POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

[unofan]

I have been honest. Let me repeat what I've said before:
1. Trump needs to be impeached/removed from office.
2. I lean to the right, fiscally, in general.
3. I lean to the left on social issues, in general.

Just because I don't condemn Trump every chance there is, doesn't mean I'm defending him. Otherwise the opposite would be true, also. If I'm not defending him, does that mean I'm condemning him? No.

The interplay between 2 and 3 is what ultimately matters. I know few if any people who say "let's let the government spend unlimited funds without issue." Likewise, I know very few if any people who will say "it's ok to let the poor die in the streets."

But if you care more about 2 than 3, you're probably a Republican. If you care more about 3 than 2, you're more likely to be a Democrat. Because you can't be socially liberal if you aren't willing to provide funding to ensure those policies actually have force and effect. And if you're willing to provide funding, you're not strictly fiscally conservative, at least by the modern definition.

[unofan]

But that isnt exactly the point is it?

Lets be honest, whether you like her or not she had zero choice in the matter. Now maybe she could use her position to better the world but she is under no obligation to do so. And she cant divorce him either...not while he is POTUS.

My gf and I argue about this a lot because she hates Melania and everything she stands for. I agree with her, but think that just because she is a gold digger and no desire to be a good role model doesnt disqualify her from being FLOTUS and doesnt make it ok to attack her in the way many do. It wasnt right to do that to Michelle or Laura or Hillary and it isnt here.

Why couldn't she divorce him? Because it'd be improper for a sitting FLOTUS? If she didn't choose to do it, then who cares?

And if they didn't talk about it before he ran, that says more about their marriage than anything else.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

The interplay between 2 and 3 is what ultimately matters. I know few if any people who say "let's let the government spend unlimited funds without issue." Likewise, I know very few if any people who will say "it's ok to let the poor die in the streets."

But if you care more about 2 than 3, you're probably a Republican. If you care more about 3 than 2, you're more likely to be a Democrat. Because you can't be socially liberal if you aren't willing to provide funding to ensure those policies actually have force and effect. And if you're willing to provide funding, you're not strictly fiscally conservative, at least by the modern definition.

I think you understand now. I never claimed to be "strictly" fiscally conservative, including in the post I made and you quoted.

[unofan]

I think you understand now. I never claimed to be "strictly" fiscally conservative, including in the post I made and you quoted.

But you said you lean that way. So the question is which way do you lean more when push comes to shove, towards 3 or towards 2.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

I don't think the GOP is fiscally conservative, and hasn't been for a long time.

They hate paying to help the needy, and talk up less taxes, but they have no problem debt spending on things they want.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Wow.

Truth hurts. That's exactly what the GOP did this time and they win. And remember, when history is written the winners write it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

But that isnt exactly the point is it?

Lets be honest, whether you like her or not she had zero choice in the matter. Now maybe she could use her position to better the world but she is under no obligation to do so. And she cant divorce him either...not while he is POTUS.

My gf and I argue about this a lot because she hates Melania and everything she stands for. I agree with her, but think that just because she is a gold digger and no desire to be a good role model doesnt disqualify her from being FLOTUS and doesnt make it ok to attack her in the way many do. It wasnt right to do that to Michelle or Laura or Hillary and it isnt here.

Her having zero choice is not my problem. Mrs. Obama had a choice in the matter. So did both Mrs. Bush and Hillary Clinton. Just because she married an ape who gives her NO SAY in her life choices is irrelevant. That was her decision.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

But you said you lean that way. So the question is which way do you lean more when push comes to shove, towards 3 or towards 2.

It's too complicated to choose either/or. Depends on the issue, or the fiscal program/subject, current needs of society/country, all that. Also, sometimes one has nothing to do with the other. For example, the LGBT issues of late. There's nothing fiscal about that, really, and on that issue, I definitely lean to the left.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Looks like Franken and Klobuchar have discussed it (I'm reading between the lines) and Klobuchar is the one that's going to run.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...020/424089483/

Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is definitely not running for president in 2020.

“I got way, way, way too much to do right now to even think about that, other than to say, ‘No, I’m not going to do that,’” Franken told People Magazine in a story published Wednesday.

Minnesota’s other U.S. senator, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, has also been in the 2020 presidential mix. Unlike Franken, she has not categorically ruled out running.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

FLOTUS is a ceremonial role. Point to where it is codified in any document. Where it says "these are the roles and responsibilities.". You can't because there isn't one. It doesn't exist. Providing an office and staff (which is in charge of White House social events among other things) doesn't set up any sort of obligation to live in the White House or do any specific thing at all. We know this in part because Hilary lived in New York for the last year of Bill's term. I remember well how upsetting that was to Democrats then too.

If the first lady doesn't have roles and responsibilities, why should the taxpayers be paying for her office and staff? What does she need a staff for, anyway?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

But that isnt exactly the point is it?

Lets be honest, whether you like her or not she had zero choice in the matter. Now maybe she could use her position to better the world but she is under no obligation to do so. And she cant divorce him either...not while he is POTUS.

My gf and I argue about this a lot because she hates Melania and everything she stands for. I agree with her, but think that just because she is a gold digger and no desire to be a good role model doesnt disqualify her from being FLOTUS and doesnt make it ok to attack her in the way many do. It wasnt right to do that to Michelle or Laura or Hillary and it isnt here.

I think I'm with Handy on this. It's a complex issue. But what I think it all boils down to is "What does Melania want?" If she doesn't want to take the role of a traditional FLOTUS but still wants to be married to Trump - for whatever reason, judgment aside - then we should respect that. It's her decision. Now, that doesn't mean she can't be compared to previous FLOTUSs, but attacking her because she doesn't want it seems a bit off to me.

Part of it is because we've had a string of extremely strong FLOTUSs: Michelle, Laura, Hillary, Barbara. Each had at least one cause they were passionate about.

Now, I'm not saying we can't comment on her or her marriage. We just have to be careful how we go about it.

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

If the first lady doesn't have roles and responsibilities, why should the taxpayers be paying for her office and staff? What does she need a staff for, anyway?

Might want to run for President someday.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

The interplay between 2 and 3 is what ultimately matters. I know few if any people who say "let's let the government spend unlimited funds without issue." Likewise, I know very few if any people who will say "it's ok to let the poor die in the streets."

But if you care more about 2 than 3, you're probably a Republican. If you care more about 3 than 2, you're more likely to be a Democrat. Because you can't be socially liberal if you aren't willing to provide funding to ensure those policies actually have force and effect. And if you're willing to provide funding, you're not strictly fiscally conservative, at least by the modern definition.

Nailed it. It was someone on this site that brought that up when I said it a couple years back. Maybe even before 2012. It totally shook my worldview and eventually changed how I voted. In 2012 I don't think I voted for more than one Republican on the ballot. In 2004 and 2008 I'll bet it was closer to 50:50.

I realized I couldn't reconcile 2 with 3. I felt much stronger about 3, so I started voting that way. Ultimately, I started becoming an advocate for issues like women's rights by joining the women's leadership forum at work, I also took a leadership position for my division's volunteering organization and became more active in not just participating in but also organizing the volunteering opportunities, donating to various causes, etc.

2 and 3 are conflicting positions. Once a person realizes that, they'll find their true self.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

It's too complicated to choose either/or. Depends on the issue, or the fiscal program/subject, current needs of society/country, all that. Also, sometimes one has nothing to do with the other. For example, the LGBT issues of late. There's nothing fiscal about that, really, and on that issue, I definitely lean to the left.

But it's not. On nearly all issues, 2 conflicts with 3. The simplicity lies within the complexity.

If you identify as LGBT, you are significantly more likely to suffer from substance abuse, depression, and anxiety. You're also significantly more likely to be homeless. How can you be fiscally conservative and cut programs that address these issues and still call yourself progressive on LGBT issues?

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Why couldn't she divorce him? Because it'd be improper for a sitting FLOTUS? If she didn't choose to do it, then who cares?

And if they didn't talk about it before he ran, that says more about their marriage than anything else.

Well they have a pre-nup anyways...and if Hillary didnt divorce Bill and Jackie didnt divorce John no FLOTUS will ever do it. It just wont happen. And you know it...