One of the responses to last week’s blog from someone I don’t know said in part, “…despite his idiosyncrasies Trump gets results (reduce regulations, job growth, stock market jumped out of slow growth, etc).”
That simple statement revealed so much of what is wrong with our country today.
First was his calling Donald Trump’s words and behavior “idiosyncrasies.” The word means “a peculiarity of constitution or temperament or an individualizing characteristic or quality.”
Based on that definition, in spite of the irrefutable fact that since taking office Donald Trump has told one lie after another, this supporter sees basic dishonesty as an “idiosyncrasy,” as “a peculiarity of temperament.”
Think about that for a moment.
Also, since taking office Trump continues to call people names (calling Comey a “slimeball” is the latest example) the way children do, but once again this supporter sees that as an “idiosyncrasy.”
I could go on, but the point is clear. Apparently Trump being “untethered from the truth,” as James Comey put it so well, and demeaning his office by calling people names, the writer believes his flawed moral character is merely an “idiosyncrasy.”
No wonder our country is in trouble.
But what about the respondent’s assertion that Trump “gets results.” One example he cited was “reducing regulations.”
What regulation do you suppose he was talking about?
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has regulations to keep workers safe. The Food and Drug Administration has regulations to ensure food is safe to eat. The Environmental Protection Agency has regulations to protect the environment in hundreds of way.
Which ones of these does the writer like Trump cutting?
Perhaps the most well known are the ones EPA director Scott Pruitt has relaxed, such as allowing coal companies to dump coal sludge into nearby creeks, allowing fossil fuel companies to jettison plans to curtail leaks of methane and greenhouse gases, or reverseing the ban on the use of a pesticide the EPA deemed dangerous to children’s health?
How does someone see these actions as good for the country?
What about “job growth” the respondent says Trump has accomplished?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last quarter of 2017 163,000 additional jobs were added per month, and for all of 2017 job growth averaged 171,000 monthly.
Those are good numbers, exceeded by even better ones during the last four years of the Obama administration when job growth averaged 174,000 per month and hit an all time high of 250,000 per month in 2014.
I’m wondering where this writer was the last few years. Did he notice job growth under Obama? Does he actually know what the job growth has been under Trump?
How about the stock market? The market gained some 23% in Trump’s first year, a very good growth.
Of course, in Obama’s first year after near economic catastrophe the market gained 41%. This year (2018) the market has leveled off and also experienced some of its most dramatic losses in years.
So, again, I am wondering what information the writer and Trump supporters like him are seeing or hearing.
I don’t know the answer, but what I do know is that cutting Trump slack for being a fundamentally flawed man charaterologically based on the claim that he gets results is not supported by facts.
The same thing was true in regard to a comment by another respondent who agreed with Trump that the FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s office was a violation of attorney client privilege.
Apparently he doesn’t know that under U.S. law there is what is called “the crime-fraud” exception to client privilege which states that “a client’s communication to his or her attorney isn’t privileged if it is made with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud.”
As I have thought about these responses, and many others like them, I am forced to wonder if Trump supporters ever bother to take the time to find out the facts about any subject they sound off about.
And that is my real point here.
To make a credible argument about anything, you have to do more than and better than just saying something, more than and better than talking in generalities without specifics, more than and better than making unsubstantiated claims.
An argument that deserves to be taken seriously is one where the person making it takes the time to find supporting evidence for it.
At this point Trump supporters have shown no inclination to do that. Perhaps the reason is that they are afraid they will discover that there is no support for what they believe or say?
Whatever the reason, their willingness to believe things without taking the time to check them out or do a little research to see if there is any evidence to support what they believe is doing great harm to our country.
Of course, what I say will fall on deaf ears if they happen to read this blog, but I am not writing to them.
I am writing about them to the rest of us to encourage us to speak about things we know because they are true.
That means we continue to research what we think and believe before we speak about it publicly.
That is how we can maintain our credibility and also serve in the army of unsung heroes who are rendering real patriotic service to our nation.
Not to mention the attack on the Consumer Protection Agency which has collected billions of dollars from companies defrauding citizens, including many Trump apologists I imagine. Little by little the corruption and incompetence that surrounds the administration is being revealed and the house of cards is starting to collapse.
Every point of information like what you noted, Wilbur, has to be made public. The truth seems weak at the moment in the face of propaganda, but in the end it will prevail and Trump will be defeated along with all those who support him. If I did not believe that I would have no hope for our country.
Yes indeed. I certainly agree.
“What regulations?” you ask. Mostly the ones requiring PAPERWORK that businesses (esp. small businesses) have complained about. They have complained about the time out of their days that require them to document way more items than they have hours in the day to do. Cameras are everywhere to document what’s going on. Keep water, air clean, yes! Modern technology can tell you “who dunnit” if there are infractions to the rules. It’s the paperwork to document such things that is the complaint. So save your receipts for doing your part to clean air and water so that you don’t go to jail for making an environmental mess, but you don’t have to send in paperwork that took you 2 hours to fill out and have signed by 3 people. The rules can still be in place and enforced against guilty parties. Also one I noted: dying people can now have access to experimental drugs that may/may not save their lives. Under previous regulations, extremely seriously ill would have to try out drugs from other countries if they wanted. Their chances may be slim, but they can hope.
Another point: some people start their day with prayer and meditation. President Trump starts his day with tweets, some rather nasty, and we all know it. I call those things, that time of day, his “B—S— time.” We all know a few people at some time in our lives, maybe many people along the way, who are the same kind of people. A college faculty member was quite adept at it and would get a cup of coffee and listen for a moment to the conversation at the table. Then he’d sit down and put in his two cents worth. Sometimes with drama attached. Most would roll their eyes and say, “Oh, Delbert, we are not going to go there!” And he would attempt to continue. There are worse people than that, I’m sure, who tell tall tales in bars. One learns not to take that part of their lives too seriously. The thing we do take seriously is the work performance they do in society: That man was an excellent story-teller and could make his logical points in a very effective way; beloved by students for in-class teaching. So, regardless of his “ideosyncracies,” he is “saved” !! :o)
There are facts and then there are opposite facts. Depends on where you go to get facts. Or how much background is included in the questioning for facts. I get “opinion research questions” that leave out an option that I would have stated, and I didn’t get MY opinion accurately stated–no choice but their choice of options. Same with a variety of economic, biological, historical “facts” — it all depends on WHAT is included in the gathering of information, and then what conclusions the writer comes to based on (a possibly) flawed set of information. Your point about “facts” is well taken, but it’s the background of those facts that needs looking at, compared with other studies of a similar nature.
Blessings to you — have a nice day.
You took the time to respond. I want to show the same seriousness with which I take what you wrote.
Your response does not clarify for me the impact Trump de-regulation efforts are having. If paperwork were the real issue, reasonable people can find ways to reduce that. But don’t assume all paperwork is unnecessary. When issues become legal, paperwork thought to be a waste of time suddenly becomes crucial to prove innocence or guilt. Re experimental drugs, no such drugs are available without FDA approval, and any foreign drugs not so approved are illegal in this country. Further, Trump has done nothing in this area. The FDA started trying to get new drugs to market faster under Obama. What is more, it is generally known that the biggest problem with the availability of drugs and their costs lies with the pharmaceutical industry, not the FDA. Trump has shown no interest in confronting big pharm’s monopoly on drugs nor have Republicans who approved W. Bush’s Medicare Part D that forbid the government from negotiating drug prices.
In regard to your explanation for calling Trump’s moral failures idiosyncracies or B.S. misses the point. Trump is not a faculty member somewhere. He is the President of the United States. Calling James Comey a “slimeball” or saying he should be locked up has far more significance and impact than if you or I said it. Trump demeans his office and disregards the fact that when he speaks he is supposed to represent the country, not just himself. If he doesn’t want to do that, he should resign.
Your argument about facts is a de facto argument for there being no facts. Any source that leaves out information to make its point look better, as Fix News does all the time, is propaganda, not news. Yes, sources matter, and numerous journals and the mainstream media have a very good track record of presenting the facts as best they know them, admitting when they don’t know all of them, and also admitting it when they get something wrong. Again, Fix News doesn’t do that. It presents propaganda as if it is news. Its slogan. “Fair and Balanced” tells all you need to know about them. Responsible reporting is not about being fair and balanced, it is about seeking the truth. Fair and balanced has nothing to do with it.
Thank you for your comments.
A point here; a point there. Receipts for air filters in manufacturing smokestacks should be sufficient paperwork, but I have the “impression” that government regulations require much more. I would think that a drone flying overhead could give you an air sample that would suffice for air quality emitted, and the plant responsible for it. No extra paperwork. This is what I meant by “cutting regulations”–paperwork, which I heard to be the big complaint.
FDA is being asked to NOT require final drug approval for already dying persons, which it always has required approval. People can’t wait for “final approval” if they are on their way to their next life. Let them have whatever is in testing stages, that’s what I heard President Trump to say. I have known two people who did get into “experimental” drug trials at their last stages. Not all persons get into trials. Let them.
I’m sure that there are plenty of items President Trump still has on his “To Do” list and just hasn’t gotten there yet: pharmacy/drug costs are among those things. Busy with N. Korea, Syria, and such right now.
I totally agree that our President should present a more dignified attitude in his verbals to the people of the United States and to the world. He has been shocking everyone for quite some time, and it doesn’t do him much good in the long run. The only person anyone can change is ones self, so the world is learning to cross their eyes and hang on–it’s a wild ride.
I know that behind the scenes of all television stations are Research Teams who are on their computers googling topics; the talk commentators mention “research teams” occasionally; those unseen researchers pass along information to the on-camera people ahead of time who plan their Segments With Interviewees. I have a BACK button on my tv remote, and I use it liberally to catch (1) what makes the news on two channels in particular, and (2) also on what each one is reporting about one same issue. Very interesting hobby to find out what each thinks is “news” (or not) and also how that news is presented; i.e. how commentators and interviewees spin it. Both channels. Because I am liberally minded to LOOK BOOTH WAYS before I cross the street.
Thank you for your courteous reply. It has been enlightening to have dialogue.