally, immorally, etc. So I'd just keep it status quo rather than to go about it like they have been.

[Unagi]

Oh, but if they are sincere - they (in theory) would be open to understanding why their idea is 'wrong' and adjust it accordingly.

I don't think that's how this works.

We've just given GWB and Mitt Romney as examples of politicians who were sincere in their desire to do right for America. In my view, many of their policy views were dead wrong about that. Is there any world in which they could have been persuaded to adopt strongly different views? I voted for their opponents precisely because of their views.

Conservatives can try the same exercise with Obama or Biden or even FDR.

Ideology and political commitments might matter more than simple sincerity.

I hear ya, and I get it.
But that is policy stuff, right - we are talking about things like blackmailing Ukraine.

[RunningMn9]

I do think the incredible amount of government waste that occurs in these departments should be cleaned up. I do NOT support how Elon Trump or Donald Musk is doing it, the methods they are using, the crash teams with no clearance being involved -- basically the entire business. So my position that it should be cleaned up hasn't changed, but I certainly would just keep it status quo rather than have someone do what they are doing.

Excellent news on updating the selection protocol, and I can agree with that. In a battle of normal candidates, policy is a useful discriminator. In a battle of a normie against a clusterF like this, we go normie, in a battle of two clusterF’s, that’s probably game over anyway.

But I want to ask about this policy example, since I know more about this than the other.

Talk to me about this “incredible amount of government waste”. How are we defining waste? How do we quantify what amount qualifies as “incredible”?

Is there government waste? Absolutely. I see it every day. But I also know that a large percentage of people have had anti-government spending propaganda fire-hosed into their faces for decades, and ultimately believe a lot of wrong things about government spending.

I know people talk about $1200 hammers (which are generally an exaggeration, and ignore the context of WHY government procurement “seems” so crazy).

I know people think that federal employees don’t do anything (some don’t, most do).

I also know that most government spending falls into one of three buckets:
1) Money to old people in the form of Social Security.
2) Money to people that take care of old people (or people who need help) via Medicare/Medicaid.
3) Money to blow shit up via the DoD.

The rest is effectively noise.

So when I hear someone that believes there is an incredible amount of waste in the government, I have a lot of questions. I think it’s important to make sure it is clear that virtually everyone is against government waste and fraud.

What I’ve found is that waste is usually defined as “things I don’t think the government should spend money on”. But that’s not “waste”, that’s just a policy difference.

And when we get to the end of figuring out what you mean by waste and fraud, then we can talk about the impact of cleaning it up, and how damaging that can be (especially if you are right about the scale!).

We won’t waste time on how these idiots are going about it since we already agree that it’s stupid. I’m just curious to explore your belief about this policy if you are into it.

[Max Peck]

Trump signs order seeking to overhaul US elections, including requiring proof of citizenship

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a sweeping executive action to overhaul elections in the U.S., including requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and demanding that all ballots be received by Election Day.

The order says the U.S. has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protections” and calls on states to work with federal agencies to share voter lists and prosecute election crimes. It threatens to pull federal funding from states where election officials don’t comply.

The move, which is likely to face swift challenges because states have broad authority to set their own election rules, is consistent with Trump’s long history of railing against election processes. He often claims elections are being rigged, even before the results are known, and has waged battles against certain voting methods since he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden and falsely blamed it on widespread fraud.

Trump has focused particularly on mail voting, arguing without evidence that it’s insecure and invites fraud even as he has shifted his position on the issue given its popularity with voters, including Republicans. While fraud occurs, it’s rare, limited in scope and gets prosecuted.

Voting rights groups have expressed concerns that the requirement could disenfranchise people. An estimated 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, do not have proof of citizenship readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice and other groups.

There are also concerns that married women who have changed their names will encounter trouble when trying to register because their birth certificates list their maiden names. Such hiccups happened in recent town elections in New Hampshire, which has a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.