Malware that is linked to the Russian Election hacks has now turned up on a laptop at a Vermont utility company that is responsible for running a power grid. It's going to be nice when, in some alternate reality many, many years from now, people start taking the things liberals say seriously.
Viruses targeting utilities have caused massive damage. If you hadn't heard of it stuxnet was an offensive malware that targeted power plants in Iran disabled their uranium enrichment plant centrifuges.
Stuxnet was a malicious computer worm believed to be a jointly built American-Israeli cyberweapon, although no organization or state has officially admitted responsibility. Anonymous US officials speaking to The Washington Post claimed the worm was developed during the Bush administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program with what would seem like a long series of unfortunate accidents.
Donald Trump, in making a simple New Year's pronouncement, declares everyone who voted against him his "enemies". Maybe those straddling the fence, trying to stay neutral, saying things are going to be fine will wake up one day. The problem is, that realization won't come til it's far too late. This is not ok, this is unhinged. Maybe not even because he sent it. It's because (based on the time-stamp) the President-Elect of the United States was up all night simmering in rage against the people who voted against him. I mean how the hell can you not manage to make a simple New Year's tweet without slipping into fascist rhetoric??? How damn difficult is it to simply say "I wish all the American people a very happy New Year"??? Imagine a 5-year old child who likes to torture animals, has a persecution complex and a tendency towards vengeance and retaliation. That's who is going to be President.
Donald Trump, in making a simple New Year's pronouncement, declares everyone who voted against him his "enemies".
He actually didn't. He said his enemies AND those who had fought him et cetera, thus placing them in two different groups (even if you assume "people who voted for Clinton/Johnston/Stein" are who he means by the latter category, which I doubt).
If you're going to take Trump's tweets seriously, you should read them carefully with the seriousness you think they're due.
It's because (based on the time-stamp) the President-Elect of the United States was up all night simmering in rage against the people who voted against him. I mean how the hell can you not manage to make a simple New Year's tweet without slipping into fascist rhetoric??? How damn difficult is it to simply say "I wish all the American people a very happy New Year"??? Imagine a 5-year old child who likes to torture animals, has a persecution complex and a tendency towards vengeance and retaliation. That's who is going to be President.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think it's Trump that's simmering in rage in this particular situation.
Also, being up at 12:17 a.m. on New Year's Day is not "up all night" by any stretch of the imagination.
(Though, for the record, Trump is known to be a workaholic that sleeps relatively little.)
It's because (based on the time-stamp) the President-Elect of the United States was up all night simmering in rage against the people who voted against him. I mean how the hell can you not manage to make a simple New Year's tweet without slipping into fascist rhetoric??? How damn difficult is it to simply say "I wish all the American people a very happy New Year"??? Imagine a 5-year old child who likes to torture animals, has a persecution complex and a tendency towards vengeance and retaliation. That's who is going to be President.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think it's Trump that's simmering in rage in this particular situation.
(Though, for the record, Trump is known to be a workaholic that sleeps relatively little.)
This constant refrain that we are never supposed to take him seriously is getting really, really old. It comes from Trump supporters every time they want to make excuses for his policies (if I had a nickel for every time someone said "he doesn't mean it literally" I could retire) and also by nearly everyone else who seems to think he is just a harmless buffoon. Again, for what must be at least the half-dozenth time, when is everyone allowed to take him seriously?? Because I keep being told that there is no reason to. I was told the same thing in this VERY forum well over a year ago when I guaranteed he would win the Republican nomination, and was ridiculed for doing so.
And also, for the record, he didn't separate the two AT ALL. If anything he was conflating them FAR more than he was separating them. Also, maybe we should hold the President-Elect of the United States to a higher "rage" standard than someone who is posting on an internet forum. I'm not going to be in charge of nearly every apparatus of government, HE is. I get the luxury of flying off the handle. The President doesn't.
This constant refrain that we are never supposed to take him seriously is getting really, really old.
I didn't say not to take Trump seriously. I said that if you're going to take his tweets seriously (implying, certainly, that I do not), you should read them carefully.
To approach the matter another way, do you really this this tweet was carefully considered, precisely worded, and intended as a serious representation of Trump's beliefs and future intentions? Do you think that is a description that applies to many, or any, of his tweets? I don't. So I don't care that much about what Trump tweets.
And also, for the record, he didn't separate the two AT ALL. If anything he was conflating them FAR more than he was separating them.
I would say "or" does not mean "and", and that nothing in that tweet defined either category in any case. Therefore, stating as a fact that he called the people who voted against him his enemies is not supported by the tweet.
Also, maybe we should hold the President-Elect of the United States to a higher "rage" standard than someone who is posting on an internet forum. I'm not going to be in charge of nearly every apparatus of government, HE is. I get the luxury of flying off the handle. The President doesn't.
But flying off the handle is surely always a thing better avoided, yes? It removes clarity, degrades judgement, leads to hasty overreactions.
As for whether Trump should be held to a higher "rage" standard, ignoring the fact that I consider that tweet a vaguely mean-spirited joke and not angry at all... should he, really? He was elected while, it is fair to say, not holding to the accepted rules of decorum for public figures. It might even be considered a betrayal of the principles he was elected on (much like not launching a pointless prosecution of Hillary Clinton). It just seems odd to have a populist anti-politician get elected and expect them then to talk and behave like an normal elected official.
That's more just a bit of ethical theorycrafting - in reality, Trump can act however he likes and there's precious little anyone can do about it (beyond impeachment, which will require more than indecorous behaviour).
This constant refrain that we are never supposed to take him seriously is getting really, really old.
I didn't say not to take Trump seriously. I said that if you're going to take his tweets seriously (implying, certainly, that I do not), you should read them carefully.
To approach the matter another way, do you really this this tweet was carefully considered, precisely worded, and intended as a serious representation of Trump's beliefs and future intentions? Do you think that is a description that applies to many, or any, of his tweets? I don't. So I don't care that much about what Trump tweets.
And also, for the record, he didn't separate the two AT ALL. If anything he was conflating them FAR more than he was separating them.
I would say "or" does not mean "and", and that nothing in that tweet defined either category in any case. Therefore, stating as a fact that he called the people who voted against him his enemies is not supported by the tweet.
Also, maybe we should hold the President-Elect of the United States to a higher "rage" standard than someone who is posting on an internet forum. I'm not going to be in charge of nearly every apparatus of government, HE is. I get the luxury of flying off the handle. The President doesn't.
But flying off the handle is surely always a thing better avoided, yes? It removes clarity, degrades judgement, leads to hasty overreactions.
As for whether Trump should be held to a higher "rage" standard, ignoring the fact that I consider that tweet a vaguely mean-spirited joke and not angry at all... should he, really? He was elected while, it is fair to say, not holding to the accepted rules of decorum for public figures. It might even be considered a betrayal of the principles he was elected on (much like not launching a pointless prosecution of Hillary Clinton). It just seems odd to have a populist anti-politician get elected and expect them then to talk and behave like an normal elected official.
That's more just a bit of ethical theorycrafting - in reality, Trump can act however he likes and there's precious little anyone can do about it (beyond impeachment, which will require more than indecorous behaviour).
This post is an excellent example of just how easy it is going to be for him to completely steamroll any opposition and loot the country for his own enrichment without any trouble whatsoever. Nothing about Trump is a virtue, certainly not the way he speaks, unless one thinks it is a noble endeavor to bring the national intelligence down to the level of a 10-year old child. But who am I kidding?? It's likely at that level already.....
Holyyyy shit. Who manages his twitter account? A 12 years old? By the spawn of Bhaal, what's wrong with this guy!
That's the point really, NO ONE is managing him at all, or is even capable of doing so. Occasionally Kellyanne Conway (his campaign manager and a truly frightening woman, her ability to lie with a straight face and twist any conversation to her benefit is a sight to behold) is occasionally able to mollify him for 24 hours or so in the same way a parent might give in and buy their child an ice cream sundae so they will behave while they shop at the mall. Barack Obama wasn't even allowed to keep his Blackberry. I suppose he could have demanded it, but he doesn't have the emotional maturity of an infant, so he realized the security risks it presented and went along with it.
Speaking of which, let's imagine, just for one minute, what happens if Barack Obama sent out a tweet like this. Imagine how the media and conservatives would react. They would be saying he was Huey Newton before the end of the day. It is inconceivable that Barack Obama (or for that matter, Hillary Clinton) wouldn't be ran out of town on a rail for tweeting something so juvenile. But then again, it's also inconceivable that either of them would even contemplate sending a tweet like this as the President or President-Elect. It just wouldn't happen. Short of ritualistically sacrificing an infant on live TV, there is nothing Trump can do to rise to the level of his supporters turning on him. And hell, if that infant was a minority, his support among his core constituency might actually go up.
I'm not making excuses for it, but a sizeable number of people DID ask for this.
I'd say most of those people don't have clue what they actually voted for. How could they?? The stuff he did say they don't think he meant literally, and he had no policy positions to speak of. When they find out and start saying "I didn't vote for this", my only regret will be that they, sadly, aren't the only ones who will affected by it. Everything that is going to happen is entirely and utterly predictable.
In yet another line of ENDLESS examples, liberals have spoken for YEARS about how the Nixon and Reagan campaigns engaged in nothing less than treason by having their operatives interfere and sabotage both the Vietnam peace talks in '68 and the hostage release in '80. It has now been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nixon DID, in fact, engage in this behavior. Maybe in another 15 years conventional wisdom will come around on the other. It's not that America doesn't sometimes come to her senses. The problem is that it's always nearly 50 years too late.
@jjstraka34: Can we get a source for the sabotaging peace talks and hostage release thing? It sounds important.
I can see some sense behind the Reagan thing in that the release of the hostages was planned to coincide with Reagan's inauguration, but I understood that that was simply because the Iranians wanted to spite Carter, not necessarily to help Reagan. As for Nixon, I don't see how sabotaging peace talks would benefit him exactly.
@jjstraka34: Can we get a source for the sabotaging peace talks and hostage release thing? It sounds important.
I can see some sense behind the Reagan thing in that the release of the hostages was planned to coincide with Reagan's inauguration, but I understood that that was simply because the Iranians wanted to spite Carter, not necessarily to help Reagan. As for Nixon, I don't see how sabotaging peace talks would benefit him exactly.
If a article from a "liberal" NY Times writer doesn't do it for anyone, how about George Will, a conservative columnist who I agree with on nothing and generally view as just as odious as ever other Republican public figure, saying the same thing:
Man, who would have thought?? I mean, who could have predicted?? After all, they are gonna drain the swamp. They are gonna drain the swamp all right, and they are gonna put the nozzle of the hose directly in the mouth of everyone in America.
This post is an excellent example of just how easy it is going to be for him to completely steamroll any opposition and loot the country for his own enrichment without any trouble whatsoever.
I don't think either of those things will be a direct consequence of myself or anyone else not taking his tweets seriously, or correcting someone else who is misrepresenting what those tweets say.
The fact he doesn't drink or take drugs isn't a virtue? Even more so since his aversion to drinking seems to stem from the fact his older brother died of alcoholism?
The fact he is roundly accounted as a hard worker isn't a virtue?
Do you think he doesn't love his family at all? Is that not a virtue?
His speech after winning the election was more conciliatory than divisive. Was that not a virtuous act?
He has shown a willingness to change his mind after talking with his former political enemies. Could that not be a virtue?
For pity's sake, he saw a make-a-wish child dying in a hospital who wanted Trump to "fire him" like he did on The Apprentice. Trump couldn't bring himself to "fire" a dying child, and instead cut him a check to have "the most amazing party ever". Was that proof of his perfidious evil?
He is a real human being, not a Chaotic Evil Dungeons & Dragons demon. Like all real human beings, he is complex. When you convince yourself that a political opponent is "evil" and are clearly bent on the destruction of all you care about because they are evil and do evil things, you have lost all ability to actually understand them, and a lot of ability to predict them.
This post is an excellent example of just how easy it is going to be for him to completely steamroll any opposition and loot the country for his own enrichment without any trouble whatsoever.
I don't think either of those things will be a direct consequence of myself or anyone else not taking his tweets seriously, or correcting someone else who is misrepresenting what those tweets say.
The fact he doesn't drink or take drugs isn't a virtue? Even more so since his aversion to drinking seems to stem from the fact his older brother died of alcoholism?
The fact he is roundly accounted as a hard worker isn't a virtue?
Do you think he doesn't love his family at all? Is that not a virtue?
His speech after winning the election was more conciliatory than divisive. Was that not a virtuous act?
He has shown a willingness to change his mind after talking with his former political enemies. Could that not be a virtue?
For pity's sake, he saw a make-a-wish child dying in a hospital who wanted Trump to "fire him" like he did on The Apprentice. Trump couldn't bring himself to "fire" a dying child, and instead cut him a check to have "the most amazing party ever". Was that proof of his perfidious evil?
He is a real human being, not a Chaotic Evil Dungeons & Dragons demon. Like all real human beings, he is complex. When you convince yourself that a political opponent is "evil" and are clearly bent on the destruction of all you care about because they are evil and do evil things, you have lost all ability to actually understand them, and a lot of ability to predict them.
Trump isn't fricking pop culture Hitler.
I actually don't think he cares much about his family at all outside of Ivanka, who he views as the most like him and also has made it clear on numerous occasions if she wasn't his daughter he would like to sleep with her. His family are simply tools to further his business interests. Are we seriously going to continue to dismiss the DOZEN women who came forward (for no money and at extreme risk to their own safety) and accused him of sexual assault?? I know the media has done so, and I know that in America (based on the Cosby case) at least 30 if not 50 women have to come forward before people will take it seriously, but 12 is a good start, right??
He can't change his mind on his policies because he has none. His policy is what is going to allow him to "win" whatever he is trying to be victorious at. Him not drinking or taking drugs as a "virtue" has to assume that one who drinks or takes drugs is "unvirtuous", which I don't subscribe to in the least, and I no longer drink casually more than 2 or 3 times a year. No, that doesn't make me virtuous.
The man lies on his Twitter account daily, just yesterday about the murder-rate in Chicago. He claims millions of people voted illegally and that he actually won the popular vote. He promised his followers he was going to build a wall on the southern border and jail his political opponent. And then turns around the SECOND he wins and basically backtracks on both of them. Not because of his meetings with political opponents, but because he is a sociopathic con-man of the highest order. His own biographer has stated as much. Not wanting to "fire" a dying make-a-wish child doesn't make one Sir Lancelot. It's a basic standard of human decency that nearly anyone should be able to hurdle over without tripping. Now imagine how many Muslim and Hispanic children are going to get beaten up at school over the next 4 years as a direct result of his rhetoric.
I actually don't think he cares much about his family at all outside of Ivanka, who he views as the most like him and also has made it clear on numerous occasions if she wasn't his daughter he would like to sleep with her. His family are simply tools to further his business interests. Are we seriously going to continue to dismiss the DOZEN women who came forward (for no money and at extreme risk to their own safety) and accused him of sexual assault?? I know the media has done so, and I know that in America (based on the Cosby case) at least 30 if not 50 women have to come forward before people will take it seriously, but 12 is a good start, right??
Trump is totally guilty of sexual assault. He's guilty of a lot of bad things.
I took issue with your saying "Nothing about Trump is a virtue". Listing bad things he had done is not actually relevant to that point.
A lot of your post seems to be trying to convince me that Trump is not a very good human being, ethically and morally. Let me assure you that you do not need to convince me of that.
He can't change his mind on his policies because he has none. His policy is what is going to allow him to "win" whatever he is trying to be victorious at. Him not drinking or taking drugs as a "virtue" has to assume that one who drinks or takes drugs is "unvirtuous", which I don't subscribe to in the least, and I no longer drink casually more than 2 or 3 times a year. No, that doesn't make me virtuous.
While I did phrase that poorly, I meant that it is a virtue that he is dependent neither on alcohol or drugs, both of which can cloud judgement (and have been abused by Presidents past, meaning he is better than some past presidents in at least this one way). My apologies for not being clear.
Not wanting to "fire" a dying make-a-wish child doesn't make one Sir Lancelot.
No, but it is a virtue. It is, as you said yourself, a "basic standard of human decency". Which is a virtue. Thus, by your own admission, something about Trump is a virtue, yes? So we are in agreement that the original statement was somewhat hyperbolic and that Trump, while odious in many ways as a person and political figure, is nonetheless still a human being, nearly infinitely complex, and has a few good points among his many, many, bad ones?
If that's the message that you got from what I was saying, I have obviously failed to be clear. Unfortunate, but que sera, sera.
In two updates on relevant pieces of information, the House Republican plan to gut the independent ethics commissioner was hastily scrapped after bipartisan opposition, including from President-Elect Trump. Conspiracy theories already abound on the left that the whole thing was a plot to make Trump look good - I would instead suggest that the House Republicans have a long and glorious history of shooting themselves in the foot, PR-wise.
And Julian Assange, in an interview with Sean Hannity (again! Oh, the strange bedfellows politics makes) stated that the Russian government was NOT the source of the Podesta leak and the whole thing is Obama trying to delegitimise Trump. On the one hand, Assange is obviously biased against the Democrats and was clearly in the tank for anyone-but-Hillary, which makes this a pretty convenient thing for him to say. On the other hand, his entire reputation is shot if the US government ever produces any proof that shows he was lying, and Assange of all people is in an excellent position to know who the source actually was. He also makes a good point in pointing to the absurdity that in all their time talking about the hacks, the US government has completely avoided mentioning Wikileaks, since they're the ones who actually released the information.
Robert Costa, who is as plugged into the House GOP as any reporter in Washington, said the overwhelming reason they backed off was because of a flood of constituent phone calls. Trump's tweet was what we call running interference. And, yes, it's working like a charm, because of the laziness of the media. Trump will receive all the credit for something he didn't make a statement on until 2 days after there was a massive uproar from citizens about it. So the story will not be an actual example of democracy actually working for a change, but how the dear leader made them backtrack, which is the intended bullshit story they were going for the entire time. It's not some bonkers conspiracy theory. It hardly requires any imagination to pull this off whatsoever.
Man, who would have thought?? I mean, who could have predicted?? After all, they are gonna drain the swamp. They are gonna drain the swamp all right, and they are gonna put the nozzle of the hose directly in the mouth of everyone in America.
Actually, Trump had nothing to do with this. This is the responsibility solely of Republicans in the House. Ironically, the OCE was created because people were so blatantly breaking ethics violations the at least three Members of Congress, Duke Cunningham (R - CA), William J. Jefferson (D - LA), and Bob Ney (R - OH) were convicted on bribery charges. Since its creation, the office has aggressively targeted members of both major parties.
This is going to end badly for House Republicans and some of them are going to lose their seats in 2018 because of this particular vote. No organization in the history of the world has ever successfully or correctly policed itself.
Things are not going to be ideal--they never are--but I must reiterate my assessment that the worst case scenarios many people are envisioning are not going to happen.
I was never implying Trump had anything to do with the House Republican's vote. I'm implying it's the kind of thing that happens when they become emboldened by a recent election.
Comments
Stuxnet was a malicious computer worm believed to be a jointly built American-Israeli cyberweapon, although no organization or state has officially admitted responsibility. Anonymous US officials speaking to The Washington Post claimed the worm was developed during the Bush administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program with what would seem like a long series of unfortunate accidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
I believe there was a US general or somebody who described the worm in ways that people later were able to verify.
Donald Trump, in making a simple New Year's pronouncement, declares everyone who voted against him his "enemies". Maybe those straddling the fence, trying to stay neutral, saying things are going to be fine will wake up one day. The problem is, that realization won't come til it's far too late. This is not ok, this is unhinged. Maybe not even because he sent it. It's because (based on the time-stamp) the President-Elect of the United States was up all night simmering in rage against the people who voted against him. I mean how the hell can you not manage to make a simple New Year's tweet without slipping into fascist rhetoric??? How damn difficult is it to simply say "I wish all the American people a very happy New Year"??? Imagine a 5-year old child who likes to torture animals, has a persecution complex and a tendency towards vengeance and retaliation. That's who is going to be President.
If you're going to take Trump's tweets seriously, you should read them carefully with the seriousness you think they're due. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think it's Trump that's simmering in rage in this particular situation.
Also, being up at 12:17 a.m. on New Year's Day is not "up all night" by any stretch of the imagination.
(Though, for the record, Trump is known to be a workaholic that sleeps relatively little.)
And also, for the record, he didn't separate the two AT ALL. If anything he was conflating them FAR more than he was separating them. Also, maybe we should hold the President-Elect of the United States to a higher "rage" standard than someone who is posting on an internet forum. I'm not going to be in charge of nearly every apparatus of government, HE is. I get the luxury of flying off the handle. The President doesn't.
To approach the matter another way, do you really this this tweet was carefully considered, precisely worded, and intended as a serious representation of Trump's beliefs and future intentions? Do you think that is a description that applies to many, or any, of his tweets? I don't. So I don't care that much about what Trump tweets. I would say "or" does not mean "and", and that nothing in that tweet defined either category in any case. Therefore, stating as a fact that he called the people who voted against him his enemies is not supported by the tweet. But flying off the handle is surely always a thing better avoided, yes? It removes clarity, degrades judgement, leads to hasty overreactions.
As for whether Trump should be held to a higher "rage" standard, ignoring the fact that I consider that tweet a vaguely mean-spirited joke and not angry at all... should he, really? He was elected while, it is fair to say, not holding to the accepted rules of decorum for public figures. It might even be considered a betrayal of the principles he was elected on (much like not launching a pointless prosecution of Hillary Clinton). It just seems odd to have a populist anti-politician get elected and expect them then to talk and behave like an normal elected official.
That's more just a bit of ethical theorycrafting - in reality, Trump can act however he likes and there's precious little anyone can do about it (beyond impeachment, which will require more than indecorous behaviour).
Speaking of which, let's imagine, just for one minute, what happens if Barack Obama sent out a tweet like this. Imagine how the media and conservatives would react. They would be saying he was Huey Newton before the end of the day. It is inconceivable that Barack Obama (or for that matter, Hillary Clinton) wouldn't be ran out of town on a rail for tweeting something so juvenile. But then again, it's also inconceivable that either of them would even contemplate sending a tweet like this as the President or President-Elect. It just wouldn't happen. Short of ritualistically sacrificing an infant on live TV, there is nothing Trump can do to rise to the level of his supporters turning on him. And hell, if that infant was a minority, his support among his core constituency might actually go up.
Just because there's no surprise doesn't make his behavior in any way shape or form acceptable.
In yet another line of ENDLESS examples, liberals have spoken for YEARS about how the Nixon and Reagan campaigns engaged in nothing less than treason by having their operatives interfere and sabotage both the Vietnam peace talks in '68 and the hostage release in '80. It has now been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nixon DID, in fact, engage in this behavior. Maybe in another 15 years conventional wisdom will come around on the other. It's not that America doesn't sometimes come to her senses. The problem is that it's always nearly 50 years too late.
I can see some sense behind the Reagan thing in that the release of the hostages was planned to coincide with Reagan's inauguration, but I understood that that was simply because the Iranians wanted to spite Carter, not necessarily to help Reagan. As for Nixon, I don't see how sabotaging peace talks would benefit him exactly.
The proof is in H.R. Haldeman's own notes.
If a article from a "liberal" NY Times writer doesn't do it for anyone, how about George Will, a conservative columnist who I agree with on nothing and generally view as just as odious as ever other Republican public figure, saying the same thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-nixons-long-shadow/2014/08/06/fad8c00c-1ccb-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html?utm_term=.f0ba062b214c
Man, who would have thought?? I mean, who could have predicted?? After all, they are gonna drain the swamp. They are gonna drain the swamp all right, and they are gonna put the nozzle of the hose directly in the mouth of everyone in America.
The fact he doesn't drink or take drugs isn't a virtue? Even more so since his aversion to drinking seems to stem from the fact his older brother died of alcoholism?
The fact he is roundly accounted as a hard worker isn't a virtue?
Do you think he doesn't love his family at all? Is that not a virtue?
His speech after winning the election was more conciliatory than divisive. Was that not a virtuous act?
He has shown a willingness to change his mind after talking with his former political enemies. Could that not be a virtue?
For pity's sake, he saw a make-a-wish child dying in a hospital who wanted Trump to "fire him" like he did on The Apprentice. Trump couldn't bring himself to "fire" a dying child, and instead cut him a check to have "the most amazing party ever". Was that proof of his perfidious evil?
He is a real human being, not a Chaotic Evil Dungeons & Dragons demon. Like all real human beings, he is complex. When you convince yourself that a political opponent is "evil" and are clearly bent on the destruction of all you care about because they are evil and do evil things, you have lost all ability to actually understand them, and a lot of ability to predict them.
Trump isn't fricking pop culture Hitler.
He can't change his mind on his policies because he has none. His policy is what is going to allow him to "win" whatever he is trying to be victorious at. Him not drinking or taking drugs as a "virtue" has to assume that one who drinks or takes drugs is "unvirtuous", which I don't subscribe to in the least, and I no longer drink casually more than 2 or 3 times a year. No, that doesn't make me virtuous.
The man lies on his Twitter account daily, just yesterday about the murder-rate in Chicago. He claims millions of people voted illegally and that he actually won the popular vote. He promised his followers he was going to build a wall on the southern border and jail his political opponent. And then turns around the SECOND he wins and basically backtracks on both of them. Not because of his meetings with political opponents, but because he is a sociopathic con-man of the highest order. His own biographer has stated as much. Not wanting to "fire" a dying make-a-wish child doesn't make one Sir Lancelot. It's a basic standard of human decency that nearly anyone should be able to hurdle over without tripping. Now imagine how many Muslim and Hispanic children are going to get beaten up at school over the next 4 years as a direct result of his rhetoric.
I took issue with your saying "Nothing about Trump is a virtue". Listing bad things he had done is not actually relevant to that point.
A lot of your post seems to be trying to convince me that Trump is not a very good human being, ethically and morally. Let me assure you that you do not need to convince me of that. While I did phrase that poorly, I meant that it is a virtue that he is dependent neither on alcohol or drugs, both of which can cloud judgement (and have been abused by Presidents past, meaning he is better than some past presidents in at least this one way). My apologies for not being clear. No, but it is a virtue. It is, as you said yourself, a "basic standard of human decency". Which is a virtue. Thus, by your own admission, something about Trump is a virtue, yes? So we are in agreement that the original statement was somewhat hyperbolic and that Trump, while odious in many ways as a person and political figure, is nonetheless still a human being, nearly infinitely complex, and has a few good points among his many, many, bad ones?
In two updates on relevant pieces of information, the House Republican plan to gut the independent ethics commissioner was hastily scrapped after bipartisan opposition, including from President-Elect Trump. Conspiracy theories already abound on the left that the whole thing was a plot to make Trump look good - I would instead suggest that the House Republicans have a long and glorious history of shooting themselves in the foot, PR-wise.
And Julian Assange, in an interview with Sean Hannity (again! Oh, the strange bedfellows politics makes) stated that the Russian government was NOT the source of the Podesta leak and the whole thing is Obama trying to delegitimise Trump. On the one hand, Assange is obviously biased against the Democrats and was clearly in the tank for anyone-but-Hillary, which makes this a pretty convenient thing for him to say. On the other hand, his entire reputation is shot if the US government ever produces any proof that shows he was lying, and Assange of all people is in an excellent position to know who the source actually was. He also makes a good point in pointing to the absurdity that in all their time talking about the hacks, the US government has completely avoided mentioning Wikileaks, since they're the ones who actually released the information.
This is going to end badly for House Republicans and some of them are going to lose their seats in 2018 because of this particular vote. No organization in the history of the world has ever successfully or correctly policed itself.
Things are not going to be ideal--they never are--but I must reiterate my assessment that the worst case scenarios many people are envisioning are not going to happen.