Well, I found this Persuasive. It persuaded me that Trump is no more a special danger to the country than any other president. Here are the verbs in the list of alarming things that Kevin Carroll warns us Trump did in his first administration:
"Requested" USS McCain name be covered up.
"Demanded" a North Korean style military parade (but it didn't happen).
"Benefited" from military unethically spending money (ugly if true, but I seriously doubt that being president has increased Trump's wealth. In any case I'm open to being wrong.)
"Voiced disdain"
"Allegedly retaliated"
"tweeted military secrets" (except that when you follow the link to an NPR.org site there isn't a single sentence to indicate what was secret or sensitive about the photograph, just that it was classified. It was later declassified. There were no secrets there. Carroll's representation is misleading and inflammatory.)
"absconded… with classified documents" - as have a significant number of other government officials, except we usually use less breathless terms to describe the error.
"discussed"
"was fixated on"
"sought to invoke"
Do these sound like the doings of a dangerous autocrat who we should imprison rather than allow the misinformed voters to re-elect? If you are like most of us, who see in Trump a vain, attention-seeking, but competent citizen leader with a pretty good track record, then the answer is likely to be "Nah." I am glad for Kevin Carroll's article. If this is all we have to be worried about then I may vote for Trump next time after all.
The article reads like the usual crap available everywhere. Whatever questionable things Trump has done have to be balanced against the appalling MSM-security state-social media collaboration to undermine democracy.
"It persuaded me that Trump is no more a special danger to the country than any other president."
Which other president attempted to subvert the results of an election in a serious way? There is plenty of evidence that he represents a greater danger to the country than any other president has. That certainly doesn't mean other presidents haven't endangered the country in extreme ways (JFK playing nuclear chicken with the Soviet Union, for example), but never was it for such selfish reasons.
"as have a significant number of other government officials, except we usually use less breathless terms to describe the error"
The others who took classified documents gave them back after those documents were requested. Trump did not. He is a president who flouts law and order. Maybe you're a person who believes "the system" is so corrupt that it's no big deal; I believe the creeping "no big deal" is the reason why the system has gotten so corrupt. I have no problem with Clinton being prosecuted for her email server (she should have been). Let's not compound that mistake just because "well, THEY didn't get prosecuted...."
The true "danger" that Trump represents to the country isn't what he will do to damage it; it's that he is a massively and deliberately polarizing figure. He's a big middle finger from one side of the culture wars to the other who manages to mouth some of the policies that his side likes (on immigration particularly, even though his record on immigration is embarrassing -- ask people like Ann Coulter what they think). The reaction of Democrats to Donald Trump is the biggest threat to this country.
I liked this, even though I massively disagree with the last paragraph. I agree that Trump's divisiveness alone is a huge issue, but the threat that he represents to the stability of the world order cannot be overlooked. The reaction of "Democrats" to Donald Trump is not the problem; it's entirely justified.
Breathless hyperbole and fiction writing. The military loves Trump. It is the career politicians, bureaucrats and Democrat operatives in the Defense department that have TDS. These are people that skim money from the war industry.
I'm not sure who this piece is trying to persuade. The people nodding along with it were never voting for Trump anyway. The people who vote for Trump either consider these features, not defects, or trust Democrats so little that they prefer Trump the unmitigated asshole and mildly corrupt figure to the absolute insanity / contempt for conservatives they perceive Democrats hold.
But I guess it gathers in one place all the military risks that would accrue to a second Trump presidency, as told by and to people who would never vote for Trump.
My worry, personally, is less that Trump will precipitate a corrosion of liberal democratic values; it's more that he will precipitate a reaction from his enemies that will dramatically and disproportionately increase that corrosion.
A longer term solution to the threat posed by an autocratic president is to elect a Congress that functions as a co-equal branch of government rather than an extension of the executive branch. Of course that would require electing men and women of good character to the House and Senate rather than men and woman who are caricatures of senators and congress people.
Unbalanced, TDS rhetoric, opinion only, no facts, no reasoned analysis, only biased partisan supositions and innuendo. Yasha, this is unlike you to invite such a bigot to write such an article on your substack. Hope this doesn't happen too often. 😒
Well, I found this Persuasive. It persuaded me that Trump is no more a special danger to the country than any other president. Here are the verbs in the list of alarming things that Kevin Carroll warns us Trump did in his first administration:
"Requested" USS McCain name be covered up.
"Demanded" a North Korean style military parade (but it didn't happen).
"Benefited" from military unethically spending money (ugly if true, but I seriously doubt that being president has increased Trump's wealth. In any case I'm open to being wrong.)
"Voiced disdain"
"Allegedly retaliated"
"tweeted military secrets" (except that when you follow the link to an NPR.org site there isn't a single sentence to indicate what was secret or sensitive about the photograph, just that it was classified. It was later declassified. There were no secrets there. Carroll's representation is misleading and inflammatory.)
"absconded… with classified documents" - as have a significant number of other government officials, except we usually use less breathless terms to describe the error.
"discussed"
"was fixated on"
"sought to invoke"
Do these sound like the doings of a dangerous autocrat who we should imprison rather than allow the misinformed voters to re-elect? If you are like most of us, who see in Trump a vain, attention-seeking, but competent citizen leader with a pretty good track record, then the answer is likely to be "Nah." I am glad for Kevin Carroll's article. If this is all we have to be worried about then I may vote for Trump next time after all.
The article reads like the usual crap available everywhere. Whatever questionable things Trump has done have to be balanced against the appalling MSM-security state-social media collaboration to undermine democracy.
"It persuaded me that Trump is no more a special danger to the country than any other president."
Which other president attempted to subvert the results of an election in a serious way? There is plenty of evidence that he represents a greater danger to the country than any other president has. That certainly doesn't mean other presidents haven't endangered the country in extreme ways (JFK playing nuclear chicken with the Soviet Union, for example), but never was it for such selfish reasons.
"as have a significant number of other government officials, except we usually use less breathless terms to describe the error"
The others who took classified documents gave them back after those documents were requested. Trump did not. He is a president who flouts law and order. Maybe you're a person who believes "the system" is so corrupt that it's no big deal; I believe the creeping "no big deal" is the reason why the system has gotten so corrupt. I have no problem with Clinton being prosecuted for her email server (she should have been). Let's not compound that mistake just because "well, THEY didn't get prosecuted...."
The true "danger" that Trump represents to the country isn't what he will do to damage it; it's that he is a massively and deliberately polarizing figure. He's a big middle finger from one side of the culture wars to the other who manages to mouth some of the policies that his side likes (on immigration particularly, even though his record on immigration is embarrassing -- ask people like Ann Coulter what they think). The reaction of Democrats to Donald Trump is the biggest threat to this country.
I liked this, even though I massively disagree with the last paragraph. I agree that Trump's divisiveness alone is a huge issue, but the threat that he represents to the stability of the world order cannot be overlooked. The reaction of "Democrats" to Donald Trump is not the problem; it's entirely justified.
Breathless hyperbole and fiction writing. The military loves Trump. It is the career politicians, bureaucrats and Democrat operatives in the Defense department that have TDS. These are people that skim money from the war industry.
I'm not sure who this piece is trying to persuade. The people nodding along with it were never voting for Trump anyway. The people who vote for Trump either consider these features, not defects, or trust Democrats so little that they prefer Trump the unmitigated asshole and mildly corrupt figure to the absolute insanity / contempt for conservatives they perceive Democrats hold.
But I guess it gathers in one place all the military risks that would accrue to a second Trump presidency, as told by and to people who would never vote for Trump.
My worry, personally, is less that Trump will precipitate a corrosion of liberal democratic values; it's more that he will precipitate a reaction from his enemies that will dramatically and disproportionately increase that corrosion.
A longer term solution to the threat posed by an autocratic president is to elect a Congress that functions as a co-equal branch of government rather than an extension of the executive branch. Of course that would require electing men and women of good character to the House and Senate rather than men and woman who are caricatures of senators and congress people.
Unbalanced, TDS rhetoric, opinion only, no facts, no reasoned analysis, only biased partisan supositions and innuendo. Yasha, this is unlike you to invite such a bigot to write such an article on your substack. Hope this doesn't happen too often. 😒
Interesting, isn't it, that some of Trump's most vehement critics worked for him?