Should Trump make fun of Mika's alleged facelift?
- promisemposted 6 years ago
0Is it appropriate for the President of the United States to tweet such a vicious personal attack on the "low IQ crazy Mika" on the "Morning Joe" program?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref … r%5EauthorNo, it is not appropriate. He should be fired, as would pretty much anyone else who used their position to viciously bully another human being.
He is an ugly human being. Worse, he is POTUS and is more worried about Mika Brezinski than he is about doing his job. Of course, plenty of people don't care how disgusting he is.
I'm sickened and embarrassed that he is our president.Impeachment is the only option at this point, but who knows if that would get anywhere.
Clearly he is not the asset the Republicans hoped he would be.
You mean like newscasters who use their position to declare a "Russian Connection" with Trump? The politicians that used theirs while proclaiming a racial bias of Trump? The millions that declared he never paid income tax?
People like that should be fired for bullying, repeating lies without basis?Why is it that when Trump is called out on his behavior, the immediate response is to redirect the subject to media behavior? The media has 0% relevance in this issue. This is about a tweet which media has zero control over. This is about the President of the United States.
I like how some random liberal celebrity or media personality that we never chose to speak for us says boo and we're told that all liberals must be held accountable and condemn it.
The president, who these people actually chose to represent them, acts like a schoolyard bully and it's either crickets or pushing the blame onto everyone else. Or apparently the assertion that celebrities should be held to higher standards than a flippin' world leader. That one's new.
That comparison is beneath your intelligence. Trump never even admits he lies, while major news agencies will retract stories and dismiss staff caught fabricating stories. Kathy Griffin apologized for her inappropriate behavior, yet conservatives still crucify her while defending the POTUS's twitter tantrums, for which he never apologizes.
Trump's ego is so fragile he has to lash out when his widdle fee-fees are hurt. He is an utter embarrassment.
Geez, I am sick of people defending this crap.
I don't think you can fire a president just because he says rude things, but I wonder about the nepotism and the extra monetary gain he is getting because diplomats use his hotels and golf course. Isn't that a conflict of interest?
Yes, it is. And a violation of the Constitution's emolument clause. He is being sued for it among the 150+ other lawsuits against him (and rising).
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#! … nts-clause
Reports like this make me feel as though I need to apologize to the rest of the civilized world on a daily (or tweetly) basis.
I agree. What he did to the Irish female reporter the other day is just as bad.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … o-familiar
Ivanka and Melania should send tweets condemning his childish, mean-spirited tweets. Bullying? He's the BULL!
The answer is no, but it's a two way street - should a member of the Chicago Cubs be smiling with an upturned middle finger while the team was in the Oval Office? Should the media spend so much time ridiculing the president? I've heard the "orange hair" thing and so many attacks on Trump from the Hollywood crowd - should we stop them?
A member of the Cubs should not have an upturned finger in the Oval office. That said, this thread is about the behavior of the President of the United States. Should he be held to a higher standard than a baseball player or Hollywood celebrity?
Baseball and particularly Hollywood celebrities are worshipped as near-gods. I'd say they are the ones that need held to a higher standard.
Are you serious? Ozzie Osbourne should be held to a higher standard the the President of the United States?
Well, who'd a thunk it.
The cubs player was out of line.
Ridiculing someone's hair is petty.
Both are completely unrelated to Trump's behavior. He's the President of the United States, not Mary Jones on local news laughing about orange hair or a cubs fan trying to get famous. Neither of those parties is sitting in the Oval Office writing Executive Orders.It is strange to me that people are up in arms. When Bill Clinton proved himself to be a member of the lowest common denominator the public was fairly accepting.
That's odd. I remember a huge scandal and even an initiated impeachment process.
That was by the government. I don't remember the majority of people being supportive of that effort. But, I'd rather have a president who makes inappropriate comments to one chewing on an inappropriate cigar and making ignorant statements like pondering what 'is' means.
Anyway. It is neither here nor there to me. As I said the guy was a known ass before the primaries. No one will support a third party so all we had to choose from were the two candidates offered by the Republicans and Democrats. Whatever Trump is it could have been worse. We could have had to deal with Hillary in office.Perhaps. But Bill Clinton was completely unrelated, irrelevant person to the issue at hand, so I'm not entirely sure why you brought it up or compared them.
Also, the fact that you feel Hillary Clinton would have been worse is also irrelevant. If she were President, we'd all be criticizing her too; and saying "well Trump would have been worse," would also be an irrelevant argument in that hypothetical scenario.
The "well it could be worse" presentation doesn't lessen the issue at hand. It doesn't make it any less serious. It doesn't make him any less deserving of criticism. We're dealing with what is, not what could have been. And what is, is unacceptable. Complaining that other people have been worse, or would have been worse, does not lessen our responsibility to hold the President accountable.People say "it could be worse" to assuage their guilty consciences for voting for him. If they were completely confident in their choice, they would defend Trump on his merits and not defend him when he is clearly wrong.
It's strange to me that Trump supporters would excuse the President of the United States for behavior that would get him banned from the Hubpages Forums.
It's strange to me that Trump supporters bring up Clinton every time Trump engages in behavior that would never have been acceptable for a president. Clinton was impeached, remember?
Frankly, Trump has been in office for only six months, and I've never been so appalled at my fellow Americans' ability to justify pretty much anything that comes out of his mouth.Because even on intellectual forums, the "well this person was worse!" logical fallacy is still strong. The next time it happens, let's just say, "Oh yeah, but George Washington had slaves!"
What appalls me is the politics of hate.
The guy is an a**. I don't think that is supportive of him. It is stating a fact. But, no democrat had a problem with any a** that took office, who happened to be a democrat. So, it is difficult for me to take any of the disdain or horror seriously. There would be absolutely no horror coming from any democratic supporter if Trump were a democrat. When the two sides stop making excuses for their candidates while attempting to demonize someone from the opposite party, for doing exactly the same things (or, honestly less. Insulting a woman or making inappropriate comments is not as disgusting as giving them a special stain for their dress) then I'll listen with some interest. Until then, it's just another a** in the oval office. He isn't the first and won't be the last....."no democrat had a problem with any a** that took office, who happened to be a democrat."
Really? That's such a ridiculous statement. Plenty of Democrats had a problem with Clinton. Obama isn't an ass, but if he had behaved even a little bit like Trump I can almost guarantee he would not have been voted into officeDon't blame those who voted for Trump for the fact that the democrats put forth a candidate with absolutely no level of trust by the public and an abysmal record that could not be overlooked. I cannot think of anyone I would have by-passed in order to vote for Trump, except for Hillary.
When have I ever blamed Trump supporters for Hillary? Geesh. (Sorry, GA, I couldn't resist using your word.)
You really are desperate to excuse your vote, aren't you? You cast that vote. No one forced you. You could have voted for someone else or simply left it bank, but you didn't. You chose him, now take responsibility for it..
It's the height of lame to blame Hillary supporters for your vote for Trump.
I thought wilderness thinking celebrities should be held to a higher standard than POTUS was laughable, but this is even funnier.Have at it PrettyPanther, I will share it. It's time for a new one anyway. And I was looking for a chance to jump in here. There done. Now to jump back out.
GAWhat?? Who said you blamed a Trump supporter for Hillary. And, for the record, I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm simply a person who finds this constant negativity pointless. All I have ever advocated is to give the guy a chance without this constant barrage of criticism.
I am not desperate to excuse my vote. Yes, I cast a vote. If I were to leave it blank I might as well have saved the trip to the voting booth. You guys gave us those choices. I'm not taking responsibility for anything but my vote. That whole part of your comment is so ignorant I'm not certain why I wasted time responding.
Talk about laughable. The ignorant hypocrisy of the left and the right would be laughable, if it wasn't so incredibly disappointing."Don't blame those who voted for Trump for the fact that the democrats put forth a candidate with absolutely no level of trust by the public and an abysmal record that could not be overlooked."
Well, since the only people who could have "put forth a candidate with absolutely no level of trust by the public and an abysmal record that could not be overlooked" are the Democratic voters (they didn't choose Bernie; they chose Hillary), then I assumed that is what you meant. Did you mean something else?
You also said "Don't blame those who voted for Trump for...." Did you not mean that, either?
LOL, not a Trump supporter? I'm pretty sure if people read your posts here, they would think you were, but okay. Words speak louder than actions. Oh, wait....You said 'when have I every blamed Trump supporters for Hillary'. That isn't the same as I said and means something different than I said. Please don't blame me for your inability to clearly share your thoughts.
And, I guess repeatedly suggesting we stop the negativity to give the president a chance to prove himself capable of doing his job can be construed as supporting him but I'd be saying the same thing had Hillary (God forbid) been elected. We have what we have in Washington. Through fair elections. I don't have to like a person to want them to have a chance to perform their duties without childish bickering.
You, as in both sides, see what you want to see. Those sides are tearing this country apart. I hope you are all happy with the outcome because I don't think it's going to be pretty.
Word! Amen! Everyone should stop it! Has any president topped Trump?
Was Bill Clinton insane? Nope. Whataboutism is a poor defense.
There is something mentally unstable in Trump. I wish -I WISH his supporters would acknowledge this. That's the most frustrating thing. That idiot spent the morning tweeting at news people and embarrassing himself and anyone who supports him.
DJT is corrupt and incompetent, causing great and unfathomable harm to this country, a unhinged megalomaniac incapable of practicing the basic duties of dignity. Impeachment isn't going to happen but due to the grave emotional instability, he could be removed under the 25th Amendment.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment empowers Congress to form its own body to evaluate the President’s fitness for office, eliminating the need for the Cabinet’s involvement in the process but DJT could remove them before they could do anything if he believed they posed a threat.
We already know that the people with the power to stop Trump—the Republicans in the House and Senate who declare themselves “troubled” and “concerned” by his actions—are so hell-bent on destroying the regulatory state, harming the weak, imposing Christianity on nonbelievers, and giving tax breaks to the wealthy that Trump’s fitness raises no alarms. Unfortunately, that isn’t a DSM-IV level diagnosable pathology. It’s what we call conservatism in America. - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … ution.html"There is something mentally unstable in Trump. I wish -I WISH his supporters would acknowledge this."
And I wish people with zero training, zero experience and zero data would quit making public diagnosis of the mental "illness" of other people.I have to agree with this, as much as I dislike Trump. And even mental health professionals are not allowed to comment on a public figure's mental health. It violates a very strict rule of ethics, so even if a mental health professional DOES make some sort of statement, it's iffy. They haven't personally evaluated him, and if they had, they're bound to confidentiality.
I don't agree at all. It doesn't take a PhD to qualify someone from making observations about another person's behavior. Not to mention the fact that we have a Constitutional right to express our opinions.
I grew up in the home of an abusive alcoholic. I don't have to be a psychiatrist to have plenty of insights about alcoholism.
I agree that whataboutism is not a defense. But, the point is there are more important issues to talk about. Didn't want to talk then about trivial personality flaws? So why now?
You may be right that DT is mentally unstable, but I would agree with promisem that you would need a degree and some testing to come up with a diagnosis. Also, could we all agree that if you are the President Of The United States, you should act in, perhaps, shall we say, a presidential manner? I do think the president should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the other 'boys in the backroom". I believe that President Obama gave us a very good example of what the decorum of a president should look like. I wish our current POTUS would take a cue from Obama.
CNN reply;
It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters. Clearly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied when she said the President had never done so.”
Man Behind Donald Trump’s Bizarre Social Media Strategy:
Dan Scavino was Trump’s golf caddy as a teenager. Now he’s his social media director.Many people who voted for Trump kept insisting that he would 'become more presidential' if he actually won. They were obviously mistaken; and are no doubt as disappointed as the rest of us with his behavior.
I'm not convinced that Trump is mentally unstable simply because he acts the way he does. Egomania isn't an illness, its an attitude - and it is one that many people freely utilize across this planet. The fact that we elected someone with a disposition like that into the office of potus is a direct reflection of the collective health of 'we the people'. Obviously, WE are the sick aspect of this country; and only WE can fix it somehow. We've got a long way to go; and 'fixing' anything currently seems impossible with all the infighting.
And people yammered on about Obama's birth certificate for 8 years, people say Castro was Justin Trudeau's real father, people made fun of Bush's intelligence, blah blah blah. Every leader faces ridicule and yet they tap into this thing called self-control and get on with their lives and their jobs without having twitter meltdowns every other day.
If you can't trust him not to lose his ability to be level-headed whenever someone says something mean about him, I don't think he has any business being president. Then again, I can't blame him, he's made it abundantly clear from the beginning that he's self-absorbed and unhinged but people voted for him anyway.Joe Scarborough tweeted back,”I have texts from your top aides and phone records,” he wrote. “Also, those records show I haven’t spoken with you in many months. Why do you keep lying about things that are so easily disproven? What is wrong with you?” with you?”
I think DJT is, unconsciously compelled--to do everything in his power to defeat himself .
Laurence Tribe, a liberal Harvard Law School professor who worked in President Barack Obama's administration, tweeted that if the White House told Brzezinski and Scarborough that the supermarket tabloid would "smear them unless they laid off" Trump, it would be a violation of the anti-extortion statute.-
"In mid-April, Scarborough texted with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner about the pending Enquirer story. Kushner told Scarborough that he would need to personally apologize to Trump in exchange for getting Enquirer owner David Pecker to stop the story.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-j … ime-2017-6
Of course, its ALL the media's fault for being so mean to him - he incites absolutely NONE of the criticism against himself, LoL!
But the White House sprang to Mr Trump's defence.
"I don't think that the president has ever been someone that gets attacked and doesn't push back," spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News.
"People on that [MSNBC] show have personally attacked him many times. This is a president who fights fire with fire and certainly will not be allowed to be bullied by liberal media and the liberal elites within the media, or Hollywood or anywhere else."
Most other presidents are grown-ups enough not to take criticism too personally. He shouldn't even be looking at criticism, he should be ignoring it, looking forward and doing his job. There is no such thing as a president that doesn't get raked across the coals by the media - just look at what they at what they said about Obama day after day for years; and Bush Jr sure got his fair share, as well. Why Trump thinks he's so much more special is beyond me...
If you can't handle criticism, especially when you KNOW what/why/how you are p*ssing people off - you really shouldn't run for that office. Yeah, the press has been merciless to Trump; but its not like he hasn't incited hard feelings against himself, and he deserves every damn rotten tomato thrown at him.
If he never gets used to it, its going to be a looooooooooong three and a half years for him. The fact that he worries about his image more than anything is just stupid for a president - it only incites more & deeper divisions. Then again, that is obviously his raison d'etre.OMG! Two really sensible comments - without mimes. careful Misfit Chick, your audience might be growing.
At least you got me to chime in twice. ;-)
But seriously, your comment about presidents being grown-up enough not to take it personally is only half right. Of course they all take it personally. Autobiography after autobiography has confirmed this. But the part you did get right was how they responded to it.
Once again, I like your comment. Hell, at this rate, we'll be drinking buddies soon.
GA
The simplist solution is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What we are seeing is "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you."
People are referred to by labels which makes it easier to ridicule and hate them. We are not able to listen to each other.
1. shafted white middle class is angry - I'd like an explanation if someone doesn't mind. I'm asking to get information to understand.
2. Profiled/harrassed Black people are feeling persecuted.
3. Mexicans are not welcome in America and expected to pay for a wall to make sure they stay out.
4. Republicans want to get rid of everything Obama put in place.
5. Democrats won't support candidates who don't hold to their far left agenda
The intensity of feelings, and hatred, causes people to say hateful things to stress their level of disgust with others.We need a day when we can only save nice TRUE thinks to each other.
We need GROUP hugs OFTEN!#1 - an explanation as to why they are angry, or how/why the conditions that made them that way developed?
People are referred to by labels which makes it easier to ridicule and hate them. We are not able to listen to each other.
1. shafted white middle class is angry - I'd like an explanation if someone doesn't mind. I'm asking to get information to understand.
Why is this distinction between white middle class and middle class of other racial or ethnic groups?
Why are they so angry as opposed to the others?
2. Profiled/harrassed Black people are feeling persecuted.
Black people have always been persecuted, it is only with the invention of the cell phone and camera and instant communications that which was once hidden, ignored and dismissed is now on the evening news. These revelations are not always welcome as you think that they would be.
3. Mexicans are not welcome in America and expected to pay for a wall to make sure they stay out.
There is a GOP senator that says that he will advocate shutting down the government if appropriations are not made for "the wall". Mexicans and immigrants generally are being blamed for America's economic woes. Just more BS and misdirection by the conservative ring leaders. Their solutions as always are demonstratingly puerile and as such will resonate with their followers.
4. Republicans want to get rid of everything Obama put in place.
Surely looks like to get rid of Obamacare in its entirety they would need to "throw granny into the street". If they really wanted to improve things, why the cloak and dagger routine, the secrecy? Are they so afraid of the press and their constituency that they must machinate in secret?
5. Democrats won't support candidates who don't hold to their far left agenda
What far left agenda? Preserving Medicare and Medicaid, not gutting social security, nor cutting veterans benefits? For the rightwinger, anything just left of center is now "far left". It is not about fiscal responsibility, more than who it is that gets the largesse of the national treasury showered upon them. If there is a choice it is to benefit the man in the street, not the fat cats.
---------------------
The intensity of feelings, and hatred, causes people to say hateful things to stress their level of disgust with others.We need a day when we can only save nice TRUE thinks to each other.
There is going to be conflict and I expect it to be around for a while. We can always keep our discourse civil, but there is no doubt, no equivocation in regards to which side I am on and why.
We need GROUP hugs OFTEN! (OK)Cred, on 5. I was referring to the guy who wanted to run for mayor as a Democrat but DNC wouldn't support him because he doesn't believe in abortion.
I had lunch with a group of high school friends in May. One is chair of the local DNC. We discussed the ridicule of Christians and harsh criticism of Christian values. RNC makes a distinction between their moderates and "hard" conservatives. I don't fully understand the distinction but it shows a variety of opposing thoughts.
There should be things that unite us as Americans and cause us to consider each other's feelings. A good reason to "not" make fun of Mika's facelift is that it might hurt her feelings. He has his own big issue with his hair.Cred, on 5. I was referring to the guy who wanted to run for mayor as a Democrat but DNC wouldn't support him because he doesn't believe in abortion.
------
Quite frankly, I don't believe in abortion either. I would resist that choice for me and mine. But, I can't speak for other people and would not impose my beliefs upon them. The right to an abortion has been established by the courts under specific conditions, who am I to dispute that? That is the position that I would expect the Mayor to take.
-----------
I had lunch with a group of high school friends in May. One is chair of the local DNC. We discussed the ridicule of Christians and harsh criticism of Christian values. RNC makes a distinction between their moderates and "hard" conservatives. I don't fully understand the distinction but it shows a variety of opposing thoughts.
----------------
There is nothing wrong with Christians or Christian values no more than that of Jews, Hindus or anybody else that practices their beliefs peacefully respecting the rights of others to do the same. There is no such thing as Republican "moderates". I just as well believe in the tooth fairy. There will be some that say they are, yet there is little if any representation for them on the national stage. You just have to read the papers to see this. Based on that, there is only one kind of Republican these days.
-------------
There should be things that unite us as Americans and cause us to consider each other's feelings. A good reason to "not" make fun of Mika's facelift is that it might hurt her feelings. He has his own big issue with his hair.
---------------------
I expect the President of United States to rise above childish name calling, not excusing himself by saying 'she started it'.If you expect DJT to rise above his current state, forget about it! He needs to be "gone!"
It's incredible to me that the right calls the left "snowflakes" when the man they elected and feel exemplifies greatness for their country has the most fragile ego I think I've ever seen.
It's not presidential behaviour but then again a lot of people voted for him because they like that he's crass. So I don't expect many of his supporters to hold him to presidential standards in that sense.Trump is an ass. We all knew that. Unfortunately we were not given an acceptable alternative when voting for president.
Do you mean that out of all of those Republican candidates who ran in the primary, none were as acceptable as Trump? Wow!
No. But, you knew that. I have no idea how Trump won the Republican primary. I also don't know how Hillary won the Democratic primary.
But, I'll take an a** over a known liar and thief any day of the week. That's why I voted for Trump. Not Hillary. Hopefully, in upcoming elections both parties will offer us someone of substance to choose from.No, I did not know that. Republicans had the chance to nominate someone else in the primary, just like the Demos could have nominated Bernie.
"But, I'll take an a** over a known liar and thief any day of the week."
Sorry but Trump is a known liar and thief and misogynist to boot. He changes his mind so many times some of it has to be lies, and four bankruptcies would indicate thievery and dishonesty of some kind. That many can't be accidental, and people suffer by being defrauded. So he is a liar, a thief and an asshole.We'll have to disagree on what constituted the lesser of two evils.
I have no problem with what Trump has done with his tweets. For years people on the left and the media have provided false stories and said horrible things about Republicans and conservatives. The last three years of Bush's presidency the media and the left destroyed him on a daily basis. Republicans and conservatives became the left and the media's favorite whipping boy. Most Republicans just took it. This president stands up to those people on the left and in the media. It's refreshing. Trump has never fought back against anyone who respectfully criticized him. You want to disrespect Donald Trump, you will have disrespect coming your way. I think it's a good idea. When people on the left and the media learn how to be honest and respectfully criticize Trump this will all stop. Sometimes children need to be given a lesson on how to behave.
There seems to be this new condescending trend among some trump supporters to label all liberals and any media that attacks Republicans as "children" needing to be taught a lesson. This attitude is actually childish and narrow minded in itself, and lumps both democrats and media into one demeaning category. The media is a thing all on its own, and the people don't control that. No one forces anyone to watch it, and people have to make their own choices about what to believe, which they have every right to make. People are allowed to say what they wish, and believe what they wish. The President, Democrat or Republican, should be highly criticized and held to exceptionally high standards. This isn't a game of revenge, this is life. Adults ignore or compose themselves under pressure or provocation or false statements. They don't make petty personal insults about someone's face and get offended every time someone launches a personal attack. And instances of Trump behaving in questionable ways is not just restricted to responding to personal attacks against him or provocation. His questionable tweets also included open criticism of an entire nation which treated him with respect, and consistently ranting on twitter every time something didn't go his way. He's held to a higher standard. Lowering himself to a state of immaturity that he feels he is being met with, just makes him look like a rash, egotistical fool.
I think it shows he's in control. Trump's tweets set the news cycle. History has shown such personal attacks are effective against conservatives and Republicans. Just ask George Bush and Mitt Romney. I like how Trump stands up against it. Successful leaders have always made those who attack them pay a price. It makes others think about the price they have to pay if they attack. These tweets haven't hurt Trump's base of support...only increased it. I do like how Trump gets liberals and media types all upset over just words. Nobody on Hubpages seems to start their responses with "As a proud liberal" anymore. I wonder why?
"The price they have to pay if they attack?" So now we're punishing people who voice their opinions about the President? Scary mentality.
And Democrats are not the only ones upset by the manner in which he conducts himself. I'm definitely not a Democrat, but I still hold the President to a higher standard, and don't expect him to stoop to the level of a media critic trying to get views.Yes, I am a proud liberal, I have said it!!
Instead of being a twittering twit, how much trouble would it be to deal with opposition in a way consistent with being Presidential?
But we are going to chip away at Trump from those that are on the fence in regard to his support and continue to astounded by his behavior. That base may appear to not to be as large as you thought."..............Keep chipping away at Trump .........." Right , what ever you do keep Hilary around until 2020 , Pelosi , Maxine Waters , Feinstein , Schummer , all of that very productive left wing senate , congressional opposition , yeaaa you're doing real well destroying Trump ! ...........Not!
Let's see now what's next ,........... impeach him for reason # 87 or is it 88 ?..............help us out here ?
"hold the President to a higher standard"...this cracks me up. Where were the media and Democrat party when two term president Bill Clinton was getting...physical pleasure...from an intern? Where were these higher standards when dozens of women came forward and accused Clinton of everything including rape? Clinton has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in out of court settlements for sexual harassment lawsuits. Where were the women's groups and the mainstream media then? Hillary ran a group to go after women who her husband sexuallassault called the "Bimbo Eruption Unit" when he was president and governor. Bill Clinton does all this and the Democrat and the media do nothing but try to hide it or rationalize it. Trump sends out some tweets to ignorant talk show hosts and everybody freaks out? Talk about your double standards. I won't even go into the orgies in the White House during JFK that many people mentioned in their autobiographies. Puh...leeeze!
1. Why do people keep bringing up Bill Clinton? He has does not have one speck of the nucleus of an atom to do with this. It's a red herring "oh but why didn't people react this way back then?!" argument. It's irrelevant. How does that affect what level of standard to which we should hold our Presidents? All you'd essentially be saying is that Bill Clinton violated that standard. Did that change the fact that he should be held to a higher standard? No. As far as your comment about democrats not being bothered by it, I remember there being quite a bit of outrage at it, from Democrats and Republicans alike. AAnd they initiated an impeachment process. That hasn't even happened for Trump. Maybe people back then were more accepting of men cheating on their wives. Maybe it was because he wasn't throwing child tantrums and wasn't posting on nonexistent social media about how much he doesn't like someone's face. Maybe the entire comparison would be incomparable simply because the actions of Trump and the actions of Clinton are different, with different circumstances. Why is this even an issue? Please, move on from the past. That was over sixteen years ago. We're in the here and now. We're responsible for our decisions now, and whining about what voters were and were not appalled by doesn't change the issue of standards.
2. Also, You DO realize that there's a lot of people that couldn't vote during Clinton's Presidency, that CAN vote now, right? There's been new people made, old people died, and new adults voting, and people have switched parties. It's not like we're dealing with the exact same pool of people here. So how is it logical to compare the two actions as if they were conducted by the same voters? It makes no sense. Democrats and Republicans will do whatever they can to make their candidate look good. That's a fact. And if Hillary Clinton were up there as President behaving this way, I'd be on here ridiculing her too.
3. Democrats are not the only ones that dislike Trump. You've got Conservatives, Democrats, people in the Middle, too. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican scenario, because people don't work like that.Again, the media's hype blinded you to the reality of the Bill Clinton impeachment. He lied under oath. His impeachment was not bases on what he did with an intern, but because he lied about it under oath. Big crime. It's called perjury. Regular people go to jail for it. Clinton got impeached and lost his law license. Those are facts the mainstream media has chosen to ignore. If you think that things that happen in history don't impact what happens today...you'd be wrong. The history of how the media has treated Republicans is deep. There is a lot of rage for their lies and one-sided reporting. That's why a reporter in Montana can be body slammed by a Republican candidate and still get elected. Trump's tweets have not hurt him with his base of support. He's actually gotten a bump in the polls. If Democrats only have his tweets to attack Trump...they have nothing. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de … aseID=2471
Again, what President Clinton did or did not do, is irrelevant to what standard to which we should hold Presidents.
It's a red herring argument which has no relevance to us holding Trump, who is now President of the United States, to a higher standard.
I mean, if he wants to behave like your average media person whose job is to get viewers and be ruthless, then he can. But he just looks like an immature egotistical child.
"If you think that things that happen in history don't impact what happens today...you'd be wrong" Except I didn't think or say that, so the comment is unnecessary.
Media has blinded me? That's funny, since I don't watch the news, or if I do, I read sources from all the extremes (maybe on a monthly basis) and Trump's twitter. It's fascinating though, how far you had to leap to get to this conclusion. Very Olympic of you. Also, I'm a grown up. Yes I know what perjury is. Yes it was bad. Yes he did it. I don't disagree it was bad or that he did it. It was perjury. It's just simply irrelevant to this topic.
"Trump's tweets have not hurt him with his base of support." Of course not. Those who support him turn a blind eye to anything he does that is reprehensible.
"He's actually gotten a bump in the polls." Maybe, maybe not. Depends on your source. Correlation does not equal causation. It may or may not have anything to do with his tweets.
"If Democrats only have his tweets to attack Trump...they have nothing." Again, I correct you. It's not just Democrats. And that's not the case, but even if they did have only tweets, it shows us a lot about Trump's character. A lot."Those who support him turn a blind eye to anything he does that is reprehensible."
Or maybe they're more interested in results - in what he does than in what his angry rhetoric and childishness. It's not PC, which means non-supporters are over it like flies on cowpies, but the supporters are much more interested in actions (on the whole his supporters are not very PC either).It's funny how the people complaining about lying, corrupt media are so dismissive and not interested in the one communication medium Trump has that cannot be influenced by the media.
Maybe Trump supporters [strangely] don't care about his words, but others do. And words are essentially a part of what one does. He got on twitter and he ranted about someone's face. That is an action. I shouldn't have to delve into basic psychology in order to explain how one's words affect what people think of someone and how they predict someone's actions to be. I've heard more than one "undecided" voter say that they were concerned about how his behavior on Twitter reflected on his leadership capabilities. It's not just about PC. I don't like PC either. It's about ranting about someone's face because he doesn't like them. His behavior, as well as his words, combined, WILL affect his voter support in 2020. And then supporters will probably be wishing they'd paid more attention to the image he's projecting.The left and Democrats know nothing about those who support Trump. They have no idea why he got elected. The only thing they can do is call names and make insults. This would require understanding history. I bet they don't understand why his Tweets aren't really a problem. I like how he responds to people who attack him. The Democrat and left's inability to understand Trump supporters ensures Trump will get another term. The Democrats really have nobody to offer. I think Nancy Pelos and Maxine Waters would be the perfect 2020 Democrat ticket. I really hope Maxine Waters is on the ticket for the Democrats in 2020. It would be great.
If Trump survives the investigations and lawsuits, he will have a core group of supporters who vote for him no matter what he says or does.
He has a bigger problem with the loss of independent voters who won't vote for him again because of his behavior. And I guarantee that other Republicans will fight hard to get the nomination next time in place of Trump. John Kasich is one of them.We actually have a really good idea of why Trump got elected. The vast majority of Trump voters had a sense that the country was in decline due to the influx and influence of non-white, non-male, immigrants and other types of people outside of the norm. Trump actually said this himself - that his election could be the last time Republicans would win based on who was coming over the border into this country.
"The vast majority of Trump voters had a sense that the country was in decline due to the influx and influence of non-white, non-male, immigrants and other types of people outside of the norm."
Or that the country was in decline due to ineffective legislators that care more about buying votes than with running the country. As I personally know not a single person that is concerned with "non-white, non-male, immigrants and other types of people outside of the norm" and an awful lot of people disgusted with the performance of politicians and with the growing socialistic leaning of the country it seems obvious which is more likely to be true. Shoot, I haven't even heard anyone complaining of that non-white silliness...except Trump haters trying to divert attention from the real problems of the nation.Interesting. Trump ran on the very idea I outlined, so presumably people voted for him for that reason, among many others. Remember the Wall? It's a big deal. However, I'm glad this wasn't your reason for supporting him, assuming you did.
What in the world does the "Wall" have to do with anything? It supposedly stops illegal entry (whether white, male, brown, female, gay, Muslim or anything else), but certainly will not stop even one "non-white, non-male, immigrants and other types of people outside of the norm." Not even those hated executive orders designed to prevent terrorists from entering have anything to do with your description!
Only with the demonization of a President trying to do his sworn duty and protect our country and its borders.
Ah! Your ridiculous statement comes from an anti Trump rant that the working class was a big win for Trump (as opposed to Clinton). From the (accepted) "fact" that educated people voted democratic.
Needless to say, I disagree with the supposed connection - I don't find that the level of education relates to allowing only caucasian women to immigrate into the country. Their single statement that Trump voters "supporting the deportation of immigrants" was enough to show the lie to the entire article.
You might go back a few months and look at what was being given as reasons for voting R on social media, in conservative rags or anywhere else where the words came from the voter instead of a liberal ranting how hateful conservatives are.An anti-Trump rant? The very first sentence directly contradicts your statement:
"educated people voted democratic"Research clearly shows that Trump attracted older white males with a lower level of education. But those are just averages.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … education/
And where do you see an anti-Trump statement in that entire article? Is that just a conclusion you made based on the headline?
I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't feel like it was strictly this.
Trump had a very down-to-earth, non-PC, no-bullshit campaign message which focused on strengthening the nation and tightening security through the wall. I don't remember there being anything about the non-white and males. Immigration was a huge deal, but then it always is. I feel like, as someone who hovers in the Middle when it comes to politics, Trump had a very strong and sometimes relatable message to the typical American worker and pissed off citizen who was sick of speeches and politicians sitting around on their a**doing nothing.
This is why I think, had Trump chosen to channel this attitude through a way other than [what I perceive] to be somewhat laughable and immature rants and foolish public statements, he would make a very, very strong leader. If he were able to communicate his message with blunt honesty and also excellent communication skill, and had he not been so crass, I might have even considered voting for him (Hilary was just disgusting to me.)
But for me, all he's doing it ensuring I won't vote for him now, when there was probably a chance, before. Minus, of course, the healthcare issue, which I was really undecided about.
I can easily see why people would support Trump as President. Had he not (in my opinion) made himself out to be a raging egotist who cares way too much about criticism and immature personal attacks against people, I'd maybe give him a chance. It just wipes out his credibility and cancels out any respect from me. I didn't mind him so much until he actually started doing stuff as President. I thought his attitude would change once he took office, but he didn't. He's treating this way too much like a reality show, and not a Presidency, IMO. I just don't think he realizes how many possible votes he's missing because people DO care how he conducts himself, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with policy."I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't feel like it was strictly this.
Trump had a very down-to-earth, non-PC, no-bullshit campaign message which focused on strengthening the nation and tightening security through the wall."
---------------------
I can't see how anyone could take someone like Trump seriously with his record. What is down to earth about a billionaire? Particularly, one who has never sacrificed himself for anyone or any cause beyond his immediate self interests? Who thinks that such a man could really relate to the needs of the man in the street? His 'non-PC' constitutes insulting and denigrating ethnic groups. Insulting me and my friends is not "nonPC". The rant of any typical tyrant who asked his followers to blame their neighbor for their economic troubles. The focus of the immigration issue was a diversion from economic stress on working people that is really based upon automation and to a lesser degree, outsourcing.
The typical American worker is being deceived, by Trump and his associates, to blame their problems on non-existence sources. While there is reasons to be disaffected with the current economic situation, only desperation not reason could consider Trump as a solution. There has never been any indication in his past of his having any affinity toward those who are not wealthy or affluent.
The fact that he could not communicate beyond slogans, having no track record would give me pause.
People are shocked with the harsh nature of the GOP health care repeal and replace. Well, if you voted for Trump, you have made your bed and now must lie it in. (West Virginia) you are in for a shock. With Trump and the GOP, I was not surprised of the outcome and I could see that this was coming without looking. I can't be all that prescient.
The way he behaved in the campaign was telling, who was to think that he would be any less coarse and boorish as President, considering that he had no political experience.I'm not entirely sure if you actually read what I wrote, or skimmed through it once you read only that part.
*sigh* Ok here we go:
"I can't see how anyone could take someone like Trump seriously with his record. What is down to earth about a billionaire? Particularly, one who has never sacrificed himself for anyone or any cause beyond his immediate self interests? Who thinks that such a man could really relate to the needs of the man in the street?"
Remember, I'm talking about the reason people voted for him. This is how THEY felt, and how he presented himself. Obviously people found him relatable, based on their OWN words. Don't shoot the messenger. I don't take him seriously. Remember? You know? The rest of what I wrote, which maybe you didn't read?
"His 'non-PC' constitutes insulting and denigrating ethnic groups. Insulting me and my friends is not "nonPC". The rant of any typical tyrant who asked his followers to blame their neighbor for their economic troubles. The focus of the immigration issue was a diversion from economic stress on working people that is really based upon automation and to a lesser degree, outsourcing."
Except I wasn't referring to that as part of PC. I was referring to his approach in general. Please no straw men here.
"The typical American worker is being deceived, by Trump and his associates, to blame their problems on non-existence sources. While there is reasons to be disaffected with the current economic situation, only desperation not reason could consider Trump as a solution. There has never been any indication in his past of his having any affinity toward those who are not wealthy or affluent"
Preaching to the choir, but okay...
"The fact that he could not communicate beyond slogans, having no track record would give me pause.
People are shocked with the harsh nature of the GOP health care repeal and replace. Well, if you voted for Trump, you have made your bed and now must lie it in. (West Virginia) you are in for a shock. With Trump and the GOP, I was not surprised of the outcome and I could see that this was coming without looking. I can't be all that prescient."
Again, preaching to the choir. I do remember mentioning I did not like the health care plan. You probably missed that.
"The way he behaved in the campaign was telling, who was to think that he would be any less coarse and boorish as President, considering that he had no political experience."
I did. Campaigns are ugly; and as I said, I was incorrect. Who can blame me for hoping for the best? I didn't vote for either of the two scumbags, so...
As you can see, you're mainly speaking to the choir. You addressed why people voted for Trump. I added what I felt they were thinking, and how they felt he was relatable and didn't stand for BS. So I'm not entirely sure what your goal is in going on a rant about this and that, when obviously I'm in agreement? I think you meant to direct your words to an actual Trump supporter. Quite literally, the only thing I addressed was his personality, which appealed to Trump supporters. I never discussed his policies, so going on about that is...irrelevant to what I was saying? All I'm saying, is I understand WHY people voted for him. Not that it was OKAY or that I AGREE. I'm just saying, it's really kind of presumptuous to tell people why they voted for someone.
Chill.I'm not entirely sure if you actually read what I wrote, or skimmed through it once you read only that part.
---------------
Yes, I read it all, Firefly, and this is not a comment to be taken from me in an adversarial fashion. I am asking a question, that it all.
Why do they feel that way, I am neither rich nor affluent and I didn't and don't? You got the straight skinny from people and you explained why they thought he was their savior. I wonder why their reasoning was so much different from mine, or yours for that matter? What part of "PC in general" are you referring to?
YOU are not under attack here....
Again, they found him relatable, how come neither you nor I did? Can you attempt to speculate? I missed nothing, I am taking your statements and asking questions that may follow for someone who has garnered so much information about the motivation of Trump voters and supporters.
Don't we all hope for the best? It is just that we have different solutions as to how that would be accomplished.
I will speculate that people were so desperate that as a drowning man they would grab at anything to get out of the soup. The Carrier Corp situation, where Trump pressured the company to keep its operations in the U.S. rather than move to Mexico. With some financial incentive and pressure by President Trump, this was accomplished. The employees were relieved until they found out that the company, while agreeing to stay stateside, was going to restructure and automate causing the jobs to disappear anyway. But, the Trump initiative sounded good at the time. The fact that Trump boldly told this company what is was going to do or else; could it be considered an example of No-PC that you are referring to? Is this the kind of no-BS style example that attracted them?
I never said that you were a Trump supporter, but you seem to know and have spoken frankly with more of them than I ever have. There is no rant, just trying to see if there is any more insight behind it, that is all. If this line of inquiry seems overly aggressive or intimidating to you, I apologize.No problem, and I must have misunderstood your approach. My apologies for my curt response. I should have inquired further before assuming.
I think people found him relatable because he spoke like your average person. That of course, not being a positive thing, in my opinion. I think he said what a lot of people felt they could not say, and people latched on to a leader that was willing to say ugly or inappropriate things. That's how I think people find him relatable. I think they forget he's a billionaire with motives. People tend to see what they wish to see. I guess I should not have said "non-pc": that was a misuse of the term. I guess I should have said "casual" or something similar. He speaks the way a normal fb ranting idiot would speak, but people find it relatable.
Bottom line is (and I have lots of Trump supporting friends) they like him for the reason we dislike him. He's crass and rude and blunt, and honestly, the majoroty of people nowadays are. And somehow they find this admirable.
I've been told by other Trump supporters that his tweets don't matter, and what he says doesn't matter, just what he does. So even bigoted or crude remarks are, in their opinion, not even worth a glance. It does not affect his policies, they say. I personally feel you would have to be foolish to not think that what you say and how you present yourself affects not only how your citizens view you, but how world leaders measure competency.
its almost as if they found these one or two qualities that they like about him, and that somehow justifies everything else.
The top response being "it's about time a politician (trump) taught ---- (insert whoever here) a lesson. They deserve it."
I don't know. I personally think a lot of people like that he's bigoted and racist and just can't say it out loud. It's like the President makes them feel better about their own bigotry or racism. That's very strong language in my part, but i speak from having conversations with these people, who I know rather well, and who for some strange reason feel I'm still a friend they want to have. And maybe this is illogical or inapropriate for me to say, but every single one, is a white male who openly expresses their hatred of women to me, and has never received higher education. That's somewhat telling to me.Also, I want to add, they mentioned they're tired of politicians sitting on their butts doing nothing, and Trump has definitely started doing things; somehow I think his rash behavior, however, ranslated into "well at least he's doing something!" Giving it the illusion of things getting done. Also creating all these Execituve orders they supposedly did not approve of before.
No problem, and I must have misunderstood your approach. My apologies for my curt response. I should have inquired further before assuming.
-----------------
No, worries
So "leadership" to these folks is akin to being willing to say ugly and inappropriate things whether true or not? I have heard talk of those that prefer him because of his 'telling it like it is' I guess that ugly and inappropriate things are part of that.
Guys use locker room talk often, but is the fact that Trump could so easily and non-hesitantly converse in it a comfort to the men you spoke with? Is it not normal to look for inspiration from your leader, not just someone with whom you can shoot the shyte or share a beer? Do these guys read, the guy sits on a solid gold commode, for pete's sake? If they ever took the time to observe the almost ridiculous opulence in just his residence, could they come to their senses? How do they think that such a man could help them or even want to? Perhaps, deep down, they admire his accumulation of wealth and regardless of how Trump actually got there, they see him as a model and a road map for their own future achievement?
While I am not hooked on Emily Post, it may be a generation thing. Being coarse, lacking in manners and decorum does not reflect positively on anyone.
Most interesting, many Trump supporters consider his bigoted statements and positions as irrelevant, regardless of who is offended as long as Trump's policies work to their advantage?
Trump supporters are not concerned of the effect of his diatribes on his neighbors or even on the international scene as long as they are not affected personally? Well, as for what he does, this will be the proof in the pudding. When he disappoints, what will they say then? Will they be humble enough to acknowledge that they backed the wrong horse?
Trumps use of bigotry and racist imagery to gather support legitimizes it in the minds of his supporters, so they now can take a sigh of relief that there is strength in numbers in regard to those feelings of resentment that they would not utter otherwise?
You may be on to something here, is misogyny part of it, as well? How did you get these guys to openly tell you that they resent women? What is it? Are you taking too many jobs? Is it the confusion of traditional gender roles? What do you tell people who insist that the world must stop and begin to spin in the opposite direction on its axis?
Thanks for this revelation, because I would have never been able to get the average guy or gal to confess to me such things with such candor.I have a theory on why these men felt comfortable telling me they hate women, but it's irrelevant to the Trump issue, so I won't go into it. I tend to make more make friends with men than women, and I do a lot of listening in friendships, so perhaps that's it. Regardless, it's interesting that you note gender roles, because I just had a conversation with someone where I was told I would do better taking care of children, *shrug* and that the way it "used to be" was better. Personally, I think some men like his "locker room talk" and manner of behaving, probably to validate their own crudeness.
As far as what they have directly told me, it's 1. They are tired of immigrants 2. They think Muslims are shit 3. They don't think his comments on women are a big deal (I think they might secretly like it) 4. They're sick of politicians being a lot of talk and no action. As far as his wealth goes, you've hit the nail on the head. Supposedly he's an example of how capitalism works, to them. (Remember I speak only if the people I know and personally have spoken with.) when I addressed one particular person about his degrading comments on twitter about Mika, I got this: "they deserved it and he's standing up for himself, and You're a hypocrite for expecting him to behave in a professional way when the media won't." It always comes down to pointing the conversation elsewhere, instead of addressing his actions, or by saying "yeah but nobody cares. What is he DOING? No one cares what he says." Complete dismissal. It's alarming to me. When I address international diplomacy, the answer is, "They need a reality check" or something similar. When I address respect for the country's cutizens, I get "YOU LIBERALS blah blah blah." Trump is very divisive and encourages it, and supporters follow suit. It's similar to brainwashing to me, and people put on their blindfold and follow this guy like a savior, ignoring EVERY obvious flaw. Usually, people are willing to acknowledge at least obvious misjudgements by a favored President, but it's like Trump is bulletproof to them. In my opinion, Trump acts like the ignorant, divisive, rude, crass, bigoted man that they are or secretly wish they could openly be. From what I know of them.
When it all boils down to it, the general sense I'm getting is that they feel it's not only acceptable, but a "good thing" that Trump lashes out the way he does, and that whoever it was "deserved it." There's always an excuse. And typically when someone excuses a person for every single error, it means they are stuck liking that person no matter what. MY conjectures were that it was from identifying with the hate, bigotry, and immaturity of Trump, although they would not admit that of course. A lot of these conclusions I have drawn are just me trying to piece things together (the only thing they were candid about was hating women and the other points I listed above) Again, this is just the people I speak with in person, and maybe represent only a certain demographic.
Well said. I'm not sure why Trump supporters keep trying to compare this situation to Bill & Monica - which happened 20ish years ago. I suspect they have to go back that far in order to find a situation that is almost as 'bad & sorted'.
The problem is, this isn't a one-time thing with Trump - it is part of his psychology and reputation. People who voted for him knew he was like this and they didn't care. Yeah, that says much about the people who elected him - which in turn, reflects on us as a whole country whether we like it, or not.
For those of you who continually defend this guy because you want him to successfully complete certain tasks; you could have found a much more qualified & less divisive candidate. It is the reason why it is taking him so long to get things done; and why the country pushes against him so hard.
You may have hated Obama, but that is what happened with him (in the beginning; by the end he was as much a politician as any other)... Some Dems wanted more change than what the 'normal' Dem party was willing to do; so they noticed Obama and groomed him to become their spokesperson & champion of their causes. He had some political experience, but not decades of it; and he was well-educated for that office with a knack for communication.
He was meant to be 'a changer' without being divisive or rude. You could have found someone like that; and having your 'changes' without all the additional fighting this potus incites.
Just sayin...+++++
I've always thought that if the Republicans had picked someone with Trump's intolerance of B.S., but Obama's diplomacy and excellence of speech, they'd have had someone really politically powerful and popular with the public, regardless of party affiliations.
But unfortunately, here we are.
My highly conservative metro newspaper doesn't agree with you. Nor do plenty of others around the country that have always endorsed Republicans for president.
Fox News has done a great job of convincing its viewers that all media is biased except for Fox News. It also has done a great job of enraging its viewers, such as my father, an easy-going man who become furious every time he watched FN.
I was as disgusted by Clinton's behavior as anyone. He paid a price for it. All media covered it thoroughly. But that was the past. Now it's Trump's turn to act disgusting.So, all we can hope for is DJT to lie under oath.
"It makes others think about the price they have to pay if they attack."
How Hitler can you get? Do you really approve of that?
Do you think his tweet about Mika's bleeding facelift (if she had one) was appropriate and presidential? Was it childish or adult?
I think it was effective. We're spending so much time talking about it like there is nothing else going on in the world. Do you know the history of the things those two people have said about Trump and accused him of doing? If they had voiced their dislikes about Trump is a respectful and articulate way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So in other words, "they started it?"
Wow.
So the President of the United States isn't responsible for his inappropriate remarks just so long as he was provoked?"We're spending so much time talking about it like there's nothing else going on in the world" I mean, yeah, that's kind of why people don't like it. Because there's a lot he could/should be tweeting about as president that would be informative, productive, insightful, thought-provoking... but most of the time he just hurls insults back at people because his big giant ego gets in the way.
I don't have any problems with Trump's tweets either. Each one makes him look like a bigger idiot.
I have worked ferociously with both sides of the aisle - there's enough childishness to go around. But do we need the biggest among us pouncing on the weakest? We stood up to bullies in our history, why is now different? Perhaps, we should do some soul searching and really understand why we allow this. I suspect there is a double standard at work - it's o.k. because it's this guy, some might say. But if it was the other guy - let's teach him a lesson. "Hub pages doesn't allow children to write for the site.)
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Joe Scarborough and Mika have at times said the following .........." Trump is mentally unhinged and ........called him whacked ,.... crazy ,,,out there " and far worse , other media pundits have insinuated Melania Trump was everything from a Russian bride to a prostitute , which media idiot insinuated Donald and Ivanka were incestuous ? Yet snowflakes in hub page forums want a self inflicted contagion of being highly offended.........Seriously ?
Twittering his answers to media accusatory BS. would be wrong IF , and I say IF , this leftist [social media driven ] news media was fair to him or any conservative . But leave it to the snowflake or dandelion left crowd to pretend being ".....offended ...." You all are about as offended as your news media is honest , fair , accurate and neutral .
I would be happier if Trump removed the media from the My White House and used his Twitter , Face Book , US. gov .com or for that matter a matchbook to share with the likes of CNN , Msnbc , ABC or other media bias machines ."Your media?" "your news?"
You are aware that it's not just liberals that have issue with him, right? Such as me? I'm not a liberal, last time I checked, but I certainly have issue with this.
Your consistent lumping of all liberals into one demeaning category is not logically sound...It is to me ! When liberals act as childish , shallow and TWICE AS disrespectful in mainstream media as any tweet Trump has thrown out there constantly ? Look at face book , listen to CNN , Msnbc , All of a sudden the left is having a hissy -fit at Trump returning an insult or two after all of the sophomoric media stunts piled on him from Scarborough , The View , Cobert ,Griffin , every coffee table morning news program or talk show out there , ........?
As long as he does his job , good on him for not bowing to the Jerry Springer news media .Trump would actually have an iota of respect from me if he addressed the attacks of his critics with dignity, logic, and intellect. But as it is, his behavior alone makes me hesitant to trust him as a leader.
I could argue the liberals acting shallow and childish and twice as disrespectful, but for the sake of conversation let's assume that's true. The President is held to a higher standard. The media is a separate entity, and does not represent the people. I don't vote for the media. The media does not represent me or make decisions about the future of me or my daughter. So honestly, I don't give a rat's ass what the media says; they can blab all they want. But the President has incredible influence and as such, he needs to compose himself and hold himself to a higher level of decorum. Lowering himself to the standards of his critics and ranting just shows weakness. it shows that these insults get to him.
Again, if he approached this issue with intelligence and sincerity, I may even like the guy. But he's alienating a lot of people by behaving in such a questionable way.
"As long as he does his job..." Well, that's just it though. The way he conducts himself when addressing the public says a lot about who he is, and it affects how people perceive his intelligence, his capability as a leader, and his composure. I'm a little nervous trusting someone with a highly reactive ego with executive power.You sound intelligent and politically involved , so let me bring up something NEW about the mainstream news media in America , I'm 63 and have always been a serious news media junkie , Never before in American history has this news media , and almost ALL of it , been perceived as being so biased to the left , towards extreme sensationalism , everybody in America generally thought once that Jerry Springer was a dumb a$$ed sensationalizing TV show right ? I know that to me it was actually embarrassing to experience such a weird show.
Today , I am reminded of that show whenever I watch the incredible bias of Msnbc , Racheal Maddox , The View , CNN , ABC , and yes , even Fox . Our media has all become a circus sideshow in just a few short years . Have you ever watched a younger Dan Rather , remember Sam Donaldson ? Sixty Minutes , Night-Line , any of the old news programs ? I would recomend any one watch older { 10 years } news programs and compare to today .
It's like the news media is dying and they are too , they know it too but are going down screaming .Interesting. I never watch media on tv or any visual outlet, just the articles. And even then, I don't read it much. lol Now I feel old but yes I do remember those news programs, I was about 12 at the time (29 now) but was obsessed with keeping up with the news. I have no idea how they've changed. I read news by reading only. I just immediately assume that most news is exaggerated and read both extremes to try to get at least a general idea. With Trump, I mostly read tweets bc at least then there's no chance of bias or distortion. I was told by a Trump supporter today that no one cares about his tweets and they're irrelevant, but honestly it is and can be a very powerful platform for Him to reach the public, if he used it well.
Trump is exactly what Michael Moore pronounced he would be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4
It is the biggest reason why he won, and those people aren't any happier now with Washington, with the media, with the system today, than they were when they voted him in.
These people haven't turned on Trump, they have watched as Judges have tried to block him (when they never did that to Obama, Bush, etc.), they have watched as Senators like Pelosi, Waters, etc. have gone into hysterics (demanding he be impeached, calling him racist, and worse) from day one to today, they have watched the politicians play their games and the media vomit out their lies... and I'd imagine they are even angrier today than they were then... and they don't blame Trump at all, they blame those opposing him.
Trump hasn't lost one supporter, but he has probably gained a few, not that I am paying attention to tweets or what is going on, or who is saying what about it, that drama isn't worth the time."Trump hasn't lost one supporter." Really? His polls sure are plunging.
And by the way, he won because Vladimir Putin gave him the election. Trump's remaining supporters are just fine with treason and collusion as long as their boy stays in office."Vladimir Putin gave him the election. "
Proof, please? So far all we have are various people saying Russia meddled; to date not a single Russian has been found guilty of illegal activity, not a single (Russian) action has been shown to have actually occurred, not a single location has been found where anything happened, and not a single date has been found for Russian interference.
So...proof, please that "Vladimir Putin gave him the election. "I wonder how many times it has to be said. FBI, CIA, NSA, an independent counsel, multiple congressional investigative committees, etc. Even Trump Jr. admitted to meeting with a Russian lawyer to get help beating Clinton.
"Various people" is not an accurate description of the investigations.None of which indicates Russia actually did anything. Not even if we accept that Trump Jr. asked them to. (You do understand that asking a Russian lawyer for help does not constitute action taken by the Russian government? Even if we assume that was the purpose of the meeting and that help was asked for.)
You need proof? How about Donald Trump Jr.'s own emails? He met with them to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and learned that they were helping his father's campaign.
Now the question becomes, is Donald Trump Jr. going to be the first person executed for treason in quite some time.
There's absolutely no proof that Russian interference changed the outcome of the election, but that's not the question that is being asked.Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Please provide copies of those emails showing what you claim they do.
No, the question is did Russia affect the election. Or even try to.
As far as executing someone for treason, you might want to look up the legal definition of treason.What do you mean proof? He provided his own emails. He admitted to meeting with the Russians about "dirt" after denying such meetings for the last year. Surely, you can't still be in denial mode.
Every Trump person has been denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign had any contact with the Russians and now that story has completely changed. Not only changed, but basically they are admitting to taking a meeting in order to collude with the Russians to support Trump and defeat Clinton.Yes, I've seen them since your post. But I will note that assuming that everyone has always seen what you refer to is a sure fire way to disappointment.
They admitted to agreeing to a meeting to receive dirt on Clinton. Is that "colluding"? If so, is it limited to Russian meetings or do those with Americans for the same purpose qualify? If limited to only Russians, why?
(Did Billy boy "collude" with the AG to affect the election (keep his spouse out of jail so she could continue the campaign)? If not, why not - he even got results, results which we don't know if the Russians saw or not as they don't seem to have done anything.)
There you go:
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat … index.html
Anyone advocating execution for a guy under these circumstances is so far removed from the America I know they may be participating in these discussions from a very backward foreign nation.
Makes it kind of hard to take them seriously, doesn't it?
Well, I'm joking, of course. However, it is interesting to look at what's happened:
The fake media have been pushing this story about meeting with the Russians. The Trump campaign has denied that any meetings occurred for months. No meetings with the Russians ever occurred.
Then the failing New York Times gets ahold of Juniors emails showing that he did meet with the Russians and they tell him they're going to print them.
Junior then posts the emails himself, claims transparency, and actually admits that the reason for the meeting was to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians to help his father win.
So now, the story is: we met with the Russians but there was no collusion. Should we believe this story now? Should we continue to distrust the fake media who have been pushing this story?I would suggest we all just stop attempting to be judge and jury and wait until all of the facts are in before we tar and feather anyone. Or execute them, as it appears some fantasize about.
It's important that we remember some of the objectives of those who would seek to imped democracy on every front:
1. attack the "legitimate" media while upholding the media that further the goals of disrupting democracy
2. provide misinformation on every level while indicating "trust me or pay for it!"
3. cause chaos when you can,
4. get groups to combat each other,
5. and destroy education in order to reduce political literacy (Really, is our Constitution so arcane and outdated? How many can answer that?)
I believe I just laid the plan of "active measures." Someone in Moscow is dancing and eating caviar now!I am guilty of what has been driving me nuts! I tried to reign it in and make it relevant. This is about the rudeness to Mika! I tweeted her to let her know I love her haircuit. I think she is an attractive lady. Regardless of what DJT or anyone says, she has to be confident within herself. It would hard to be on the tube 5 mornings a week unless a person is very confident.
When I was growing up, we were taught to be kind and respectful. I saw it modeled. The way we treat others is setting the pattern for future generations.Exactly, and in the meantime, protect the spirit of those that went before us to lay the foundation of this nation. Amen.
I enjoyed your article on pork! My husband gets mad when he smells chittlins (chitterlings) cooking.
You are quite right. These are all common tactics for people who want an autocratic government.
Execution is lawful during a state of war -- along with jail for supporters. But we don't have a declared war at this time. The worst he faces is jail and fines. His father will pay for everything.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381Execution is indeed lawful during a state of war...for desertion in the face of the enemy and such. What crime do you think was committed that carries a war time death sentence? Talking to a foreign national?
Just to be clear, I was just joking about executing him. However, what exactly would you call a secret meeting with a foreign agent for the express purpose of getting dirt on your opponent, knowing that the foreign agent supported your candidate and wanted him to win, knowing that this foreign agent and its government do not have our nation's best interests at heart? Is that a mistake? A crime? Treason?
If there's nothing wrong with the meeting, why do you spend months denying that such a meeting ever occurred?First, she isn't a government agent, just an ordinary citizen. Second, to speak to anyone, foreign agent, foreign citizen, American media, American citizen, is called "gathering information". There is no reason to to spin it into some kind of illegal, unethical, immoral "collusion" to make it sound terrible.
And third, I never denied a meeting existed: I denied that we had any evidence of such a terrible thing as to actually speak to a Russian. The witch hunt uncovered that evidence, but then it will do so with every president, vice president and diplomat assigned to Russia or most other countries - shall we indict them, too?It appears that info is coming out in a dribble. NYT reporters say they have more information. Senator Warren refused to say rather Senate investigation committee had more info. Jr only provided emails after warned by NYT reporters that they were going to release it.
We should al relax and what whatever unfolds. Christopher Wray is being grilled and just committed to not "let it go!" when requested by president.
What we don't know we will soon know. "Cutouts" are explained as the preferred method of foreign interaction. This Russian attorney is being explained as a cut out.
I think the think to do is follow all news. Tweets are most helpful to me. I follow Tillerson, Pence, DJT, Franklin Graham, etc.For crying out loud, you keep making claims as fact that you can't possibly know is true. How in the heck do you know she is just an ordinary citizen? Do you work for the CIA or KGB?
Please be more responsible on these boards and quit making up stuff.
From what I can tell, there is virtually nothing the Trumps could do to compel you not to defend them. So be it. I understand. I'm sure from your perspective, supporters of Hillary did the same thing.
From what I have read, Junior was under the impression he was meeting with an agent of the Russian government who wanted his father to win, in secret, to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. You can't be serious when you say that's "collecting information". From a foreign agent from a government generally regarded as an adversary? So if the next Democratic presidential nominee consults with ISIS to get information about Donald Trump, that's okay?No, I just get a giggle (in a sick sort of way) at seeing otherwise intelligent people make mountains out of molehills because of a deep hatred of the President.
Do you really think we don't try to get information out of Russia? From citizenry, Russian agents and Putin himself? What do you think spies are doing over there, twiddling their thumbs while reading newspapers for their information? Do you honestly think diplomats never try to get info from their foreign counterparts? Do you think Trump didn't probe Putin as best he could for information when they met? Do you even think businessmen don't do the same, talking to Russians (in and out of government) for information on how best to serve their own purposes and goals?
It's just comical that this one case out of millions is blown into "collusion", "treason" or some other fateful terminology for doing exactly what everybody else is doing - talking to Russians and trying to further their own personal goals with information garnered.
Actually, they just said he may be "mentally ill", which quite a few mental health professionals have already said.
What is your answer to the original question?Now that is absolutely false: no "mental health professionals" would ever commit to such a bald statement, given their oath (and law) and the fact that not one has ever examined or even interviewed him.
But it sure makes a fine point to scream to the heavens! At least if you don't care if it's true or not...Malarkey. Psychologists can say what they want about someone who is not a patient. Psychiatrists have more restrictions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 94316.htmlFirst sentence of your link: "Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University."
Not that your statement has any truth in it anyway - ANY health provider has an absolute duty to provide privacy and not to cause harm. Spreading rumors with OR without an evaluation most definitely falls into that category, and making claims without any evaluation simply removes any vestige of professionalism.
Physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, chiropractors - any health provider, has that responsibility. No one that says things like that publicly, or even privately without a thorough exam, is a "professional". They are not like journalists here, but have a much higher duty to conform to.You continue to confuse the difference between the privacy of patients and the professionals Constitutional right to speak up about a public figure with whom they have no doctor-patient confidentiality.
The massive number of professionals who are offering opinions must think it's more important to warn the country about a dangerous and mentally unstable president with his finger near the nuclear trigger than it is to bend their association guidelines.Except that they haven't performed an examination and don't know the President is either mentally unstable OR dangerous (except to the liberal philosophy). They spout a personal opinion, based on nothing whatsoever, and because they are "expert" and "professional" it becomes fact.
But Trump was not their patient, which means they can say whatever they wish, short of libel/slander (this is what you call "professional"). But without him being a patient they cannot show his supposed instability, now can they?
From the APA:
"Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination."
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspxCherry pick. If you do enough research, you will see they are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. You also will see that it's a source of huge debate among those professionals, dozens if not hundreds have expressed opinions about Trump (including here on HP) and that none of them have lost their licenses as a result.
You seem to ignore what I also said. The psychiatric association that you reference has stricter guidelines than the psychology association, which isn't as strict:
"Our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates."Guidelines, yes. From the APA. Because they are not your guidelines, but those of the primary professional association, they should be ignored?
Had you bothered to read the link you would have found that that privacy and confidentiality are limited; when there is great risk to the community it should be ignored. Now will you claim that running around declaring the US President to be mentally ill is in the public's (or Trumps) best interests? Or is that exception intended to apply when there is a need to keep the mentally ill away from society, as in an institution?I must agree. We as professional mental health practitioners absolutely cannot say whatever we wish about anyone whom we have not examined correctly in person - I have been so instructed since the early 1980s.
The following APA quote from 2016 is given to us as a reminder often in the psychological association.
"The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Robert Klitzman that neither psychiatrists nor psychologists should offer diagnoses of candidates or any other living public figure they have never examined. Our association has declined requests from several reporters seeking referrals to psychologists who would make such speculations.
Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates.
When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined."
Susan H. McDaniel, 2016 President of the American Psychological Association Press Room, March 14, 2016
So THIS is the guy that is supposed to be above the political fray? The President of the United States involved in an childish exchange with a Hollywood or media personality? This is better than a situation comedy, where is Norman Lear when you need him?
The conservatives told me that this 'anti-politician' was to drain the swamp. He is nothing more than an overgrown toddler and a freaking idiot! But then you have the endless excuses that conservatives dredge up to justify such childish behavior and that is almost as nauseating as Trump himself. Clinton would never have denigrated the office in such a fashion. But, you rightwingers and your clueless followers got what you wanted, now you can choke on it. I hope for all your sakes that it is custard...
I will say again, that we are going to get him. Trump is too stupid to make any other outcome possible.
Every time and under every circumstance he consistently proves that he is, in fact, dumber than I thought.And the bright side will remain the same. Anyone but Hillary.
GOP lawmakers blast Trump's 'Morning Joe' tweets
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/ … index.html
Washington (CNN)Republican lawmakers were caught off-guard by President Donald Trump's personal attack on "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski Thursday, with several saying the remarks were unbecoming of his office.
many GOP and Dems condeming Trumps behavior and tweets. As Nancy Pelosi stated a few weeks ago, " I think he needs more sleep"- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
And besides , What make liberals so elitist that they think the POTUS can't have his own Twitter account , face book page or whatever ? Try to remember , everyone has freedom of speech , not just liberals !
I don't remember anyone suggesting that he shouldn't have a twitter account. I think it's a great idea. It's a direct outlet to his words without distortion. And he can't blame the media for what he himself says. Which is exactly the issue at hand.
I completely agree with readmikenow and ahorseback. The media has continuously and viciously attacked Trump--with everything from personal attacks, to attacks on his family, to the promotion of pure lies and fabrications. A counter-attack is entirely appropriate--though I wish the counter attack would take the form of anti-trust suits to break up the media giants.
++++++++That would be the perfect path to follow !
Was his tweet appropriate or not? Is the media reporting his tweet about Mika a vicious personal attack or is it just reporting what he did?
By the way, my highly conservative newspaper is reporting all of the same "lies" as everyone else.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Here is a great news media " for instance " Greta Van Susteren was just fired from Msnbc for "Not being confrontational enough "...................on here news show , while she was not a favorite of mine , her firing says a lot about the Msnbc's dying media company .
1) Van Susteran's show received low ratings. That is why she is gone.
2) MSNBC is not dying. In fact, they have experienced an 86% jump in viewership in the past year.
3) Your previous post that said it's "like the news media is dying" is also erroneous, as all three major news networks have experienced huge jumps in viewership over the past year. Of course, if you meant newspapers, you might be right.
Hahahhahha.... Mika is a tool, if it weren't for her dad and his jibberish so many take as gospel, she would be an unknown and irrelevant person.
Reading this thread, I have a wide variety of thoughts:
1. It does seem that both Republicans and Democrats alike will excuse almost any behavior by their candidate simply because they share a political, and presumably an intellectual, affiliation with that candidate. I've been guilty of this. So, Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer who cheated on his wife multiple times and in action, committed many of the same acts Donald Trump talks about committing, but Democrats love him and the media worshipped him. They vilify Trump for similar behaviors. Republicans vilified Clinton for being a womanizer while they excuse everything that Trump says. There's lots of evidence to suggest that in both action, deed, and words, both are pretty terrible people, so we should all ask ourselves how we got here because we're all complicit.
2. I'm starting to find Trump a bit more amusing then I used to, but still find him unbalanced and dangerous for the country. If I think about things from his point-of-view, he's got a massive ego and believes in himself and what he's doing. While Presidents have remained above the fray in the past, he is simply somebody who believes he's being unjustly attacked all the time and he's unwilling to just let it go. Honestly, it's in keeping with how our social media world works these days. It is so much easier now to let loose on somebody in social media and he's participating in this world because he seems to have very little self-control. He's lived 70 years as a billionaire. He's never needed any self-control. That said, he has a right to be nasty back and launch attacks against those that are launched at him, if that's what he wants to do.
3. This defense of the Russians not having anything to do with anything and not being connected to Trump's operatives is directly contradicted by every U.S. intelligence agency.
4. If you get all your news from a site that's easily shown to be misogynistic, homophobic, racist, anti-semitic, and anti-intellectual, does that make you a hateful, racist jew-hating homophobe?Well you were off to a good start with #1 and #2... #3 proves you pay too much attention to those who are either lying to you, or are clueless, be they in the media or not. And I don't even know what to say about #4... other than if you believe there is any such site giving news that fills that description, then you are so far gone to buying into the line of BS one side is selling, there is not point for discussion.
For this country, Trump is the perfect President for the times... he has made so many Americans aware of the corruption in the system, the idiocy of those "running" the Nation in D.C. ... its hard to imagine anyone making Trump look sane and intelligent right?
But then you catch a clip of what Pelosi has to say, or Waters, or so many of the other 30+ year veteran politicians in D.C. and if you don't say to yourself something like "How the F__K did these idiotic, insane, out of touch lunatics become OUR Representatives and Senators? No wonder the country has been getting royally F__K_D for the last quarter century!"
I don't know who votes for complete fools like these people, sell-outs who sold out our children's futures for their gain... but they must be even dumber than those in D.C. ... people don't seem to get it .... there is no Liberal or Conservative powers in D.C. anymore... just those who are on the take, keeping the handful of honest and decent ones who are not incapable of doing anything to save a dying Nation.Ken,
The site referenced in #4 is called Breitbart. I have previously posted a selection of their most racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic headlines with links back to Breitbart itself. Crickets. It's where an increasing number of Americans get their news.Its called a counter to other sources of news, that is all... that you want to heap them with all those labels is a sign of our own bias and inability to see things from other than a limited perspective.
I am not supporting that site, but it is no more deluded, sexist or whatever than CNN which has its pedophiles, homosexuals, etc. individuals that push their agendas and biases. Breitbart is the same, it has people with beliefs that are not in line with CNN, or MSNBC, that is for certain.
Do I believe like CNN’s Cuomo that a 12-year-old girl doesn’t want to see a penis in a girls’ locker room because of ‘intolerant’ dad? That female children should be forced into accepting adult males in their showers?
Heck no I don't, I think its just a sad sign of the times that such a man, with such perspectives, even has a platform today to preach from like CNN.Honestly, I have been finding CNN more and more of a problematic place for my news.
I agree. The people running the network apparently have decided to take a more aggressive approach to covering Trump, in part because of higher ratings and in part because he is going after them so aggressively. That's why I go to sources that have higher standards of journalism.
Do you understand that Breitbart was founded by Steve Bannon, who is now Trump's right-hand man? Do you honestly think that such a site is a credible source of information about the Trump administration?
If you try to defend Breitbart, you are only proving that you are fine with your own bias but ironically don't like anyone else to have one.
All four of your points are right on target for any reasonable, open-minded and independent thinker.
Sadly that statement speaks worlds about how detached from reality, and how willing to accept that 'blinders on' only see one perspective detachment you, and so many Americans, have today.
I used to wonder how people could willingly go into cattle cars and believe the lies they were told as they were led to the slaughter... I have no doubts anymore. That humanity has achieved this level of 'success' and civility in spite of itself I find truly astounding.I have to say bluntly that you are the one who is detached from reality thanks to your deep desire to believe propaganda sources like Breitbart and Fox News. You make generalizations about every aspect of our world from an extreme right wing point of view. They nicely fit that view.
As proof, note that all of your posts have nothing to do with the original question. Instead, they desperately try to evade the obvious point. It seems quite OK that we have a mentally unstable President of the United States who got into office with the help of Russian spies and hackers.
Fortunately, the FBI, CIA and NSA have plenty of evidence to get him out of office. He is doomed.
Talk about hypocrisy. This is coming from a man who is alleged by his ex wife, Ivana, to have had cosmetic surgery himself. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/06 … ic-surgery
"In 1990, Ivana Trump said under oath that her husband flew into a fit of rage due to the pain and displeasure with a scalp reduction surgery, performed in 1989. Also known as alopecia reduction, the surgery is intended to correct balding, and involves cutting the bald spot out and sewing the remaining skin back together. The tightened scalp can cause headaches and swelling. The man who allegedly performed the surgery was Ivana’s own doctor, Dr. Steven Hoefflin."
and who has a wife, whom it is speculated to have gone under the knife herself, had botox injections and overly large silicone implants.
https://drfranklinrosemd.com/melania-tr … c-surgery/
Really now, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?Exactly. Trump is not exactly famous for his reasonable comments. He was just trying to make a personal jab at critics he's needlessly obsessed with to calm his ego.
Trump has been attacked mercilessly from the beginning of the campaign by the media that absolutely hates him , ----- Mika included , I don't blame him one bit for jabbing back ! Nail em' Pres. Donald ! He's a new Yorker for crying out loud! All of them are aren't they ?
Eh. I won't repeat myself on how he should behave better than the media.
I may have missed something (I don't follow the soap opera that constitutes Trump's twitter account) but I thought he simply said she came into the club, was bleeding from a recent face lift, asked to sit with him and he said no. I don't know if that statement constitutes making fun of a face lift or makes him hypocritical since he has had plastic surgery. Maybe he was just grossed out by the thought of blood at a dinner table?
Trump is not a politician, he is not from Yale or Harvard, he is not one of the inside D.C. Boys, he is not smooth or slick like Willie or Barry and he is a New Yorker who is not a liberal... he garnered support from the masses of working class whites, who have been getting the shaft in spades for over a quarter century... and he spent his campaign pointing out the corruption in D.C. and the collusion with the Media to support one side, while trying to destroy the other. Amongst other things...
Trump has no support from the 'media elites' and certainly not the 'Ivy League elites' who think they run and control everything in this country... he has no support from the 'globalists', the 'anti-colonialist movement (Eurpoe and America MUST pay the rest of the world back for their crimes!)' problem with that is, its the poor working class stiffs that get stuck 'paying back' for crimes of those long dead and gone, the 'elites' of course don't share in their hardships brought on by no tariffs, no taxes on foreign made items, no control over the illegal aliens who take construction jobs, get better support from our government that most veterans, etc. etc. I could go on all night pointing things out.
Trump is hated by just about everyone in D.C. or the media, and many of those who just don't want to see things as they are... but rather the way they believe them to be (or are programmed to see them) or just people who hate America (easy enough to understand that many Native Americans, African Americans and so on would despise the civilization that they feel has crapped all over their ancestors or even themselves).
So everything Trump does will be highlighted in the worst fashion, and jumped on in hyperbolic fashion, because they hate him, and to a degree, the working stiffs that supported him... those poor wretches just don't know their place.Amazing isn't it how the academia of America has evolved to "lead" us to a new world ? Eighty years ago my Father , at 14 yrs old couldn't finish high school because he had to go to work to help support his family . Today's academia is teaching your kids that there is only one ideology in America . That the failed socialism of Europe and South America is somehow going to actually function properly in America because we are special , All you have to do is entitle it into existence .
They are teaching your kids that The first amendment of the constitution allows them to stifle another's speech that disagrees with theirs ,just scream louder that the opposition All to get your voice heard They teach that today's poor excuse for a news media is far more effective if they tell one side instead of bothering with all sides of the debate .
You are damned right that the WORKING class of America elected Trump and will not stand by and watch him be obstructed by the Ivory Tower class of media , Nor the embedded establishment Senate , Congress or "deep state " power brokers within or behind the scenes ....................
Trump can use any methodology to get his message out he damned well wants ; Twitter , Face -Book or Snap -Chat for that matter or what there is left of the "evil " right wing media , he can put a bull horn on an old beater station wagon if he has to . THIS sickeningly biased news media and left wing socialist wanna-be populace of entitlement seekers will not win . Trump will remove the P.C.from the political forums , he has removed the camera's from the press room and if he has to he can remove the entire press corp from OUR white house .
It really HAS however , been a blast watching what's left of the directionless , shattered ALT -left Democratic party collectively and emotionally melt down while the media goes through it's own death throws , Let's face it though ! Once this two party system in America worked , Once there was a maintained and well oiled political progression in politics that functioned here , With introducing Term Limits alone ----something unmentioned lately --------we can correct the path of our government ,
Drain It Donald !Actually it hasn't been much of a two party system, non existent for the last quarter century for sure. Trump is an outlier ... he doesn't conform to either party nor is he directly a product of either party, he is in fact, more the embodiment of those who are disenfranchised with the system, BOTH parties, the media, etc. than anything else.
That the Left, and just about all of those who support it (as seen here in this thread and Hub Pages in general) want to label him as Republican, Conservative, (and a whole bunch of other labels from race to religion), is either a denial of what he truly represents, or a disconnect to what is really going on.
This is not just going on here, but in Europe as well. The population of these nations are becoming more intolerant and resistant to the mass immigration of minorities into their society, and the eradication of their culture for the beliefs of the incoming ones. In places like London, where the 'native' population is now at risk of becoming the minority the backlash and culture clash is becoming extreme... even if not being reported to you by the media.
The shift is causing a decline in the 'middle class' wages have not just become stagnant, their value has declined over the last quarter century. One only has to compare what was 25 years ago to today, to see that jobs pay less now than then, benefits (healthcare, paid leave, etc.) have declined (become more expensive), social norms have deteriorated, respect for authority has become intolerance for those charged to see to our safety, etc. etc. not to mention how much more the 'middle class' carries today in tax burdens compared to then, easily another 10% of wages earned is lost to taxes in one form or another... and those taxes go to fund systems that are broken, or that reward those that live off the system (ie - those flowing here by the thousands to get those 'free' supports).
If someone were trying to design the collapse of the 'Western Civilization' and see to the demise of liberty and freedoms that we have known all our lives for a more 'global corporate-police state' one of a 5% elite and 95% masses, the direction we have been going in, especially the last quarter century, is how it would be done...
Trump is the hiccup... as was Brexit and other upcoming backlash
Uh, DJT went to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a business school of the University of Pennsylvania, a private Ivy League university located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Wharton probably wants to pull its degree. His vocabulary is limited. He doesn't know much about history. He is not interested in reading unless it is about himself.
It's not hatred. It's just contempt for his incompetence, sexism, racism and mental instability.
I wish I could wager on your theory. Do you ever tire of contemplating "what might happen if"? I predict if the economy is doing well, and people are making money on the stock market, and have more job opportunity you will have Trump for 8 years. Flowery independents like cash as much as the next guy...
I think DJT has an Twitter addiction. Don't laugh, an addiction is something that you are compelled to do even though it is doing bad things to your life. This could be a way to be a model of behavior if DJT took advice from his advisors.
- Each new follow gives you a bigger sense of self-worth
- You’re logged on to Twitter all the time, check it during time you should be spending with family and friends, and often ignore your responsibilities in favor of tweeting
- Using Twitter has negatively impacted some aspect of your life, relationships or work
He needs to simply taper down on the twitter when angry. Maybe give him a toy phone that actually doesn't do anything.
At this point ,If Trump spoke like the Dali-Lama , wore a white robe , prayed on a rug and sipped lemonade on Sundays and gave the left only , free health care , Trump phones , free college , free weekly paychecks and hour long massages the same left would still whine about the hot rocks , phone colors , having to get out of bed for school and doctor choices .
Tweet on Donald .I now have the image of Trump speaking like the Dali -lama sitting on a rug in a white robe sipping lemonade in the Oval Office. My evening has been made.
While I think The Donald's use of tweeting is immature and indicitive of his debilitating egomania - I actually don't mind his tweeting nearly as much, anymore. Its true that the media twists their own perspective on his tweets: alt-right & right-wing media praise his tweets no matter what; while most moderate media and ALL of the left hype the negative as big as possible. That is all normal. We expect news outlets to act within their chosen slants.
But, when you think about it... its really helpful because we don't have 'just the media' to fill us in anymore. We can directly and clearly see what Trump is saying and why - then make our own decisions about it. While most of his supporters could care less about the ugly disposition he continues to demonstrate; the rest of us don't have to wonder whether or not we are being jerked around by what the media is saying about him. We can form our own opinions about whatever he is saying.
Immature & harmful to the office of POTUS? Yes.
Helpful to 'we the people' anyway? Yes.
Next election we will be able to make a better decision about his 'presidential disposition' and see if the majority of us really appreciate it, or not.
If I was always being made fun of I don't care who I am I would get sick and tired of it and say something back too. My goodness he is human sick of the hypocrisy!
You have a valid point. It's human nature. That said, he has better ways of striking back. Some positions in society have to follow higher standards of public behavior for the sake of respect and credibility -- politicians, doctors, lawyers, journalists, priests, etc.
Funny thing is, between the morning Joe hosts, CNN, Comey, and Yates, most sane people believe them more than the President. This is someone who has lied over and over again. He has zero credibility at this point and not sure how he hopes to accomplish anything when people simply don't trust him.
I do respect Donald Trump as the president of the US but the fact that he doesn't even respect himself makes me despise him a lot. His work is not meddling across social media I even think that he should be banned from twitter until he realises that he is the president of a great nation.
Well, we lack meaningful juridical options for dealing with the likes of Mika and the other lying, slandering shills that make up the MSM. I don't really object to Trump ridiculing them on Twitter, though I think guillotines would be much more apropos.
No, I've had the same experiences - many of us have. I've never come to the conclusion that his supporters might secretly like what he says & does because they really wish they could be like that in their real lives. Dang if that doesn't sound spot on, though. Anyone who has such a one-sided, black or white, 'no grey allowed to be seen' perspective - is brainwashed, in my opinion. Its really too bad that they can't see that for themselves.
Of course he shouldn't. It is undignified, but being undignified is nothing new for him. I'm sure that in his mind, attacking people in this way is an effective political strategy. He did win the election after all.
It is mean-spirited and embarrassing as an American to watch this man perform all kinds of theatrics daily. I turn my head and close my eyes, planning for the next election. Unfortunately, I realize that we have shoved the concept of dignity aside in electing the leader of our Executive Branch. I'm not surprised the alt-righ movment (which sounds like a strange keyboard command) ignores such behavior. They have an unusual capacity for saying - that's not my word, but I will use it in an odd way. "Snowflake" was a term of fellowship used between White and Black Americans on the West coast during the Civil Rights movement.
As a friend of mine correctly pointed out, "We have allowed meanness to become cool in America." In essence, we have allowed manners, respect, positive political discourse, and kindness to veer away from the public domain. However, Hub Pages isn't a part of that stuff. Thank God. (Did I offend anyone? Probably the alt-right. I used one of their misappropriated concepts correctly.)The alt right ignores such behavior because the left does also. It appears to be all about party loyalty.
Related Discussions
- 51
Trump's documented lies chronicled by the New York Times. A report.
by Kathleen Cochran 13 days ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … ruths.htmlDocumentation of Trump's lies written as a news article - not opinion. (I know. It's NYT - highly suspicious in spite of its multiple Pulitzers) Still. Your thoughts? By Angelo Fichera April 7, 2024Since the beginning of his political...
- 17
Atlanta hits back after Trump’s attack on Lewis
by Credence2 7 years ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-attac … 44389.htmlThis latest spat with Congressman John Lewis is another example of how Trump always comes off as a hot head with poor judgement, just what we need in the modern world.Yes, Lewis 'started it' with his statement about the President-Elect's...
- 43
How Do You Think Donald Trump Will Exit The Presidential Race?
by John Coviello 7 years ago
How Do You Think Donald Trump Will Exit The Presidential Race?I have to wonder with Donald Trump slipping in the polls, if he is going to stay in the race for the Republican nomination to run for President? Not sure if his ego will allow him to be in 2nd place and eventually lose. If he...
- 32
Donald Trump's Campaign Says He Won't Release His Tax Returns
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
Do you care?This would be the first time in modern American history that a candidate for President hasn't released his tax returns. Is this a big deal or not? If it is a big deal, what do you think Donald Trump is afraid the American people will see?
- 191
Trump vs Biden - First Presidential Debate of 2020 Who you won?
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
Before anyone else opens a forum about this, and I know the debate is still going on. However assuming you saw this thread after the debate, who do you think won? Did Biden beat Trump? Or do you think Trump owned Biden in the debate? Please discuss.
- 5
Robert Kennedy, Jr. - Spoiler? But for which side?
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
Wi-Fi causes cancer and "leaky brain," Kennedy told podcaster Joe Rogan last month. Antidepressants are to blame for school shootings, he mused during an appearance with Twitter CEO Elon Musk. Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender, he told right-wing Canadian...