People thought the purchase of Alaska was stupid. The Danes sold the Virgin Islands to the US for $25 million. These aren’t stupid ideas and the outrage about it was misinformed. — NOS4A2

I'm sorry, but your rationalization of Trump's behavior on the subject is misinformed. It's absolutely understandable why the Danes would consider the idea absurd, and Trump attacking the PM for stating this is a new low (if that is possible). Understand, I'm fine with thinking outside the box. Doing so can result in both the brilliant and the idiotic. You discover which by floating the idea and getting feedback. The appropriate thing to do is to accept the feedback, not to take it as an insult and fight back.

I don’t know about Trump supporters, but it’s the routine snobbery I oppose. You don’t like the way Trump talks and I respect that, but not liking the way the president talks is not sufficient enough to justify obstructing the office or the president from doing his job. It doesn’t justify the marches, some being the biggest in history, when not a single injustice was involved — NOS4A2

Trump's words both anger and scare people. They inflame emotions on both sides.Trump supporters applaud Trump "fighting back", no matter how low he goes. Marches and demonstrations are the public fighting back.

"Obstructing" the office? What actions have been inappropriately obstructed? Energy is certainly spent on political fighting, but has Trump done ANYTHING to rise above politics? Both his rhetoric and his policies have been extremely partisan and inflammatory, and thus polarizing. Push back is the consequence.

Yes, his opposition is inflamed by tweets and out of context quotes, so much so that we’ve reached levels of mass hysteria. The era of public relations politics is over.

People thought the purchase of Alaska was stupid. The Danes sold the Virgin Islands to the US for $25 million. These aren’t stupid ideas and the outrage about it was misinformed. — NOS4A2

The stupidity is in the method, making it publicly known that I want to buy Greenland, instead of discussing this possibility with those who currently govern that land. How would you feel if the rich guy from a couple of neighbourhoods over, was going around telling everyone that he was intending to buy you out of your house? Any misinformation here is the fault of the president. But why would the president misinform his own people?

Such misinformation is good reason for outrage.

The stupidity is in the method, making it publicly known that I want to buy Greenland, instead of discussing this possibility with those who currently govern that land. How would you feel if the rich guy from a couple of neighbourhoods over, was going around telling everyone that he was intending to buy you out of your house? Any misinformation here is the fault of the president. But why would the president misinform his own people?

He didn’t state it publicly. Like many of these stories some “official” told the press, they sensationalized it, the Danish prime minister criticized it. More misinformation.

Yes, his opposition is inflamed by tweets and out of context quotes, so much so that we’ve reached levels of mass hysteria. The era of public relations politics is over. — NOS4A2

There are certainly some inappropriate reactions to Trump, and I don't rationalize or excuse them. However there's a lot of appropriate, negative reactions. The "mass hysteria" charge, and the term "Trump derangement syndrome" are used to conflate, and therefore dismiss, all negative reactions to Trump. I'd love to see Trump supporters who could be as discerning of his comments, rather than the knee-jerk rationalization of everything he says or tweets.

There are certainly some inappropriate reactions to Trump, and I don't rationalize or excuse them. However there's a lot of appropriate, negative reactions. The "mass hysteria" charge, and the term "Trump derangement syndrome" are used to conflate, and therefore dismiss, all negative reactions to his craziness. I'd love to see Trump supporters who could be discerning of his comments, rather than the knee-jerk rationalization of everything he says or tweets.

It’s not so much rationalizing what he said as it is opposition to the word-policing, snobbery, fear and gossip mongering.

As an example, once he called some countries “sh-thole” countries in a private meeting. One little tattle-tale ran to the press and ratted him out. The comments—but actually the fevered reporting on the topic—resulted in a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or injustice occurring around around that same time.

It’s not so much rationalizing what he said as it is opposition to the word-policing, snobbery, fear and gossip mongering.

As an example, once he called some countries “sh-thole” countries in a private meeting. One little tattle-tale ran to the press and ratted him out. The comments—but actually the fevered reporting on the topic—resulted in a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or injustice occurring around around that same time. — NOS4A2

Trump supporters embraced Trump's disdain of political correctness. They should have expected reactions like this - it's not treating Trump differently; it's treating political incorrectness consistently (whether or not you agree with it). I've been called out for making politically incorret statements before, and when I do - I own up to it and apologize. That's something Trump never does - instead he doubles down.

In this case, Trump's comment demonstrates callousness toward the unfortunate people who live in these countries. The proper response would have been to apologize and acknowledge their conditions. But Trump is incapable of admitting he ever does anything wrong. THAT is the real problem with his political incorrectness.

You say, "it's not so much rationalizing"... OK then, please identify some comment or tweets of Trump's that you consider inappropriate. I can easily find some anti-Trump rhetoric I consider inappropriate.

You say, "it's not so much rationalizing"... OK then, please identify some comment or tweets of Trump's that you consider inappropriate. I can easily find some anti-Trump rhetoric I consider inappropriate.

I’d rather not. I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice.

I’d rather not. I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice. — NOS4A2

I trust you weren't one of those Trump zealots who made an issue of Hillary's comment about "deplorables", nor at Omar's comment, "It's all about the Benjamins", with regard to the Israel lobby.

If you think it's unfair to attack Trump, then do you also think it unfair when Trump attacks? e.g. calling "the squad" racist? What about his false assertion that AOC called Americans "garbage?"

It's hypocrisy to object to attacks on Trump while either accepting or defending Trump's attacks on others.

I trust you weren't one of those Trump zealots who made an issue of Hillary's comment about "deplorables", nor at Omar's comment, "It's all about the Benjamins", with regard to the Israel lobby.

You’d be wrong.

How is this not hypocrisy? One avoids hypocrisy by identifying a principle and applying it consistently.

I did not make an issue of anyone’s comments, is what I meant. The principle was employed consistently.

OK, thanks. (You should have said, "you would be right"). But you earlier referred to "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Why a negative characterization of reaction to Trump, but not a negative reaction to what Trump says? To maintain consistent principles, it would seem one has to contort oneself to thread a series of needles.

I don’t think I’ve used the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. If I did, please quote me because I do not think I would use the term. Then again I cannot remember. But I think the correct term is “post-election stress disorder”.

Sorry, you're right. You used the term, "mass hysteria." Still seems a negative characterization.

Yes, it is. But I think there is justification for it. I’d also argue there is evidence of aggression-based schadenfreude.

Reactionary responses to Trump are reaching absurd and dangerous levels.

Reactionary responses to Trump are reaching absurd and dangerous levels. — NOS4A2

Yup.

He didn’t state it publicly. Like many of these stories some “official” told the press, they sensationalized it, the Danish prime minister criticized it. More misinformation. — NOS4A2

As far as I can tell, telling the press is a way of making it publicly known.

I did not make an issue of anyone’s comments, is what I meant. The principle was employed consistently. — NOS4A2

You used the term, "mass hysteria." Still seems a negative characterization. — Relativist

Yes, it is. But I think there is justification for it. I’d also argue there is evidence of aggression-based schadenfreude.

Reactionary responses to Trump are reaching absurd and dangerous levels. — NOS4A2

You ARE making an issue of people's comments, then. This is hypocrisy.

As far as I can tell, telling the press is a way of making it publicly known.

He did not tell the press.

You ARE making an issue of people's comments, then. This is hypocrisy.

I am not making an issue of people’s comments. I’m making an issue of anti-Trumpism and the behavior of those who adhere to it.

25,600 is still much higher than any of his predecessors. It hovered around 15,000 when he came into office.

I am not making an issue of people’s comments. I’m making an issue of anti-Trumpism and the behavior of those who adhere to it. — NOS4A2

What does "anti-Trumpism" consist of? How does it differ from "anti-Obamaism"? Politics always produces reactions. What is different with Trump is that he says and does so much that many find repulsive -so much more than past Presidents. It's always action/reaction, and that's why it's hypocritical to ignore the Trump actions to which people react.

For reasons that shouldn’t need to be explained, markets and the economy in general doesn’t respond well to instability or unpredictability.

What does "anti-Trumpism" consist of? How does it differ from "anti-Obamaism"? Politics always produces reactions. What is different with Trump is that he says and does so much that many find repulsive -so much more than past Presidents. It's always action/reaction, and that's why it's hypocritical to ignore the Trump actions to which people react.

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it.

I just can’t get on board with the word-policing and snobbery. I must admit it would be easier to wag my finger and hop on the bandwagon, but it’s reaching levels of persecution.

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. — NOS4A2

So if Trump had worked to improve the Affordable Care Act rather than damage it, not waste billions on a border wall, cared about the environment and practiced responsible regulation reform, etc etc, these so called anti-trumpist would still want to sacrifice the country to get him out of office?

It's natural for human beings to have conflicting desires. I want Trump to fail because that would make his reelection unlikely. I also don't want the country ruined. Trying to conflate these natural impulses into an "ideology" is beyond idiotic. Even Trump and Fox News haven’t gone that far.

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. — NOS4A2

That's political hyperbole that both sides use. Everyone always wants the opposition party to fail to enact the policies they don't like -policies they consider bad for the country, and the attacked party responds as you're doing, conflating failure to enact perceived bad policy with failure to do good things.

I just can’t get on board with the word-policingtru and snobbery. I must admit it would be easier to wag my finger and hop on the bandwagon, but it’s reaching levels of persecution.

Instead, you wag your finger at the people who are concerned about the things Trump says. That's hypocrisy: you pretend to be above judging people, and then proceed to judge.

Is it OK with you if Trump fans the flames of racism, or is it just that you think Trump is being judged unfairly? If the former, you should certainly understand why people who don't like racism would react as they do. If the latter, you should recognize that it's a judgment call - just because YOU don't think he's encouraging racism (even if inadvertantly), you should recognize that others assess him differently. It is snobbery to act as if you are in the superior position to judge.

So if Trump had worked to improve the Affordable Care Act rather than damage it, not waste billions on a border wall, cared about the environment and practiced responsible regulation reform, etc etc, these so called anti-trumpist would still want to sacrifice the country to get him out of office?

It's natural for human beings to have conflicting desires. I want Trump to fail because that would make his reelection unlikely. I also don't want the country ruined. Trying to conflate these natural impulses into an "ideology" is beyond idiotic. Even Trump and Fox News didn't go that far.

They’ve already tried to sell us the notion of a dark future before the election—recession, race wars, nuclear fallout, concentration camps, the second coming of Hitler, Russian influence, ecological collapse—and they are doing everything in their power to make this a reality.