Fear: Trump in the White House

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (67 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    "We're in crazytown!"

    Bob Woodward: Trump's aides stole his papers 'to protect the country'

    "He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," John Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

    Wow. You should read this.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/poli … index.html

    Transcript: Phone call between President Trump and journalist Bob Woodward

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 22f07aeca3

    1. hard sun profile image88
      hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I read the CNN piece this morning. It's "Crazytown" for sure, and the book looks to have some credibility.

      "Woodward's book relies on hundreds of hours of taped interviews and dozens of sources in Trump's inner circle, as well as documents, files, diaries and memos, including a note handwritten by Trump himself. "

      Also, it's not as though Woodward is some young reporter trying to make a name for himself.

    2. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      This is not a happy day for me IslandBites. As an eternal optimist, I had placed great hope in my Fransisco thought, but given the respect I have for Woodward's past works, and of his credibility, I now have a premonition that  I will soon be planning a memorial service for that thought.

      I probably have every political book Woodward has written, and I don't think I have ever paid retail for any book, but I will for this one.

      GA

  2. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 months ago

    Trump's fans will refuse to believe Woodward, just like they refuse to believe anyone else who criticizes their dear leader. It won't be long until he is labeled a money grubber or a traitor. No matter the quality of a person's reputation, if they dare tell the truth about our insane president, they will be vilified.

    The only question is....how quickly will it happen?

    1. hard sun profile image88
      hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      This is very likely for so many of them, but I think his behavior is wearing on those who aren't all in Trumpians. GA's comment may be evidence of this as well.

      However, I think part of the problem is people have a problem admitting they misjudged an individual's character. That includes me. Except, you know, if I think I see a turtle, and label it as such, and then it walks right by me quacking like a duck, I see it has webbed feet and wings, I'd admit it's actually a duck.

      I'd rather admit I misjudged  than clearly show that I just cannot recognize reality.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Some people on the news are referring to.parts of the book as "shocking." I chuckled because, so far, I am not even surprised much less shocked by a single revelation. How can you be paying attention and not already know that Trump is an incompetent, dangerously unstable man-child? I just don't understand how so many  people have been unable or refuse to see it.

        Those people make me fear for our country far more than the unfit man-child, because if it weren't for them he would not have been elected and he would not still be in office.

        1. hard sun profile image88
          hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Good point...who could they vote for next? Some of them say they don't care how a president behaves, but don't they understand this behavior effects how he leads? Then we have the possibility of Mike Pence. He's a religious nut who thinks God speaks to him. I never heard him call his wife Mother but others said they heard it straight from him. Strange guy who could likely get more done than Trump especially with the Supreme Court we're going to have.

    2. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      They fail to realize that someone like Woodward records everything. He also gets multiple sources to back up the most controversial facts.

      That's the difference between real journalism and cable TV news.

      It's why he doesn't get sued. Because he can prove in court that what he writes is the truth.

      Heck, even Trump said Woodward has been fair to him in the transcript that Island Bites provided.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
        JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Well promisem, yes Bob Woodward is an excellent journalist and aside from fox propaganda channel, there are also some very reliable and accurate news sources on cable such as CNN, MSNBC, BBC and CSPAN just to name a few: They do an outstanding job of delivering critically important facts just like Woodward::

  3. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    Hey there hard sun,

    Just a thought... Vice. Pres. Pence and his wife have three children, have you never heard a wife referred to as "mother" when she is one?

    I must be as nuts as Pence. My great nephews call my wife 'Nanny', and I frequently find myself referring to her as "Nanny" when the boys are around. (and a few times when they weren't)

    Of course that doesn't have the same 'perversion' draw as thinking that Pence calls her that because he sees her as his mother, but, what the hell, juicy gossip is the best kind.

    Also, that's a pretty tough inference, "religious nut," how do you know that God doesn't speak to him, (Pence)? I mean, I understand you may think you know, but how can you be sure?

    GA

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Now, GA, I heard God told him he will be President of the United States. Isn't it amazing how God has such spectacular plans for Mike and even more amazing that he spoke directly to Mike to relay this awe-inspiring news?

      Yes, he is a nut. He will not be alone with a woman, even for work purposes. That is nutty. He obviously believes he can't control himself around women, and neither can God.

      And the way he subsumes his dignity to suck up to Trump is embarrassing and weak.

      The man is not a courageous man of integrity. He is not the type of person we need to lead this country, especially after the Trump debacle.

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        My mom says he's slime and creeps her out.

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        But, but, but... PrettyPanther, You only see that as nutty behavior because you don't view it as normal behavior.

        Wait, that is a sort of definition of nutty isn't it. Okay, maybe he is a bit 'unusual'. Alright, alright, yeah, to non-religious folks that is nutty.

        But you still can't prove God doesn't speak to him. So Hah!

        As for your "subsumes his dignity" thought,  didn't we see a whole table full of supposedly intelligent men do the same thing at that publicized cabinet table meeting where they took turns thanking the president for his greatness, and allowing them to be part of it?

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Lol, yeah, we did. It's still embarrassing and weak. When will the enabling of an unfit President stop?

    2. hard sun profile image88
      hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I respect your thought GA, but stick by my nut job statement. I grew up in same area where Pence frequented as governor and as a congressman before that. I never heard a man refer to his wife as "mother."  A couple years ago, most of the downtown restaurants put up signs stating he wasn't welcome here because of his anti-homosexual statements. The "mother" thing wouldn't be so creepy if he weren't so creepy.

      https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/mik … ents-many/

      Hoosiers are now fitting the bill for his family's gas stations. He tried to start a government run state newspaper in Indiana. It didn't go over well.

      https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/26/politics … index.html

      "" how do you know that God doesn't speak to him, (Pence)? I mean, I understand you may think you know, but how can you be sure?"

      This is reflective of a problem with our nation IMO if you think it's possible there's a good God that would choose to speak through Mike Pence. Fantasy land does not run countries. There's also a chance that I'm Klingon sent to save the planet from Trump fever, and the Easter Bunny is my cohort.

      I would much rather Trump be voted out in 2020 than Pence take over due to impeachment. I think Pence is more intelligent and more dangerous than Trump when it comes to protecting freedoms and democracy. I see images of the Republic of Gilead.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Well now, hard sun, since you put it that way... see my response to PrettyPanther.

        But, without the additional behaviors, I still think a husband addressing a mother as "Mother," isn't so unheard of as to be weird. Although it is probably a very dated thing.

        Also, you have to understand that, given my response to the OP, I had to find an outlet for my angst. Your comment was an easy target. ;-)

        GA

        1. hard sun profile image88
          hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Maybe the mother thing is just more outdated than indicative of perversion or some such. Like I said, it's just the entirety of Pence that weirds out a lot of people.

          Now we have his older brother running for Mike's old US House seat, and he's likely to win considering it was 1983 the last time a Republican didn't hold that seat.

  4. Credence2 profile image81
    Credence2posted 7 months ago

    Sometimes, I am not sure, regardless of the fact that I do not like Trump and acknowledging the credentials of someone like Bob Woodward, I am not much for "tell all" books. Such material can have a political taint. When I come after Trump, it will be based on the very words that come from his mouth. This is a battle but I will always allow the enemy an opportunity pick up his or her sword in his or her own defense.

    1. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I certainly agree with that thought Cred. As you said, even with Woodward's credibility, it is still a "tell-all" book.

      But, as I said... I respect Woodward's credibility, so I intend to pay full retail, (shudder, an unheard of act for me), to get a first-available copy, and determine if it's a true Woodward piece, or just another hit piece - this time by Woodward.

      Until then, Woodward gets the benefit of the doubt with me.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        GA, I don't like the idea that Trump was not giving the opportunity to speak for himself when Woodward gathered  his data for the book. It just seemed somewhat less than honest.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          From what I understand, aides purposely didn't tell him that Woodward wanted to interview him.  I wonder why?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Probably because they knew their actions were unconscionable and would cost them their jobs.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Hey Wilderness, you seem to infer that the folks Woodward asked to pass the request to Pres. Trump were the ones doing the interviews. I didn't get that impression. I think he only named two people; Kelly Ann Conway and Lindsey Graham, (who did tell the president), and I wouldn't think either fit Woodward's description of administration officials, or administration members - including Conway, (Ok, that was a jab, maybe she is an official part of the administration, but I bet she wasn't interviewed)

              To carry your thought where I think you intended it to go ... If the charges and descriptions in the book blurbs are true, do you think those that gave interviews should have just kept quit or resigned - instead of telling the truth, (if it is the truth)?

              Again, emphasizing the "if," if the blurbs are true, and the folks concerned really had the country's best interest at heart - as in trying to contain the 'damage', are their actions still unconscionable, or should they be lauded for not just throwing in the towel and running away?

              GA.

              1. IslandBites profile image86
                IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this
                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Hi IslandBites, Yep, I remember now. I think I also remember Pres. Trump saying he doesn't speak/interact with him. My impression was Trump was denigrating/dismissing Raj as someone of no importance.

                  GA

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Panther, I may have to agree with Wilderness in this circumstance, it is a lot easier to talk about the boss behind his back then to allow Trump the opportunity to corroborate or not corroborate what it is the staffers reveal to Woodward.

            Why else would people that work for him on his staff do this?

        2. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Hey bud, according to that Washington Post phone transcript article, Woodward claims to have tried a half dozen or so different folks to get the message of an interview request to the president. That aspect doesn't bother me at all.

          Think for a second ... can you see an way this President could authoritatively debunk Woodward's claims?

          I will find out soon enough - when I get my hands on his book. I honestly think I could tell the difference between an authentic Woodward-of-old, writing and a new Woodward-the-crusader piece.

          We'll see.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            GA, Trump would probably not be adept at disputing the findings of an investigator with the caliber of Bob Woodward. But for me it is like a chess game, I corner an opponent, with a plan to checkmate providing no possible avenue of escape.

            When I come after Trump, I don't want neither him nor his supporters to find an opportunity to spin or eqivocate over the validity of Woodward's investigation of the findings. When the subject of the Book has imput it is easier to hang people on their own words, over what can be disputedly said by others.

            I guess you are right, we will see.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      The timing is beyond the political, it is to cash in.

      If GA is going to go buy a copy that tells you worlds about just how well timed/planned it is.

      Mid-term election time, and the left leaning MSM sources are in overdrive to do everything possible to rile up the voters and give them reason to vote.

      Obviously they can't use the economy against him, its doing better than it has in over a decade.

      They can't use war against him, he hasn't started one new conflict or toppled one regime (unlike the last two presidents).

      I'll judge him on what he accomplishes, not on what he says, not on what anyone else says about him.

      Trump is an outsider, he had no D.C. connections, he had no political experience so yes... the overwhelming majority of the people in D.C. probably despise him, he represents a threat to the establishment...

      The RNC and its entrenched politicians resisted Trump and fought him just as hard in the primaries as the DNC and Clinton did, and he is there because more than 60 million people rejected all the Republican politicians and the Democratic nominee as well.

      All of them (D.C. Belt), want him gone, no later than 2020, and obviously the Democrats will begin the Impeachment proceedings as soon as the mid-terms are over if they have the votes.

      So while all the quotes Woodward presents may be accurate (if not entirely or always in proper context) is it really any surprise?

      Is it so shocking that people who have spent their entire careers serving in the halls of D.C. or in the military find him difficult. or even despise him?

      In my book, he was the better of the two options we had, the country has changed course and that was needed, the trade agreements needed to be challenged and changed, the ACA taxation needed to be undone, the courts needed to be given some balance (and not totally turned over to progressives that wanted to give the country an overhaul)….

      Much of what Trump was needed for has already been accomplished, if he can see through to better terms the stand off with China (and to a lesser degree some of the other nations he is negotiating with); and get a few more of the worst of the nefarious FBI and DOJ types fired, he will have done more for the PEOPLE of America than any who voted for him dreamed he could actually get done in just a couple years.

      Anything else he is able to see accomplished, any additional time past the 3 year mark that he is allowed to have, is just bonus.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Ken, you put me in a tough position.

        Consider this. If, I grant all your points as true. And, barring the 'the ends justify the means' inference of your comment, I do, do you see no validity in the bottom line of the Woodward blurbs?

        Consider just the one N. Korea example where he seriously contemplated a military option against N. Korea. If the accusation is true, would you consider all the pluses you mentioned to be worth a nuclear conflict?

        As contradictory as it may seem, I can agree with most of your comment, and still agree with Pres. Trump's detractors - as described by Woodward,  that he may be a danger in the Oval office - if the facts of Woodward's writings are true..

        Can you honestly defend a war with N. Korea, or dumping all of our historical alliances, or an economy crushing trade war, (if by Woodward's comments it is only a $-sign plan, not an end-game plan), as positive moves for our country?

        I am reminded of the arrogance of the  thought that we are the only game in town, so they have to play here. That arrogance has been disproved time after time. And the holders of that thought have been shown their fallacy time after time. Yet ... here we go again, look at what he has done for us now. Well, what tomorrow has he brought us?

        Do you see my dilemma? The bird in the hand is a great catch, but if the rest of the story is true, then that great catch is more dangerous than we ever imagined.

        We have the power to be a world bully, and Pres. Trump appears to be wielding that bully power without any concern for the consequences. Short term gains without any considerations for long-term losses.

        However, I may be way off-base. I may be giving Woodward's 'expose' way to much   credibility. My lying eyes say no, but I have been wrong before. It was back in '78. I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          GA,

          One of the few advantages I have from my experiences, is seeing how vastly different parts of our society work.

          In my twelve years in the Army there was generally one means of interacting and communicating, in my several years working for non-profits and with State and Federal government agencies there was another, and as a Real Estate agent it was yet another.

          Trump is a little conman, a little gambler, a little gangster, a whole lot of show boat and ego, but underneath all that is a crafty individual that knows how to get the end results he wants, and a survivor... if there wasn't something special about him, he wouldn't be a billionaire, and he wouldn't be President.

          For many Military and Spook types Trump's personality traits likely set off alarms, or reminds them of people they have met in foreign lands they learned they could not trust.  He does not communicate to them in ways they consider 'the norm'.

          For lifers in D.C. that have devoted their lives to push America ever further into a Socialist (non Capitalist) state, or who are pushing the Globalist/NWO no-borders agenda, Trump is the very embodiment of their worst nightmares.

          Trump is so unconventional, it wouldn't shock me to find out that what is in the Woodward book is exactly what he wants in there.  Or that the Anonymous article in the Times is exactly what he wanted... you could take one side of the argument and say that is BS, he is an idiot that couldn't plan such deceptions, and yet, there he is the billionaire President. 

          Or you could take the other side of the argument, and think, wow, when the North Koreans read that, they will be pissing their pants next time Trump threatens them, maybe they will consider giving up those nukes after all... Or, damned, that "resistance" article in the Times is the type of article that proves Trump right, that there is a Swamp, that he is fighting the establishment...

          "… you think that's air you're breathing now?"

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            +1  Well said, for Donald Trump is about as far from a "normal" politician as it is possible to get, and when that trait shows up (as it does nearly every day) it truly does upset those that have spent a lifetime dealing with politicians.

            Plus, of course, his ideology is far from that of the modern socialists trying to "guide" our nation to "progress" towards that disaster.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
              JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Exactly, Bozo Trump is definitely 'abnormal' and lacks political experience which makes him UNFIT for the most important political job on the planet and he proves that every single horrific day he's allowed to illegitimately pollute our oval office:

              just two reasons why he needs to be removed ASAP to prevent a further collapse of our economy, our moral standing and global security:

              To evade a likely prosecution, Bozo can move to Russia, they seem to gravitate toward cowardly unhinged elderly men:

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            "...  and yet, there he is the billionaire President. "

            And there you have it Ken. The reason I held onto, (and may be still holding onto), my 'Francisco' hope.

            However, and regardless of his perceived successes, if the Woodward portrayal turns out to be true, then my "Francisco" hope is dashed, and I could not support his "means" just because I like some of the "ends."

            Your "on the other hand" argument seems too much of a stretch for me.

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              GA,

              We have entered into a time, a place in reality perhaps, where it is literally up to a person to decide what the truth is.  There is no universally accepted truth, on any political subject, or any 'fact'.

              That is easy enough to see in these threads, and even more-so should one change the channel from one news source to another.  Or simply wait a moment for opinions to change, and the villain becomes the hero.

              A good example is McCain who was a war-mongering despicable old white-male when running against Obama in 2008, and a National hero worthy of global recognition ten years later because he 'stood up' to Trump.

              Ten years ago politicians ran on the need to secure our border and protect American citizens, now one party runs on an open-border policy and doing away with ICE (who are evil SS types).

              One news station tells you Trump is a puppet of Putin, and everything that Trump does will result in the demise of all our freedoms, and cause WWIII.

              Another channel tells you it was the Clintons and their supporters in D.C. who were Putin's stooges, doing his dirty work, taking his money, getting him Uranium.  And yet another says if not for Trump we would already have been in WWIII with Russia and any allies it has.

              You get to choose your reality, but be careful because the MSM will likely change the narrative on you to best serve their interests and agendas.

              I'll pose the same question to you GA that I did earlier to another. 

              How is it our country Went from Bush, to Clinton, to Bush, to Clinton as SoS, and then was supposed (follow the money and support) to go to a Bush & Clinton choice in 2016?

              How is it that two families dominated politics in our country for almost 30 years, and what would have been a total of 36 years had the choice been Bush & Clinton in 2016?

              Isn't that odd, that essentially the only leadership the country had was between two families and their supporters for three centuries?

              Isn't it unusual for so many DOJ, FBI, CIA types to be getting fired, and openly be speaking out against the current President?

              Do you recognize nothing unusual about the current two year bias against a President, and that both people in the media and Congress have been calling for his Impeachment since before he was sworn in?

              "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in  your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red  pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole  goes."

              1. hard sun profile image88
                hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Apologies for sticking my silly head in your conversation here but..here goes:

                "A good example is McCain who was a war-mongering despicable old white-male when running against Obama in 2018, and a National hero worthy of global recognition ten years later because he 'stood up' to Trump."

                Who said McCain was despicable? Not me. The only blue pill I've ever taken was those big blue hydrocodone that Dr's used to hand out like candy. I took a red Tylenol PM once or twice also. I have no cares about the Clinton's or the Bush's and didn't want Hillary to be President.

                "Do you recognize nothing unusual about the current two year bias against a President, and that both people in the media and Congress have been calling for his Impeachment since before he was sworn in?"

                Because our President is a jackass who bad mouths virtually everyone around him...people tend to be biased against such characters. That will never change.

                I think Americans just need to stop taking themselves so seriously...left wing and right wing. No one has the answer to obtain a utopian nation, yet so many seem confident they do. Conservatives scream that liberals are always but hurt about something, and then they get all but hurt about the latest Nike spokesman.

                Fortunately, not all of us are like this, only the consistently loudest. I've been a political junkie since I was a tike and the only thing I'm THAT confident about is that Trump is a disgrace. That has nothing to do with red or blue and has everything to do with the red white and blue.

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Jump in anytime hard sun. That's the point of the forum. And that is why I enjoy them.

                  Regarding your opinion of Trump, that's another great thing about these forums. We all get to have one.

                  Wouldn't it be great if we could eat our cake and keep it too. Like getting the Trump shake-up that I think our political system direly needed, and have it done by someone we could perceive as honorable?

                  I am optimist enough to believe we can have that, we just didn't get it this time.

                  I think Ken made some excellent points, particularly about our past 'dynasty politics', but it appears we disagree on the price we should be willing to pay to fix it. Unfortunately for me, I am not sure which one of us is right.

                  What if Trump is the chemo we needed for the cancer that our political system had become?

                  Here is some food for that thought that follows Ken's examples. We have all heard about Congress' super low approval rating, (except our Congressman of course), yet it has somewhere around a 90% incumbent reelection rate. How can you reconcile those two facts without entertaining at least some aspects of Ken's perspective?

                  GA

      2. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Hi, Ken, Yes, I am riled up and have plenty of reasons to vote to remove GOP office holders and to make sure others like them are not to replace them. Most of us lefties are at this place and don't need an MSNBC as an instigator.

        I would not exaggerate Trump's 'economic miracle' as being solely of his making

        Trump is not an easy man to like or admire and you can be sure that this dislike extends far beyond the beltway. His agenda coincides with that of the Republican Party. I suspect that any problems that the mainstream GOP have with him is more over style than substance. But being a Democrat and a Progressive, my problem with him is both style and substance. That adds up to a big zero for him and those that align with his substance in the voting booth next November.

        We disagree, for instance, as far as I am concerned the Supreme Court is acquiring  a dangerous right wing tilt. I did not like my "option" with Hillary Clinton, but I will do better next time and Trump won't do.

        I will judge the man on what he does AND what he says. As a adult and leader of the free world, I am going judge his ability to use words tactfully and judiciously in pursuit of his policy objectives.

        Really, I don't think that the Democrats are going to resort to impeachment. First, they don't have the votes and Second, I and many of us don't want to use a serious Constitutionally prescribed remedy to play politics. If I want the man's head in an impeachment process, it will be based on Trump committing high crimes or misdemeanors. I think that Trump will get into trouble over the Emoulment issues, separating his business interests from those of the Presidency. Trump, being Trump will cross the line sooner rather than later.

        I am not convinced that Trump is not attacking venerable federal agencies because they should be loyal to him verses living up to their their mission irrespected of the wishes of any one man. Did you see the story regarding Sessions prosecuting two Congressmen who were in clear violation of Campaign Finance and Insider Trading Laws, and Trump's reaction complaining about Sessions targeting two loyal Republicans rather than be concerned as the top law officer about the integrity of the law as applied to everyone equally? I am illustrating my point.

        Nice to hear from you Ken, best wishes....

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Credence,

          I find you to be a good counter point with which to consider my own perspective. 

          You are a rational, intelligent, well educated and experienced individual that has some significant oppositional positions to my own.

          We are a microcosm for our Nation's politics, and why in order for our Nation to survive, in order for our country to continue to move forward and not fall into chaos or repressive revolution where tens of millions are slaughtered the pendulum must swing from one 'extreme' and back to the other.  Ensuring no one perspective, no one 'extreme' permanently gains control and remains in power.

          This keeps the country moving forward, this keeps civilization progressing.  If the pendulum ever stops swinging from one side to another, we will incur a fate similar to the Bolshevik Revolution, or be left in an economic downward spiral into disaster that we see Venezuela suffering today.

          Trump and the Republicans will only hold power for so long, it might come to an end in 1 year, or 2, or 4, but the end will come and power will swing to the other side, so long as this continues, the country and more importantly its citizens shall prosper in relative peace.




          As for this concern, I defer to the one person I always am willing to defer to in regards to all things political:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcbiB1AWPI

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Ken, I respect Ms. Rice point of view and even that of Kavenaugh, but both are too conservative for my outlook as to the direction the country needs to go in. I am mor e concerned about the excesses of Capitalism and danger of private wealth and their abuse of power over being concerned about Bolshevism or Venezuela redux.

            I will live within the System and Trump is the President, but I will vote to change that when the opportunity presents itself.

            Hopefully, we can find a balance that we can all live with even if it does not represent the "ideal" for either of us.

            As part of the D.C. circuit,  Kavanaugh is significantly more conservative than every other judge except current Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and noted conservative jurists Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this



              A legitimate concern, when the top are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer, and that is exactly what we were dealing with for the past decade, ever since 2006/7.

              What occurred during the previous 8 years is a rewrite of what a 'fulltime' job was, from 40 hours to 32.  We also saw a drastic change in healthcare that punished far more people than it helped, leaving millions to choose between paying for rent, food, or a insurance that paid for nothing until $5k or $10k in deductibles was paid out first.

              Wages were stagnant, the number of unemployed Americans was at an all time high, even though they reported record low unemployment numbers (predicated on people being out of the workforce). 

              Yet the rich kept on getting richer.

              Prior to that, the previous two administrations helped give us what ultimately became the Mortgage Crisis and near global economic collapse.  And even in the midst of the bailouts, the Execs and CEOs were giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses. 

              While millions of Americans lost their homes or went underwater with them.

              And lets not forget the previous 16 years of warmongering that the rich profited off of at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives.



              There is supposed to be a balance, it is the pendulum I mentioned, but it has been broken a while now.  The faces changed, but the policies that make a difference in jobs, wages, opportunity, and foreign relations hadn't changed for the better in over 20 years.

              You don't like Trump, hard to imagine anyone who watches tv or reads a newspaper still does, but the alternatives were what?

              I would love to have an alternative to consider in 2020, but what is being presented doesn't seem rational to me, seriously, what is being offered other than "Trump is unfit and we need to be rid of him"?

              He may be unfit, but this is the best the country has run in decades, jobs seem to be returning rather than fleeing the country, wages appear to be going up, people aren't forced to pay a tax because they can't afford health insurance, China might actually be forced to be fair in trade... that might mean hiring people here in America becomes economically viable again versus slave labor in China.

              If this is what it takes to make our government serve the people, not just the corporations and foreign nations, so be it.  I'll live with Trumps antics over being poor and destitute, but being PC.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Ken the biggest threat today as it has been throughout the ages is the danger of too much wealth concentrated in the hands of too few people. I am not going to promote Capitalism to the point  that protects them from being held accountable for excesses. Accumulation of wealth and consequently, power, can threaten Democratic processes, the rightful authority of "one man one vote" and the true responsiveness of our elected representatives.

                Ken, Trump cannot even get the absolute loyalty of his inner circle. If he cannot control those closest to him, then the activity of the press should be the least of his worries.

                From the left there are alternatives, although they may not be palatable to you.

                As for the "economic miracle", I am content to wait and see how it plays out and for what duration, before I give him any credit.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this



                  Credence,

                  I get that, I am 100% behind you on that, that is not in debate.

                  But what I am trying to point out is that despite the rhetoric and despite the promises and despite whatever a person thought about Obama or Bush or Clinton (Bill)...

                  Things didn't change for the better, and I'm not talking about social issues that have no impact on my ability to take care of my kids or pay my bills.

                  I'm not talking about gay marriage, or who can use what bathroom, or whatever social norm they decide to attack during an election season to divide people into sides... I'm talking about changes that impact all American citizen's lives.

                  Like you, I don't want the rich getting richer while the 45% of us who are working and struggling to make a decent paycheck get taxed more and paid less.

                  But that was exactly the course we had been on, through three Administrations, with nary bump in the road until Trump.

                  Bush was a warmonger... OK, I'll buy that.

                  Obama brought peace to the world.... and I'll call BS on that, not only did he keep up every single conflict started by Bush, but he expanded the amount of toppled nations to include Libya and (almost) Syria.

                  And they were both part of the same corrupt political machine that has been screwing over the American people to the benefit of those rich you are concerned about, and with the support of the MSM.

  5. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

    I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations...

    It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

    The result is a two-track presidency.
    This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state...


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin … e=Homepage

    1. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Hi IslandBites, this one doesn't get the automatic pre-acceptance that Woodward's effort did.

      This Op-ed may be completely legitimate, and it does dovetail with the Woodward blurbs, but ... I am getting a coin-toss on it; is it real, and out now because the author felt relief to speak because he/she wasn't alone in their thinking, (#metoo??), or, is it someone capitalizing on Woodward's blurbs?

      GA

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I'm in at least partial agreement with GA here. It's not as credible as Woodward's book seems. However, when taken in context, with Comey's book, which I did read, Omarosa's book, Wolff's book, and so many other reports, I'm thinking there's still a high likelihood of truthfulness here. If so, it's incredible. But, what do you expect from a guy who many low info--or Hannity info---people voting for just to "blow up the system."

        You can't expect a mechanic to teach Calculus so why expect a narcissist reality TV star to be a good leader?

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        "Under the standards which the New York Times operates, it is inconceivable that the op-ed’s anonymous source isn’t as described. The risk to which the newspaper would expose itself were it otherwise is enormous from a legal perspective and to its reputation."

        - Fortune magazine

        http://fortune.com/2018/09/05/new-york- … anonymous/

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Hi promisem, I understand your point, and had seen similar opinions, but, I don't see the NYT as a bastion of credibility. I am not labeling them fake news, but I do label them as biased. So, I can't dismiss the chance that they may well be willing to risk such exposure.

          Remember, that is only a thought, not a charge. And it also isn't a complete dismissal of the anonymous Op-ed. I need more before I could give it the acceptance I am willing to tentatively offer Woodward's efforts.

          GA

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Well said. All newspapers are biased on their opinion pages; the Times has a liberal perspective on theirs.

            It's a different matter in their news content. Respectable newspapers have strict procedures to avoid bias in their news content to appeal to the widest audience possible.

            Otherwise, I agree that an anonymous article doesn't carry nearly as much weight as the Woodward book backed up by audio tapes.

      3. IslandBites profile image86
        IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        This is enough for me. lol SMH

      4. IslandBites profile image86
        IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I guess Sarah Sanders answer your question.

        "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign." - Sarah Sanders

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Nope, doesn't answer my question. That was an expected response. Tells me nothing.

          Further, if the anonymous one does fall into the second category of my previous response ... I would have to agree with Ms. Sanders.

          Consider this; just as my optimism for the Francisco thought allowed me to ignore my lying eyes - to this point, my belief that the machinations behind our current political system are almost more powerful than can be imagined allows me to entertain, (note that is intended only to indicate a possibility), the thought that maybe even Woodward could be bought off.

          I know that is 'Twilight Zone', (dating you now - do you know what that means?), stuff, but, I can't call it impossible yet.

          But I will be able to make that call as soon as I read Woodward's book. As previously mentioned, I have been reading him for more than twenty years. As vain as it sounds, I really do think I will be able to tell if this is the 'real' Woodward, or a bought Woodward.

          GA

          1. IslandBites profile image86
            IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry, I meant that she admitted that is in fact a real a WH official (even as Trump tried to cast doubt on it).

            Btw, how does she knows is a real WH official?

            1. NY Times does has that credibility IHO
            or
            2. She recognizes that what the OP says is true.
            or
            3. Both

            Uhm?

            I know that is 'Twilight Zone', (dating you now - do you know what that means?), stuff, but, I can't call it impossible yet.

            Yeah, but not because I was alive back then. lol

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Silly girl. At least you got the inference.

              GA

          2. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Still ignoring the obvious, eh?

            Damn.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              No, just not ignoring the possible.

              Double damn!

              GA

  6. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    lol

    As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July 2015.

    “When I want something I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true.”
    -----
    He is now the godfather of politics,” Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal attorney, told ABC News in 2011. “Everybody wants to see him, everybody wants his endorsement.

    Later in the interview, Cohen boasted that whomever Trump endorsed would be the 2012 Republican nominee.

    These people will follow him to wherever he goes, hence of course why again I said he’s become now the godfather of politics,” Cohen said later in the interview.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/d … t-14528319

    1. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      And that has NOTHING to do with working in D.C. and having networked with the lifers who run things there.

      Big difference between donating some cash to politicians, and being an insider.  Of course, just my having to explain this shows you know little about how D.C. and our government really works.

      Really, have you ever stopped and wondered, even for a moment, how it is we got a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton SoS, and then what was supposed to be a Bush & Clinton option in 2016 for President?

      No?

      That's just normal I suppose, the White House being swapped essentially between two families and their supporters for 28 years, with at least another 8 that was supposed to occur, if not for that interloper Trump.

  7. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    Read the stolen letter from Trump's desk reported in Bob Woodward's book

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/poli … index.html

    1. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      That was not helpful - for me, IslandBites.

      I have the luxury of not being encumbered by any knowledge or expertise in this area, or the trade agreement in the letter.

      So my uninformed layman's impression is this:

      What did Cohn know that made him think it was right for him to do what he did?

      Pres. Trump trashed NAFTA, and it appears we may be getting a better deal out of that action. He trashed EU trade arrangements, and it looks like we may be getting a better deal there too.

      What did Cohn know that made him so sure S. Korea would shut down our launch detection facilities instead of renegotiating the trade agreement?

      If he had solid evidence S. Korea would tell Trump to take a hike, and take his detection facilities with him, then maybe Cohn did a good thing, but without knowing that I think he overstepped, and should be condemned instead of praised.

      Are we to just accept the inference, Cohn's inference, that S. Korea would react as inferred?

      Woodward will have to present some support for Cohn's belief in order for me to accept he did a good thing - rather than a mutinous thing.

      GA

  8. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    Ken, you are talking about picking your our 'political' truth aren't you? And you are talking about perspectives too, right? But hopefully when you mention "any fact" you aren't pushing Kelly Ann's "alternative fact" explanation All your examples seem to indicate that.

    I don't see anything Trump-era specific in your McCain example, politics have been like that forever. You're the devil when you are an opponent, and a saint when you are a useful tool. Nothing new there.

    Regarding your three decades of family dynasties thought, I think you are right Pres. Trump's election upset the political paradigm, and everyone, foe and friend, has attacked him for that. They are fighting for their lives, (meaning power and control), which I fully understand, which is what has enabled me to hold on to my "Francisco" hope.

    But even with all that agreement and understanding, there are still lines that I think must be involatile to remain the America I want us to be.I think Pres. Trump has crossed many of those lines, and it was only that one hope that carried me through it. The hope that my eyes were lying to me.

    Now, if Woodward's book turns out to be objectively truthful, I will have to believe my eyes and deny that purely economic benefits are worth the price of the long term detriments.

    I agree the system needs this Trump shake-up, but I do not agree that the cost of that shake-up is irrelevant.

    GA

    1. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Abraham Lincoln, while in office, many Americans not only thought he was doing a horrible job but also considered him to be a complete fool.

      When Lincoln took office in 1861 he had won with only 39.8 percent of the popular vote. Reactions from the public were so negative that on the eve of his inauguration he had to be smuggled into the capital during the dead of night in a disguise.

      He was looked down upon for everything from his humble beginnings and lack of education to his awkward appearance and high voice. Even the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan, called him the “original gorilla.”

      The Gettysburg Address revered as one of the greatest speeches of all time today, was panned by many. One Chicago Times writer said: “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly flat dishwatery utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.”

      No one had it worse than Lincoln, but one of my all time favorite Presidents was despised almost as much.

      Kennedy was never fully embraced by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and as a result of his hard line against Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, British Nobel Prize winner and pacifist Bertrand Russell once described Kennedy as "much more wicked than Hitler".

      Kennedy's support of civil rights caused him to be hated by some in the South. When James Meredith integrated the University of Mississippi, students protested, chanting "Two, four, one, three, we hate Kennedy."

      On the flip-side of the aisle, Right Wing, Birch Society mouthpiece, American Opinion, accused Kennedy of "shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail" which compelled "weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the United Nations".

      So my take on all of this GA is simple, when the 'pillars' of the 'establishment' are hating on a President, enough so that they are calling him a traitor, or wishing he were dead, it probably means he is doing a good job for the people of America.

      Either way, I wouldn't fear for your country, it has suffered worse than Trump and survived.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
        JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Is this all the rapidly shrinking republican party has? I understand there's really no valid legal defense for future orange jump suiter clown Bozo Trump who appears to be doing his level best to execute Vladimir Putin's agenda in broad daylight by undermining this once great country from the inside, but are FALSE comparisons between a bone headed traitor like Trump to legitimate historical giants all they got?

        Just FYI: Abraham Lincoln was never a betrayer and traitor to the USA like Bozo Trump is: Lincoln never tried to sabotage healthcare as Bozo Trump is: Lincoln was not a racist like Bozo Trump is: Lincoln was not mentally disturbed as Bozo Trump exhibits daily: Lincoln was never cozy with our enemies while destroying our relationship with our allies like Bozo Trump is doing: Lincoln never undermined our military, law enforcement and intelligence agents as Bozo Trump is doing and he NEVER insulted war heroes like Bozo Trump does:

        This is absolutely an INSANE, abnormal and ultra-dysfunctional illegitimate white house and every American must not forget that:

        Even before these patriotic whistle blowers made themselves known to report on the severe danger Trump represents, everyone with even half a brain knew there had to be brave American 'buffers' within our white house trying daily to protect us from this paranoid unhinged old man and his republican accomplices like weirdo Rand Paul, con man Paul Ryan etc:

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        "Either way, I wouldn't fear for your country, it has suffered worse than Trump and survived."

        I think I said something similar back in January 2017. And I still think so.

        My recent worries about the Woodward revelations weren't concerns about our country surviving, they were concerns about the potential harm of single-minded nationalistic fervor and isolationist perspectives.

        Your Lincoln point was an apt comparison - for a counter point; I don't recall any readings that indicated Lincoln was, behaviorally,  the "original gorilla," or unintelligent. Deriding him for his humble beginnings was simply snobbish - and political, and to his lack of education - again political,- he taught himself enough law to pass the exam and become a successful lawyer.

        I think it can be said that Lincoln's criticisms were mostly unfounded.

        Now, to compare that to Pres. Trump, it is looking like an opposite case. And I think purely economics-based defenses are short of the measure.

        Francisco isn't gone yet, but I can only just barely see his shadow.

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this



          Bah, you lend to much credibility to all those who are determined to cash in, or tear him down. 

          I ignore the noise from him and all his detractors, and only concern myself with what has been accomplished, good or bad.

          He didn't divide the country, he just gave voice to the 60+ million people that have felt tread upon for the past 10, 20, 30 years whatever their case may be... and that is a good thing, otherwise those 60+ million people might have gotten riled up to do more than vote for Trump... unlikely, but one never knows.

          I lend no credibility to any 'news' source that was intent on destroying him months before he even got into office, or any 'gossip mongerer' that has cashed in on previous presidencies writing a new book, not that they couldn't be legit, but I'm not going to be swayed by any of it.

          But that is just me, too much animosity and too much noise for me to follow.  And I always keep in mind, he declared war on the Swamp, and the swamp is going to fight back.

      3. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Correction on Kennedy, he was a consummate Cold Warrior, just as the case for every President from Truman through Reagan.

        Kennedy was slow to embrace the Civil Rights cause in the beginning for the reason of not stirring up the South and second, he did not appreciate the magnitude of the problem.

        But, like most great leaders, he was a quick study and like Lincoln, a century before, recognized that this issue defined the age in which they both lived. He made it quite clear to our community in a June
        , 1963 televised address, as to whose side he was going to stand with in regard to this matter.

        In spite of what conservatives say in hindsight and nostalgia, relative to the times in which he lived, Kennedy was a true Progressive spirit.

        I believed that Kennedy questioned the necessity of increased American involvement in Vietnam and I think that had he lived, it would have never been allowed to become the morass it was. There was an indication of the direction that he wanted to proceed in based on a September, 1963 interview with Walter Cronkite.

  9. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBBMuMHZthg

    In his first TV interview for his new book, Woodward talks with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin about the behavior of President Donald Trump and his staff.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)