Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Exactly.

Why is it so hard to read his words and respond to them. It doesn't necessarily matter what his motivations are. You can also read what he says and decide if you agree.

I'm assuming you both voted Trump, and so you don't see the problems with his Presidency. But many of us do. Dismiss us as haters if you will, it will not change the fact that Trump is not a typical candidate or politician. And that the underlying premise of McMillin's op-ed is true. No one knows what Trump will do, and so he is not accountable to anyone.

I am the first pp and I did not vote for Trump or Hillary - but when someone makes it their expressed goal to stop Trump it questions their basic objectivity.

I don't think McMullin is pretending to be objective here. He clearly perceives Trump as a threat to the Constitution and is proceeding from that premise. This is also why he ran as an independent. I agree with his premise, so I found his Op-Ed compelling. I recognize not everyone here agrees with me, but I'm surprised there isn't anyone else on DCUM who does.

Let me put it this way and it is an exaggerated analogy: if David Duke wrote an editorial about the hazards of multi-culturalism, I would not give his comments any consideration even if he cited some legitimate arguments.

This is not to compare McMullin to Duke but a critic has to have some basic credibility before one can take the individual's critique seriously.

So-called "originalist" interpretations of the Constitution are the only ones that are correct,

Fixed it for you.

Anonymous wrote:Now democrats are suddenly concerned about the Constitution. Well, this is a new wrinkle. I guess their handouts are about to be threatened!

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:Now democrats are suddenly concerned about the Constitution. Well, this is a new wrinkle. I guess their handouts are about to be threatened!

Not sure why this is surprising. Just because one party claims to care about the Constitution in service of passing their preferred policy agenda doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on caring about the foundation of America. So-called "originalist" interpretations of the Constitution are not the only ones that are correct, no matter how often you say otherwise. I would venture to guess every single one of the SCOTUS justices cares immensely about the Constitution, though I'm guessing you only think half of them do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Exactly.

Why is it so hard to read his words and respond to them. It doesn't necessarily matter what his motivations are. You can also read what he says and decide if you agree.

I'm assuming you both voted Trump, and so you don't see the problems with his Presidency. But many of us do. Dismiss us as haters if you will, it will not change the fact that Trump is not a typical candidate or politician. And that the underlying premise of McMillin's op-ed is true. No one knows what Trump will do, and so he is not accountable to anyone.

I am the first pp and I did not vote for Trump or Hillary - but when someone makes it their expressed goal to stop Trump it questions their basic objectivity.

I don't think McMullin is pretending to be objective here. He clearly perceives Trump as a threat to the Constitution and is proceeding from that premise. This is also why he ran as an independent. I agree with his premise, so I found his Op-Ed compelling. I recognize not everyone here agrees with me, but I'm surprised there isn't anyone else on DCUM who does.

Now democrats are suddenly concerned about the Constitution. Well, this is a new wrinkle. I guess their handouts are about to be threatened!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Exactly.

Why is it so hard to read his words and respond to them. It doesn't necessarily matter what his motivations are. You can also read what he says and decide if you agree.

I'm assuming you both voted Trump, and so you don't see the problems with his Presidency. But many of us do. Dismiss us as haters if you will, it will not change the fact that Trump is not a typical candidate or politician. And that the underlying premise of McMillin's op-ed is true. No one knows what Trump will do, and so he is not accountable to anyone.

I am the first pp and I did not vote for Trump or Hillary - but when someone makes it their expressed goal to stop Trump it questions their basic objectivity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Exactly.

Why is it so hard to read his words and respond to them. It doesn't necessarily matter what his motivations are. You can also read what he says and decide if you agree.

I'm assuming you both voted Trump, and so you don't see the problems with his Presidency. But many of us do. Dismiss us as haters if you will, it will not change the fact that Trump is not a typical candidate or politician. And that the underlying premise of McMillin's op-ed is true. No one knows what Trump will do, and so he is not accountable to anyone.

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that there are people like McMullin willing to speak out. I have considered wether I was simply a "hater", as suggested, but I think not. I don't remember feeling this way in 2000 or 2004.

I think I can see that Trump is not a normal GOP President, and definitely not a Reagan.
I understand the pickle some people found themselves in when having to choose between two flawed candidates, but I hope that, once the euphoria for having gotten rid of one evil wears off, people will be able to see the one we are left with.

I hope it is true that everything falls by its own weight.

Would you have felt the same way if Hillary had won the election?

I did not vote for Trump and have some trepidation about how he will fare but I can tell you that Hillary as president would certainly not have offered any comfort.

Yes, you are a hater, 18:20. We get it.

I am heartened that there are people like McMullin willing to speak out. I have considered wether I was simply a "hater", as suggested, but I think not. I don't remember feeling this way in 2000 or 2004.

I think I can see that Trump is not a normal GOP President, and definitely not a Reagan.
I understand the pickle some people found themselves in when having to choose between two flawed candidates, but I hope that, once the euphoria for having gotten rid of one evil wears off, people will be able to see the one we are left with.

I hope it is true that everything falls by its own weight.

Anonymous wrote:Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Exactly.

Tough to take seriously someone whose expressed goal was to stop Trump.

Stop dreaming, OP. You hate him. Admit it.

Surprised there isn't already a thread on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/trumps-threat-to-the-constitution.html

I'll admit he seems to be working overtime to uphold the Constitution and call out the possible threat a Trump Presidency poses:

We cannot allow Mr. Trump to normalize the idea that he is the ultimate arbiter of our rights. Those who can will need to speak out boldly and suffer possible retaliation.

His twitter feed is also a nice respite from PEOTUS:
https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin

I think he's spot on to point out these issues. I keep saying that Trump may do some good things for America, but in the long-run he is an undeniable threat to our democracy. Most of those who voted for him did so with the hope that he would not keep his campaign promises. He is accountable to no one. There's no way that's good for us in the end.