President Trump's continual campaigning

Back in the 1970s and '80s--long before I retired--I often worked around salespeople. And those people stated that the ABCs of sales stood for Always Be Closing.

It seems as if President Trump views it just a little differently: He appears to believe that it should stand for Always Be Campaigning.

That, at least, is what I took out of his address at West Point this morning.

True, it is a year evenly divisible by four; so that could possibly explain it.

Except, of course, for the fact that he seems to have been campaigning ever since he took office, about three-and-a-half years ago.

Does anyone else see this as unprecedented--and even somewhat undignified--behavior for an American president?

Note: This is certainly not to defend Joe Biden. His recent comments about President Trump--including his musings as concerning Donald Trump's (supposed) plan to "steal" the election--were far over the line, in my opinion.

 

He's down big in the polls, his response to COVID and the protests over discrimination and racism have been a disaster, the market is recovering much faster than the real economy, small businesses everywhere are in jeopardy, people are tired of the chaos and the lying, so.............................................https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trump-t...-for-infrastructure-to-spur-economy-1.1451008

time to spend another $1T to try to turn the polls around. Cuz......he doesn't care how much debt he leaves behind for your kids to pay for.

 

Are as concerned that Trump lied about illegals voting in the last election and lied about there being fraud and that hevwill lievabout the next election as you are about Biden pointing out the truth about Trump?

 

Trump chose his first few months to spend campaigning, rather than building and staffing his administration. And he isn't really about 'policy' or 'governing' - he is all about messaging. But in truth, no one should be surprised about this - that is his strength. He campaigned on soundbites, not policy. So his 'reign' is no different from his campaign. All soundbites and very little substance.

 

A more reasoned and even-handed response would (a) cite (or at least take note of) the conclusions, in this regard, of such analysts as Larry Sabato; Charlie Cook; Stu Rothenberg; Scott Rasmussen; and Nate Silver, to name a few; and (b) ignore the likely popular vote--I think it will almost certainly be won by Joe Biden--and concentrate, instead, on the likely electoral vote (and especially on those quite interesting swing states).

 

I have been even-handed in my analysis--actually, devoting most of my post to complaining about Donald Trump's behavior.

But you seem to be unhappy if I say anything critical about Joe Biden.

Some people might interpret that as pure partisanship.

 

When will the Durham report be released? At a time of maximum impact on the campaign.

Unless.............Big Fat Don has given up on the "Obamagate" canard by then.

 

You appear to be filled, to the brim, with pure hatred.

It is one thing to disagree--even strongly--with many of President Trump's policies.

Or even to dislike the man's personality.

But you appear to be obsessed with him--with hating him.

And that is something that I truly do not understand.

(No, that is not just a figure of speech; it is a quite literal assessment.)

 

It's generally accepted by politicians that the campaign for re-election begins with your inauguration or swearing in to office. Since everything they do is somewhat of a test of their fitness for office, they have no choice. And because so many people do not think for themselves, cannot assess performance rationally- politicians have to tell them what they should appreciate and take notice of.

All politicians are campaigning all the time. At least when the cameras are rolling, or there is any record of what they are doing.

 

Every president in modern times has derisively been called "campaigner in chief" by their opposition. Here is an article from February of 2009, calling Obama the campaigner in chief for hitting the campaign trail in 2 swing states just one month after taking office.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123421363507465005

To answer your question...NO, this is neither unprecedented nor undignified. In truth, what you are calling campaigning is actually a vital part of the bully pulpit, where the president uses their platform in an attempt to sway and/or galvanize public opinion in an effort to force the legislature to pass whatever legislation that the president hopes to pass.

 

Just pointing something out. I may vote for Biden only because no Republican challenged Trump sonwhatbchoice to I have. Write in Kasich again.?

 

The phrase, "because so many people do not think for themselves, [and] cannot assess performance rationally," is not entirely untrue; but it is quite sad.

What do you believe our educational system could do to encourage critical, analytical thinking? (And I do not mean just at the college level, either. High-school students should know how to do this; in fact, even middle-school students should know how.)

One good thing about President Trump--one very good thing, in my opinion--is that he is not a professional politician. (I have no use--absolutely no use--for professional politicians, whether they happen to have a "D" or an "R" beside their names.")

 

Not surprised at all

The President is an entertainer. The WH has become his reality show and the rest of us are his audience whether we want him or not. A campaign is an episode in a “show“

 

Does this bother you?

 

Well, since I voted for Donald Trump in 2016--and expect to do so again, in 2020--I find it somewhat laughable that you would consider me to be his "opposition."

Unless, of course, you believe that anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent of the time qualifies as the "opposition."

Actually, one of my complaints is the fact that President Trump has not attempted to "sway and/or galvanize public opinion"--that would suggest reaching out to centrists and independents--but has, instead, attempted only to fire up his base, in the apparent hope that these people will vote in a sufficient percentage as to negate what he loses in the center.

 

Do you really suppose that a challenger to the incumbent president (William Weld, perhaps?) might defeat him in the primary?

When was the last time that a sitting president was unseated this way?

 

-I could personally not care less for whom you vote. What I said is that "Every president in modern times has derisively been called "campaigner in chief" by their opposition."....and I stick by that statement. That is a commonly used statement by the Presidents opposing party regardless of which party is in power. I dont specifically recall you using that precise statement. I made reference to that statement not because of your voting pattern, but rather because it illustrates the answer to your question that I was trying to convey which is "NO, this is neither unprecedented nor undignified." In fact it is so common that it has a commonly used derisive name. That derisive name is "Campaigner in Chief". You probably would be well served to stop assuming that everything in this world revolves around you. You are free to vote for whomever you like, and for whomever you vote has not one thing to do with my response.

-Public rallies are ABSOLUTELY an attempt to galvanize public opinion, which is precisely why he discusses political/legislative topics during those rallies. Whether or not you understand or grasp that is of no consequence. My point has been made perfectly whether or not it did or did not go over your level of understanding.

 

I would not have pointed it out if it did not.

Pretending to support a group--in this case, the army cadets--while merely using them as a prop, in a perpetual campaign--seems manipulative and ethically impure (to phrase it in the most delicate way possible).

 

No, of course a primary challenge to Trump or any sitting president will not be successful. Since Incannot in any way vote for Trump my choices are Biden or I write in Kasich , again.

 

Then would you care to retract your assertion that I represent President Trump's "opposition"?

I stand by my statement that President Trump really does not reach out to the political center--or to independents--but uses these rallies merely to fire up his base.

(These rallies appear, to me, to be the political equivalent of a religious "tent revival.")

And I much prefer the intellectual to the visceral.

My, we are very angry, aren't we?

 

-If I had actually said that you represent Trumps opposition, I would be more than happy to retract that statement. Since I said no such thing however, I find your statement to be puzzling to say the least. I have already explained this in some detail, and you strangely ignored that and instead just proceeded on as if it had not been addressed.

-You can stand by your statement that Trump does not reach out to the political center if you like. I hadnt made comment on that one way or the other. I am not sure why you are discussing it now. I think this is one of them thar strawmen arguments.

-I am angry? No, not even slightly. Mind reading apparently is not your strong suit.

 

That fact about Trump is both to his credit and a source of the conflict. The entrenched politicians know how to play the political game; Trump upset it.

Psychology plays a huge role in how kids develop thinking. I don't mean psychotherapy, I mean understanding how our heads get programmed as they are, and how to see to it that the right process happens. Many think education begins when a child learns to talk- by then, a great deal of what will control thinking and personality for their lifetime is already in place. Kids early learning comes from the imprints of parental behavior, particularly in basic values such as responsibility, honesty, respect for each other. They copy what they see- at a very fundamental level. Nature and nurture both play big roles, and while nature gives people different talents, everyone has something. When kids are challenged to think and solve problems, to be creative at an early age, they find those things, they get fascinated with the learning process, and usually- on how things work. If the example is good, they learn how to think constructively, how to assess situations well and how to manage and use their own minds as powerful tools. Many become fascinated with finding out how good they can get at that, and grow up with a hunger to learn and understand. By the time a child like this is in formal school, he is a teachers dream; a thinking, learning machine with a ravenous appetite.

I'm saying that good schools and teachers can't replace what good parenting could have done but failed to do. Even in the formal school, if the environment fails to nourish the learners, if the disruptive kids keep that school in disorder- all the kids are further disadvantaged. It all starts at home. Get those first few years down right, and you have a winner. Every kid has the potential- a good number of them will never get the chance, because they are taught wrong in the first place.

Our brains are the instruments computers are trying to duplicate. When you have a child- the job is to build a good adult. Takes the right programming- and "garbage in, garbage out" applies here just like it does to computers.

 

Appear?

*SNORK!*

 

Well, about whom were you speaking, then, when you observed that "[e]very president in modern times has derisively been called 'campaigner in chief'' by their opposition"? (The context, after all, would suggest that you were speaking of me.)

And I certainly do.

[QUOTE="FAW, post: 1071790883, member: 7401"I am angry? No, not even slightly.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, the words, "You probably would be well served to stop assuming that everything in this world revolves around you" and "My point has been made perfectly whether or not it did or did not go over your level of understanding" might tend to indicate otherwise...

 

To say that you seem slow on the uptake on this topic would be an understatement.

I was speaking about......wait for it......."their opposition", which happen to be MY EXACT WORDS. You had asked if constant campaigning was "unprecedented" and in order to illustrate that it is not unprecedented, I pointed to the very real reality that virtually all modern presidents have been derisively called "campaigner in chief" by their opposition. I did NOT say that YOU called him campaigner in chief, and in fact you said no such thing. I said that the opposition does, and I provided a link that showed that title being bestowed upon Obama.

While it is true that you said some words that sound similar, I made no judgment whatsoever as to whether or not you oppose or support Trump. In this context, that tidbit of information could not possibly be more irrelevant. I personally do not care whom you support. I set out to answer your question, and I did just that. Your voting pattern has not one thing to do with answering your question. If someone had asked me after reading the OP whether or not I thought you supported or opposed Trump, I would have probably guessed that you most likely opposed him, but in truth I had not thought about it to that degree because quite frankly I could not possibly care less. My response is exactly the same regardless of whom you support. To answer your question...NO, this is NOT unprecedented. It is not unprecedented if you support Trump. It is not unprecedented if you oppose Trump. It is not unprecedented if you are a member of the Lollipop Guild. You have not one thing to do with whether or not it is unprecedented.

Do you understand now?

The words "You probably would be well served to stop assuming that everything in this world revolves around you" and "My point has been made perfectly whether or not it did or did not go over your level of understanding"..... Do not indicate to me that the speaker of those words is "angry". Obviously in your mind that somehow indicates anger, but since I know full well that I am nowhere close to angry, then obviously your assumption about the meaning of those words in regards to my mood is undeniably incorrect.

I am amused by this conversation. Anger is most certainly not a component, at least from my end ( I do not presume to know your mood unless and until I have information that would indicate as much). If you think that you sense anger from me, you may want to revisit your assumptions, because they are faulty. If this conversation is any indication, intuition does not seem to be your strong suit (I say that with a giggle just in case you are envisioning it with a scowl)