President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[PaloAltoCougar]

Now that I have a minute to respond, I have been thinking about this and disagree with 1,2,and 3.

1) It's hard to argue that Trump alone has undermined faith in the validity of elections when the DNC rigged their primary to give their chosen one the nomination. Has his reticence to cooperate in an investigation hurt? Probably, but his part in any diminished faith in our electoral process is small in the grand scheme of things until there is sound evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the elections.

2) The press has brought America's distrust on by itself. Their clear bias turns most people off, and the only people who listen to them are those who want someone to tell them what they want to hear. I'm not supporting Trump's disparagement of the media, but he's no different than any other President in terms of criticizing media, so why single him out? Investigating the personal lives of journalists we don't agree with to try to destroy their career, or worse, investigating journalists who report leaked information has done more damage and contributed more to threatening our free press than anything Trump has done.

3) Obama's "I have a pen" remark when Congress wouldn't do what he wanted was more damaging than Trump's executive actions, and Bush greatly expanded executive power, so again, why single out Trump?

In short, I think Trump is complicit in all three of the above areas, but why are we singling him out and giving others a pass? My point was not to defend Trump, who in recent days has proven to be indefensible, but to say that the actions of his predecessors put him in office. I stand by that. Until last week, I didn't think anyone could be worse than Obama. From an economic perspective, I still believe that's true. Regardless, Hillary's voters still don't get it. None of you understand that your opinions may be valid where you live, but you, your representatives, and the Beltway crew should stop telling middle America what to do without understanding their concerns.

Then disagree we shall! I'm so convinced of my position that I'm going to abstain from beef during the first six hours of each day through the end of the month in protest of your disagreement.

Your primary point seems to be that I shouldn't be singling out Trump ("...why are we singling him out and giving others a pass?"). Quick answer: Because he is the current President. I've been critical of past presidents, but now's not the time. Trump currently has more power than anyone on the planet to fix things, rather than exacerbate them which he is certainly doing. With Mussolini-esque confidence he declared that, "I, alone, can fix it!" He hasn't yet, and has only made things worse.

I acknowledge that each of our previous presidents may have erred at times in each of the three enumerated areas, but I honestly don't understand how anyone could think Trump isn't worse, and probably far worse, than any of his predecessors, at least with respect to the first two. I'm a little surprised you apparently see no difference between the DNC internal shenanigans (there's rich history in our nation of smoke-filled room chicanery in party politics) and a man who many dozens of times has insisted the national election system is rigged, despite not providing any supporting evidence (e.g., the claim that thousands of illegal voters were bused over state lines to vote against him? Sheesh).

And while every President has had frequent beefs with the press, no previous chief executive has decried "fake news" with the frequency and vehemence of the Donald, while throughout his lifetime he has provided more fake news than any who went before him (if you want me to provide lots (i.e., >50) examples, I will do so on condition that you provide me with ten pounds of prime beef when I deliver).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Then disagree we shall! I'm so convinced of my position that I'm going to abstain from beef during the first six hours of each day through the end of the month in protest of your disagreement.

[scottie]

[old_gregg]

jeselnik is hilarious. wish his standup would take off more.

[frank ryan]

Unite The Right” Organizer Attacks Charlottesville Victim In Drug-Fueled, Late Night Tweet

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/20...e-night-tweet/

“Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists have killed 94 million,” he tweeted Friday. “Looks like it was payback time.”

Yep, some in the altright are really good people who are mad about statues.

[cowboy]

Then disagree we shall! I'm so convinced of my position that I'm going to abstain from beef during the first six hours of each day through the end of the month in protest of your disagreement.

Your primary point seems to be that I shouldn't be singling out Trump ("...why are we singling him out and giving others a pass?"). Quick answer: Because he is the current President. I've been critical of past presidents, but now's not the time. Trump currently has more power than anyone on the planet to fix things, rather than exacerbate them which he is certainly doing. With Mussolini-esque confidence he declared that, "I, alone, can fix it!" He hasn't yet, and has only made things worse.

I acknowledge that each of our previous presidents may have erred at times in each of the three enumerated areas, but I honestly don't understand how anyone could think Trump isn't worse, and probably far worse, than any of his predecessors, at least with respect to the first two. I'm a little surprised you apparently see no difference between the DNC internal shenanigans (there's rich history in our nation of smoke-filled room chicanery in party politics) and a man who many dozens of times has insisted the national election system is rigged, despite not providing any supporting evidence (e.g., the claim that thousands of illegal voters were bused over state lines to vote against him? Sheesh).

And while every President has had frequent beefs with the press, no previous chief executive has decried "fake news" with the frequency and vehemence of the Donald, while throughout his lifetime he has provided more fake news than any who went before him (if you want me to provide lots (i.e., >50) examples, I will do so on condition that you provide me with ten pounds of prime beef when I deliver).

I hold you in the highest of esteem, and I admit I could be wrong on this subjective matter, but I want to clarify so you don't think I haven't thought about this. First, my original contention was that the mistakes of Trump's predecessors opened the gate for him to enter the office. Hence, my argument against singling him out while giving others a pass isn't meant to be a 'yeah, but the other side is worse' to justify Trump (an argument that I have come to despise, though I admit I've done the same with other politicians). Instead, I'm trying to reinforce my original assertion regarding the actions of his predecessors. Now, I want to specifically address two of your comments:

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think Trump isn't worse, and probably far worse, than any of his predecessors, at least with respect to the first two

Maybe he is, but I believe the damage regarding elections and the press was already done, and that Trump's bombastic accusations are ignored by most. I think anyone who believes his allegations and rhetoric already believes that elections are rigged and the press is crooked. Thus, while he certainly isn't going to heal any divisions, his inflammatory language doesn't undermine the integrity of the press and elections to anyone who didn't already have those opinions. Is it worse than what others have done? Maybe, but I don't think so, which leads me to your other comment.

I'm a little surprised you apparently see no difference between the DNC internal shenanigans (there's rich history in our nation of smoke-filled room chicanery in party politics) and a man who many dozens of times has insisted the national election system is rigged, despite not providing any supporting evidence (e.g., the claim that thousands of illegal voters were bused over state lines to vote against him? Sheesh).

The difference that I see is that one is a verified action to undermine voters' ability to elect the candidate of their choice and the other is a ridiculous claim believed only by those who have already lost faith in our broader election process because of "smoke-filled room chicanery". Likewise, with the press, people began to lose faith media impartiality years ago. To my recollection, Obama is the first president to name a network in the petty back-and-forth between presidents and the press, and he is the only president to investigate a reporter in what gave the appearance as an effort to scare the press into submission. Fake news became a headline topic not because Trump keeps repeating it, but because news outlets blamed it for Trump's victory. Trump then co-opted the term to apply it to other media outlets, but the MSM has done nothing to help their reputation. Between Fox insisting to carry Hannity and his conspiracy theories, and CNN calling Trump's Russia connection a "nothingburger" while reporting on it constantly, it's hard to believe anybody.

Has Trump made things worse rather than better? In my opinion, yes. He has shown no willingness to back away from the fight, and continues to treat every contrary opinion as a personal affront. I think he's echoing the disillusioned, though, rather than swaying any opinion. Because the disillusioned are unlikely to have their mind changed, I don't consider his outlandish claims to be that damaging. The damage was already done. Further, I think words carry less weight than actions, and regarding the specific topics we are discussing, the actions of Obama and the DNC are more damaging in my opinion than Trump's words. Their actions don't excuse Trump's; I'm just explaining my position on what I think has done the most damage to the institutions.

In all of this, please keep in mind that I'm neither defending Trump nor happy he's in office. I am simply stating my opinion that his predecessors inadvertently put him there with the wounds and disillusion their actions caused.

[frank ryan]

I hold you in the highest of esteem, and I admit I could be wrong on this subjective matter, but I want to clarify so you don't think I haven't thought about this. First, my original contention was that the mistakes of Trump's predecessors opened the gate for him to enter the office. Hence, my argument against singling him out while giving others a pass isn't meant to be a 'yeah, but the other side is worse' to justify Trump (an argument that I have come to despise, though I admit I've done the same with other politicians). Instead, I'm trying to reinforce my original assertion regarding the actions of his predecessors. Now, I want to specifically address two of your comments:


Maybe he is, but I believe the damage regarding elections and the press was already done, and that Trump's bombastic accusations are ignored by most. I think anyone who believes his allegations and rhetoric already believes that elections are rigged and the press is crooked. Thus, while he certainly isn't going to heal any divisions, his inflammatory language doesn't undermine the integrity of the press and elections to anyone who didn't already have those opinions. Is it worse than what others have done? Maybe, but I don't think so, which leads me to your other comment.


The difference that I see is that one is a verified action to undermine voters' ability to elect the candidate of their choice and the other is a ridiculous claim believed only by those who have already lost faith in our broader election process because of "smoke-filled room chicanery". Likewise, with the press, people began to lose faith media impartiality years ago. To my recollection, Obama is the first president to name a network in the petty back-and-forth between presidents and the press, and he is the only president to investigate a reporter in what gave the appearance as an effort to scare the press into submission. Fake news became a headline topic not because Trump keeps repeating it, but because news outlets blamed it for Trump's victory. Trump then co-opted the term to apply it to other media outlets, but the MSM has done nothing to help their reputation. Between Fox insisting to carry Hannity and his conspiracy theories, and CNN calling Trump's Russia connection a "nothingburger" while reporting on it constantly, it's hard to believe anybody.

Has Trump made things worse rather than better? In my opinion, yes. He has shown no willingness to back away from the fight, and continues to treat every contrary opinion as a personal affront. I think he's echoing the disillusioned, though, rather than swaying any opinion. Because the disillusioned are unlikely to have their mind changed, I don't consider his outlandish claims to be that damaging. The damage was already done. Further, I think words carry less weight than actions, and regarding the specific topics we are discussing, the actions of Obama and the DNC are more damaging in my opinion than Trump's words. Their actions don't excuse Trump's; I'm just explaining my position on what I think has done the most damage to the institutions.

In all of this, please keep in mind that I'm neither defending Trump nor happy he's in office. I am simply stating my opinion that his predecessors inadvertently put him there with the wounds and disillusion their actions caused.

What do you mean about CNN calling it a nothing burger? That's a strange way of phrasing things. I assume you mean one person commenting about a certain story or part of the investigation. "CNN" seem to think it's a pretty big scandal worth following. About the DNC, do you think if they didn't favor the establishment candidate that Bernie would have won? Also, did they do anything criminal?

[frank ryan]

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

You know the onion is satire, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know the onion is satire, right?

Satire is dead.

[frank ryan]

You know the onion is satire, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PaloAltoCougar]

One of the cool things about today's eclipse is that it has bumped Trump out of the news feed for an extended period--I'm talking hours. So, sorry to ruin that. But I was thinking about the C'Ville demonstration and decided to kill some time by walking into my Jewish law partner's office and asking him, "Hey, what's up with the 'Jews will not replace us' chant"? It clearly caught him off guard, but he reluctantly admitted that his people have an Invasion of the Body Snatchers plan currently underway. Thought you should know. Be careful where you sleep tonight.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Trump's Afghanistan speech was surprisingly Presidential, even if one take issue with the substance. But that's because it was totally scripted and he managed not to stray from the teleprompter. Driving home last night, I listened to him at his rally in Phoenix (or was it Nuremberg?) where he was pretty much unscripted and it was depressing. I understand his supporters' frustration with the system, with prior officeholders, or simply with their lot in life, but I can't fathom why anyone finds Trump himself an appealing leader.

Anyway, to cheer myself up I watched the old Sassy Trump videos and found this fine tour of the Oval Office, including Sean Hannity who sounds like Lou Costello:

[youtube]ginroxoBOZU[/youtube]

[cowboy]

...I understand his supporters' frustration with the system, with prior officeholders, or simply with their lot in life, but I can't fathom why anyone finds Trump himself an appealing leader.

This is where I am. Though most people I know who voted for him were simply voting against Hillary, I know some smart, educated people who still like the guy. I think some people were so fed up that anything different is refreshing to them. Others look at the things he has done that they believe affect them directly (Keystone pipeline, Gorsuch, etc.) as more important than his likability. You can argue the intelligence of the second group, but for a coal-fired power plant engineer in Wyoming, pulling out of the Paris accord is a lot more important than impressing foreign dignitaries. When people's livelihood is at stake, it often becomes not just the most important issue, but the only issue when entering the voting booth. I guess that's all conjecture, but it is the best explanation I can think of for people to still support Trump.

[Omaha 680]

Trump's Afghanistan speech was surprisingly Presidential, even if one take issue with the substance. But that's because it was totally scripted and he managed not to stray from the teleprompter. Driving home last night, I listened to him at his rally in Phoenix (or was it Nuremberg?) where he was pretty much unscripted and it was depressing. I understand his supporters' frustration with the system, with prior officeholders, or simply with their lot in life, but I can't fathom why anyone finds Trump himself an appealing leader.

Anyway, to cheer myself up I watched the old Sassy Trump videos and found this fine tour of the Oval Office, including Sean Hannity who sounds like Lou Costello:

Your post sent me on a wonderful trip down memory lane with Sassy Trump. It was much needed and I thank you. In return, I offer you this vid to buoy you up in these dark times. A protester getting hit in the nuts by a bean bag, set to an appropriate soundtrack.

Embedded Tweet