Obama's ideology leans socialist, which is less individualistic, less self reliant, and less religious. He also is very uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism, that America is superior to Western Europe by virtue of its Constitution and values and its duty to protect the world from all evil. The left is generally uncomfortable with patriotism, flag saluting, and overt celebrations of national pride.

That is the America the right feels was abandoned by Obama. Your questioning this might have to do with Obama's race was such a non sequitur that I just took it as a standard liberal ad hom diversion. — Hanover

What you refer to here, is Obama's ideology. And when we look at ideologies, what we find in general, is that the policies of the left are not liked by the right, and vise versa. So government carries on, and the two sides dislike each other's policies. The fact that we dislike the policies that the other side puts in place, does not generally produce the feeling within us, that these policies are a threat to the country.

In the case of Trump, it is not the person's policies which are seen as a threat, but the person's character, so it is the person himself which appears to be a threat to the country. Look at what AWAT says above, "Trump is a strong mix between both parties and that is what I think is so confusing." So it's not his rightist or leftist ideology which people feel threatened by, it is his lack of ideology, and personal character, moral integrity, which people dislike (and this is evident from the nature of the demonstrations against him) and therefore they feel he is a threat to the country.

So you need to distinguish between a person's ideology, and the person himself, and realize that what is seen in Trump as a threat to the country is the person himself. And if you want to make this comparison with Obama, which you have brought up, what is it about Obama, the person, which people dislike, and thought of as a threat to the country?

In the case of Trump, it is not the person's policies which are seen as a threat, but the person's character, so it is the person himself which appears to be a threat to the country. Look at what AWAT says above, "Trump is a strong mix between both parties and that is what I think is so confusing." So it's not his rightist or leftist ideology which people feel threatened by, it is his lack of ideology, and personal character, moral integrity, which people dislike (and this is evident from the nature of the demonstrations against him) and therefore they feel he is a threat to the country. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hiya MU, you can call me Tiff if you would like, it is the nickname most know me by and thank you for quoting me. However, I don't for a minute think that President Trump lacks ideology: which is to put fuel into the engine of the USA's working man and no I do not mean handouts but rather less regulations and more investment in our own infrastructure. Continuing onto judgement of his "personal character and moral integrity" that is not something that I dislike, in fact I believe he has a strong moral compass, stronger than most elected officials in our Congress and his personal character? Every leader has both flaws and strengths, President Trump has both as well.

Hi Tiff, as much as I am not one to make hasty judgements about another person's character, especially someone whom I have no personal relationship with, many other people are not nearly so constrained in this way. The point I was making to Hanover, is that what I've seen in relation to the dislike for President Trump, is that it is generally speaking, a dislike for the person, rather than a dislike of the person's ideology. What Hanover has indicated since he's tried to make a comparison with President Obama, is a dislike of the person's ideology. Do you agree with my assessment of this difference?

So I thought I'd indicate to Hanover, that if we are to engage in such a comparison, we should compare apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges. And if we are starting with a dislike for President Trump, this clearly seems to be more of a dislike for the person rather than a dislike of the ideology. Then if we move to look at the dislike for President Obama, in comparison, we should look at the dislike of the person rather than the dislike of the ideology.

Isn't it ironic then that Trump is uncomfortable (and more vocally so) with American exceptionalism, too? — Michael

It's all spin, really. The Trump slogan is "Make America Great Again." This is a lament. America was great, ought to be great, has the potential to be great, but fuckers like Obama have reduced our standing in the world. Exceptionalism, at least as I define it, is a moral imperative that those who have been given much are required to give much. That is, the US is exceptional in the sense of its resources, its history being founded on the principle of liberty, and because of its people's drive to make the world a better place. However, it's acting ordinary, neither exceptional nor great. So I really don't see this as a departure at all from the concept of American exceptionalism.

That was one long survey to sit still for.

What was it that you wanted me to notice about Elizabeth Warren's items in the survey? It didn't seem all that remarkable. And 16% had not heard of Elizabeth Warren, but only 4% had not heard of William Howard Taft? What kind of group were they surveying?

I mean, really -- Taft, Hoover, Coolidge, and Wilson? Who, these days, has any opinions about these three -- except people who are hard-core American political history aficionados?

Here's the final passage in the Wikipedia article on American exceptionaism:

'In a speech on the Syria crisis on September 10, 2013, Obama said: "however, when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our kids safer over the long run, I believe we should act... That is what makes America different. That is what makes us exceptional."[105] In a direct response the next day, Russian President Vladimir Putin published an op-ed in The New York Times, articulating that "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation... We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."[106] Putin’s views were soon endorsed by future president Donald Trump who declared the op-ed “a masterpiece” to British television personality Piers Morgan: “You think of the term as being beautiful, but all of sudden you say, what if you’re in Germany or Japan or any one of 100 different countries? You are not going to like that term,” Trump said. “It is very insulting, and Putin put it to him about that.”[107] Some left-wing American commentators agree with Trump’s stance; one example is Sherle Schwenninger, a co-founder of the New America Foundation, who in a 2016 Nation magazine symposium remarked that “Trump would redefine American exceptionalism by bringing an end to the neoliberal/neoconservative globalist project that Hillary Clinton and many Republicans support”.[108]'

I really do agree with you that Trump is a buffoon. I don't see him as any more or less dangerous than any other candidate for President though. From my perspective, it's all entertaining theater. At the end of 4 years, I'll stand up, brush the popcorn off my lap, and go watch the next show. — Hanover

No interest in improving it then? If politics is just show then you don't have a democracy. Or is it a cynical "good enough for me" or maybe even "après moi, le déluge"?

Well I suppose you're right that I shouldn't resign myself to nonsense, but, in truth, I'm happier with a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, if for no other reason than for the Supreme Court nominee.

I do care what happens after me, and I do buy into the Trump position that America has lost its way a bit and its course needs to be straightened out for future generations. Of course, I don't think Trump is at all an ideologue, nor do I think that there's anything fully consistent with anything he says or does. That is, he's not really much of anything other than a blowhard, but some of what he says sounds right sort of kind of, as opposed to the screeching dishonesty of Hillary. She's a nasty woman. I have that written across my face in solidarity with my sisters in arms because it's a badge of honor to be considered a nasty woman for some reason.

I'm happier with a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, if for no other reason than for the Supreme Court nominee. — Hanover

It's a strange thing that Supreme Court nominees are a partisan issue. It should be that judges just determine what the law (and Constitution) is, not what it should be, in which case whether or not you're a Democrat or a Republican or whatever shouldn't matter.

It's almost as if we expect judges to intentionally distort the facts to agree with personal views. E.g. a Democrat will try to make it seem like the Constitution forbids a state-ban on abortion and a Republican will try to make it seem like it doesn't.

Either that or we just expect that the opposition will distort the facts, because obviously our side is free from any bias.

It's almost as if we expect judges to intentionally distort the facts to agree with personal views. E.g. a Democrat will try to make it seem like the Constitution forbids a state-ban on abortion and a Republican will try to make it seem like it doesn't. — Michael

it's human nature to interpret the law in such a way as to maximize its compatibility with one's own intentions. That is the loop hole. Who would have better knowledge of the loop holes than a judge?

it's human nature to interpret the law in such a way as to maximize its compatibility with one's own intentions. That is the loop hole. Who would have better knowledge of the loop holes than a judge? — Metaphysician Undercover

But then if we admit to wanting a Democratic or Republican judge, are we admitting that the law/Constitution isn't on our side and that we need someone who will nonetheless "pretend" (or creatively interpret) that it is?

It's a strange thing that Supreme Court nominees are a partisan issue. It should be that judges just determine what the law (and Constitution) is, not what it should be, in which case whether or not you're a Democrat or a Republican or whatever shouldn't matter. — Michael

Yes, that is how it should be; but over the last several decades, the Supreme Court has gone in a much more activist direction, in many cases determining what the law should be rather than what it is, resulting in its unfortunate politicization. Even so, Republican vs. Democrat is not the issue, but whether a potential justice is more likely to interpret law vs. make law. Our societal impatience with legislative gridlock has led to the concentration of power in the other two branches - i.e., unelected bureaucrats and judges - contrary to the Founders' wise design that was intended to preclude massive national policy changes in the absence of broad public consensus.

When any law is drawn up, it represents a particular intent. That is why it is important in interpretation, to put that law into the context within which it was created. That's what true (objective) interpretation does, observes the law within the context of the intent of those who produced it. Judges know that the intent of true (objective) interpretation is to respect the intent of the law. The problem is that there is always ambiguity with respect to any interpretation of the intent of the law. It is impossible to recreate the context with 100% accuracy. This ambiguity will only be interpreted in relation to the intention of the particular judge doing the interpretation, because the judge's principal intent of true (objective) interpretation, cannot be completely fulfilled. Therefore it is inevitable that there will be some degree of subjectivity in interpretation.

So it is not necessarily the case, that the law either is or is not on our side, it is the case that the intent of the law cannot be determined in any absolutely definitive way. So if individuals such as you and I have certain biases, then we would prefer to have judges which have similar biases, in order that any ambiguity with respect to the intent of the law, would be interpreted in a way which is consistent with the way that we would interpret it.

Liberals pride themselves on being critical of others, so what they should do now turn their critical eye on themselves (especially the media).

From what I've seen, the Left is now imploding into vacuums of increasingly extreme delusions and spin, and the only persons listening are 'the choir' (referring to the old phrase that "they are preaching to the choir" - in this case meaning people who are already predispositioned to embrace such delusions and spin, such as social parasites, con-artists, those with delusions of power (such as running a Socialist State), and those seeking self-glorification and self-aggrandizement (and primal security) by giving away other people's wealth (just to give liberals a critical eye).