Bullies and vindictive people with power
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0Do you stand up to bullies? Do you stand up to bullies in some circumstances but not others? Do you stand up for coworkers who are being bullied? Friends? Family Classmates? Strangers?
Here is why I ask. Many of us have trouble understanding how a good person could vote for a bully, then watch that bully use the power of the presidency to continue bullying, and still think he is fit to lead.
I have, at various times in my life, stood up to bullies, and not stood up. I still feel shame over the time I did not stand up for a neighbor kid who stuttered while a group of schoolkids teased her to tears. I was only 7 and it was my first experience with that type of group bullying. In middle school, the group of girls I hung witn decided to ostracize one of our group. I didn't go along with it and continued to talk to Paula and walk home alongside her. I got a boatload of crap from the group which, at first, was scary and really hurt. But as I watched their cruel behavior continue I began to see they were not worth hanging with. They were mean, vindictive bullies. As a result of that rift, Paula and I found new, better friends. I learned a lot from that experience and it has shaped my reaction to bullies ever since. As an adult, I started a new job at an agency that had three long-term female employees who had long put up with a boss who routinely made disparaging sexual remarks to them. I was, apparently, the first to tell him it was not acceptable. Long story short, after almost being fired, we managed to convince upper management that he was the one who must go, so he was fired.
Now, back to present day. We have a mean, vindictive bully as president. Sure, he doesn't bully you personally. He doesn't bully your sister or your father or your neighbor or your friends. But, he does bully real people, some of whose only crime is disagreeing with him or challenging him. Gold Star families, war heroes, career diplomats. a disabled reporter.
How can you stand by and let this happen, and also encourage it by elevating this man to President of the United States? Do you not feel shame for this? Do you think it's okay as long as it's not you personally he is bullying, or a friend or family member?
This question is inspired by a conversation between Randy and Shar, where Shar stated that if Trump tried to bully her (specifically, grabbing her -------- as he has bragged about doing to others) that she would fight back and not allow it. My question is, why do you not only allow Trump to bully others, but encourage it by first elevating him to the presidency and then continuing to support him despite his continued bullying? Do you think bullying is acceptable? Do you think other's pain is a small price to pay to have this man do your political bidding?
What?I think some are so embedded in supporting whatever he does and says, they can no longer take the high road. They enable him to do even worse things than we've witnessed thus far. Will they ever wake up and say, enough? Nope!
You're right about that. I was in a discussion today with a Trump supporter on FB. He wanted to know why intelligent people hated Trump. I stated that when Roosevelt said "talk softly and carry a big stick", he didn't mean "carry a big stick and scare the hell out of people." This person asked what I meant, that Trump hadn't started any wars like (named a couple of other presidents, including Bush), I replied that he'd come close enough to scare the hell out of some of us. I'm waiting for his reply. So you see, you can't reason with these people. They are under "Hitler hypnosis" (my words). I can't think of any other reason.
MizB
True, Theodore Roosevelt was a MAN, not a coward, rising from a sickly childhood and challenging himself during his lifetime to improve and be the best. Donald Trump is not worthy of what sticks on the bottom of Teddy's boots.
TR did not hesitate to project rising American military might around the world as in his "Great White Fleet". But he also was reflective had a sense of responsibility toward the people and struck out against the temerity of wealth and privilege in America Society at the time. I would have been proud to have met him as the very last Republican that I can truly say was a great President.There's no past POTUS we can compare Trump to, Cred. He seems to enchant his enablers like the legendary Pied Piper. of Hamlin. I do believe they would follow him off a cliff.
Bullies have some sort of feeling of inadequacy or inferiority complex. Guess that I never needed to prove anything to anyone outside of supervisors to keep my job. Bullies always pick on the vulnerable as they are fundamentally cowards and avoid those that will even attempt to fight.
While I never passed through that stage, most boys on the transition to men grow out of it. But, as we see with current occupant of the White House, such is not always the case.
So, we have intimidation over integrity, cowardice replacing courage. People accept this man in spite of his glaring deficiencies as what it is that he provides them is far more important an imaginary restoration of loss prowess or the anticipation of the same in the future. They will all excuse Trump and anything that he does to adhere to their prime directive.
Conservatives will dance around this, but it is true all the same. I won't go into the details as it would start an argument.
America, in considering this person an acceptable leader, disappoints me.Your last line expresses how I feel, though I would say the emotion evoked in me watching my fellow Americans elevate and defend a man of such low character is far greater than disappointment. A mixture of shame, disappointment, and fear of what else these fine people will accept in the pursuit of their "agenda."
Credence2, au contraire-studies show that bullies have normal even high self-esteem. Bullies are confident. They don't have inferiority complexes as supposed. It is quite the opposite. Bullies have very high self-esteem which explains why they bully.
Apologies, not Credence, but this is interesting to me. After at least fifteen minutes of searching Google Scholar it looks like there are mixed results on this. It also looks like a strong desire to conform, a sense of shame, and less satisfaction with life are motivators for those who are persistent bullies. Of course, my research is FAR from exhaustive. However, this page seems a nice summary of what I found in my cursory research:
"Some psychological theories of bullying and self-esteem suggest that a bully's need to intimidate is evidence of a lack of self-worth. According to other studies, however, bullies may well have too much self-esteem. Their inflated self- often has basis in reality, but it comes in handy when bullies justify their antisocial behavior to themselves and others. Theories of bullying and self-esteem suggest that while bullies do not suffer from low self-esteem, they are especially sensitive to shame, and do not want their faults and inadequacies to be visible to other people."
So, I'd say Credence was at least mostly correct in stating that bullies have inferiority complexes even if they do have high self-esteem. They are scared of having any perceived inadequacies exposed to others.
I have always stood up to bullies. I always will.
The fact that you see one bully in Trump and can't see the toxic and bullying behavior of the powers that be on the left proves to me bullying is ok with you, as long as you agree with the objectiveWhich person on the left can compare with Trump in the bullying dept, LTL? No one on earth can compare with him in telling lies, that's for sure.
It's just a distraction, a rationalization to make herself feel better. No President of the United States has ever belittled and insulted so many of his fellow Americans. Ever. Yet, his enablers will lamely claim others are just as bad, as though even if it were true, which it obviously is not, still wouldn't make it right.
Is that what you think you're doing? That's not what I see.
I'm sure it isn't. I wonder what supporters of Joe McCarthy saw?
So, no , you haven't stood up to Trump?It's all a matter of perception Randy. I believe she believes I believe I'm defending Trump. I can't change her belief. Nor can she change mine.
The McCarthyistic tactics of the left I see as more dangerous than Trump's behavior. You stand up to the biggest bully you see and I'll stand against the biggest bully I see.The answer is I don't see Trump as the biggest bully in the picture. So, I'm standing against the biggest bully, imo.
If there is more than one bully do I have to stand against the one you worry about or the one I worry about? Should I stand up to both? If so, should you?
Edit. One other question (I know you won't answer since I don't know if you are capable of doing so). What the democratic machine attempted to do to Trump they are now attempting to do with Sanders. Do you see similarities? If you do, will you finally stand up and defend anyone against them?It's a no. She just doesn't want to flatly say so.
I know it, Sandy. It's common for the Right. Sometimes I have to ask a question several times before it's even acknowledged. And if they don't want to answer it, it's never acknowledged.
Your last query to LTL may fit in this category.I acknowledged and answered. Not giving you the answer you want doesn't mean it isn't answered.
But, you guys have fun pretending.You're the one pretending you gave an answer to a question by asking a question in return. Are you Jewish or something?
The thread is about bullies. Do you stand up to them? Since I don't consider Trump to be the biggest bully in the room, why would I stand up to him as much as calling out the real bullies?
Also, you'd have to define what instance you consider a bullying moment, in regards to Trump. I do speak out when I think he's said something wrong but since you two consider everything he says to be wrong and make things up as you go; I'm not going to get tied down to a blanket statement one way or the other.
Someone in this thread would whine because I didn't agree with them on some point and pretend that since I didn't agree I wasn't standing against Trump at that time. I'm not a goose stepping Democrat.Cool! I'll take that as a no. Now we're getting somewhere.
So who's "the biggest bully in the room?"I'll repeat: Would you please provide a couple of examples of "the McCarthyistic tactics of the left" that resulted in a firing or dismissal or even a resignation?
And who s the biggest bully in the room?"And who s the biggest bully in the room?"
Undoubtedly the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. They just aren't very good at it as everything they try fails miserably, but they do try!Deed they do try to keep a criminal in line, Dan. And why shouldn't they? It's their job according to the Constitution. Or do you disagree?
What they did is similar to what we see here. A statement is made. An opinion, presented as immutable fact. Any who disagree with the opinion aren't given the courtesy of being allowed to disagree without being accused of allowing 'bad things' to happen.
I disagree with the premise. You have to prove it. I think you've been led into a false belief. I think the evidence is right before you. I think what is happening to Bernie is the third alarm meant to wake up the base of the democratic party from what could only be described as a self induced coma.
Or, maybe your idea of America is a bunch of people shoving other people around, laughing at how only they are fit to decide for everyone else. Willing to break precedent, tradition, law and anything else with lies, vicious rumors and temper tantrums from the halls of Congress to the media the DNC controls, in an effort to ensure the democratic base remains steadfast in it's zombie like attacks on any who dare to disagree.I've seen on one trying to prevent you from posting here, LTL. And who shoved you? Just because you're asked questions you don't want to answer you get indignant.
You support a name calling, arrogant, liar, who treats good people horribly, and horrible people well. So don't blame us if we don't like his enablers making excuses for him. Bad ones by the way.
Looking back over their efforts, they have accused Trump of colluding with Russia, inhumane actions in following the laws congress passed, protecting the border as required by the constitution, promoting fair trade agreements, keeping terrorists out of the country and fixing multiple elections, all in a political efforts to remove him from the office he was elected to.
None of which have been true, but they tried...and here you promote their efforts as "oversight" a repeat, yet again, that the actions were "criminal" even though without a single conviction. No, it's "bullying", just as I said. Whether through court actions, political speeches or a faux impeachment attempt, it's been a constant effort to bully the president with their power.No matter how many times you term the oversight a hoax, it doesn't make it true, Dan.
Interesting take on Congress doing it's duty of oversight, Mr. Kellyanne.
Would you please provide a couple of examples of "the McCarthyistic tactics of the left" that resulted in a firing or dismissal or even a resignation?
Very well framed PP....following this as I have the exact same question. To me, the moral implications of elevating this man to President far overwhelm ANY perceived good he may be doing.
Trump would lie to Jesus if he were still around. And probably has if he prays like he claims.
I guarantee it. And he's the religious right hero. I did see where one Christian organization of some sort said it could not support him. You'd think more would follow suit. IDK.
They're invested in him too much, Don. The Xtians are those who elected him, but he's so far from being any kind of moral person, I don't know why.
I suppose if one believes an invisible sky daddy is watching over them all the time, one can believe Trump is a good guy. Go figure!
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
Well, I must say I am disappointed in the lack of response from Trump supporters. This, to me, is the crux of what deeply disturbs us who cannot abide Trump. It deeply disturbs us that our fellow Americans would elevate a mean, vindictive bully to high office. That they would turn their backs on the victims of his bullying. And, while I limited this thread to just bullying, it isn't only that.
This man used his charity to cheat veterans. Do you find this acceptable? Conservatives have traditionally respected veterans and claim to support them, yet you ignore the reality of what kind of person one would have to be to raise money for veterans then selfishly use it for one's own benefit.
And what about the over 100 service members suffering from brain trauma from the Iranian retaliation to Trump's killing of Solemani? The Trump administration obviously did their best to cover it up to avoid both criticism of his decision to kill Solemani and the need for U.S. retaliation, which would essentially mean war. And then he callously refers to their injuries as "a few headaches."
Ugh. I give up trying to understand. I have no choice but to conclude you are fine with a mean, vindictive, callous bully inflicting pain on your fellow Americans as long as it doesn't personally harm you and as long as he furthers your political agenda.The only real answer I can find now is as Randy states...they are in too deep to turn back. I say it's okay to admit you made a wrong decision. It's okay to admit you got caught up in a movement and didn't really think about the consequences. It probably happens to every American at one point or another. However, what really separates us is the willingness to admit we were mistaken and move forward. I made at least one very bad decision in my life, and I know acceptance is indeed the first step.
You know, even though I personally knew what Trump was before he got elected, and even though at the time I was horrified that so many people thought he was fit to lead, I eventually came to realize their desire to shake things up and gamble on Trump being the guy to do it. I think many thought he would straighten up and become more presidential. So, at a certain point, I could see why some chose him over the status quo. But with all that has transpired since he was elected....the trashing of McCain, the worship of murdering dictators, labeling the free press "the enemy of the people," children caged and dying at the border....just so much hate and childish vindictiveness. ..with all that, I cannot understand or forgive those who continue to support such a disgusting, low-life POS.
UGH.Yeah. I remember people stating that they voted for Trump with the assumption that he would start acting more Presidential, not REALLY call for a ban on Muslim immigration, etc. But, I think it's become about more than Trump at this point.
It's become about not switching to the other side. Trump helped make it this way, and I have to admit it's a genius political strategy if ALL you care about is winning an election. At this point, many people would see changing to a Democrat vote as anti-American and akin to taking the side of another nation. This is what can happen when a President labels fellow Americans as the enemy. The world has seen this before.Maybe...sadly. And, this makes Trump the worst President in history...by far. We can also consider the long term damage that his anti-science and anti-intellectual rhetoric will bring. I don't give a damn IF the economy were the greatest it's ever been. A President who presides over a nation being torn apart is a failure. That would be true even if that President were not one of the primary reasons for the divisions. How far will he push these divisions if he gets another term?
Probably two or three more terms as he never wants to be a commoner again. They'll have to use a crowbar to get him out of the WH.And then fumigate the place well.
With the words and Tweets of Trump on a daily basis, I find it difficult to even respond to a comment that cannot acknowledge his behavior is off the charts, and is the definition of bullying. I mean, this guy is riding a good economy, and his re-election is in doubt mainly because he doesn't know how to behave like an adult. All the spin in the world will not change this. Then people accuse others here of not allowing disagreement just because some people disagree with them!?!? Accusing them of being the ones to initiate break of precedence? This is the same logic that gets us to: Democrats are the bullies because they do their jobs and stand up to the bully. This is how societies get WAY off track.
"Then people accuse others here of not allowing disagreement just because some people disagree with them!?!?"
And resort to name calling in an effort to degrade when their disagreement cannot be supported. Yes, some of the people here are doing that. "Dan Kelly Anne" is a good example. It's the "adult" way, right?Doesn't your role model call people names all of the time, Dan? Do you get angry at Trump when he does it? Or do you enjoy him calling the democratic House members names?
You do not like Kellyanne Conway, who has been with Trump since before the election and is his close personal adviser? Is being compared to Kellyanne bad?
I was, prior to that, called a goose-stepping leftist. We're you similarly offended, or is it only offensive when it happens to you personally, which is actually the central discussion of this thread?
Personally, I don't give a hoot what she thinks of me. Given her record of abysmally poor judgment, it means morning.
In any case, all of this outrage from Trump supporters over name calling is both hilarious and sad.I don't know much about Kelly Anne so cannot truly reply...except that it was obviously intended as an insult. Do you disagree? Did you intend your comment to be a compliment?
You may have been called "goose stepping"...but not by me.
Yes, the name calling is sad. Sad and comical, for we hear how terrible it is when Trump does it, followed by the same action from the speaker. Comical, although one must wonder about the ethics and honesty of a speaker that degrades one for such verbiage and then commits the same offense.Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll believe you truly care about insults when you're equally aggrieved by whoever does it, whether it's Trump himself, a Trump supporter or a Trump detractor.
And, yes, I personally do not like or respect Kellyanne, but given your apparent agreement with her stances on pretty much everything, I'm surprised you are not flattered.Unlike some I will try and understand what is actually being said and meant.
And the Kelly Anne comment was not intended as a compliment. Not unusual from Randy but I was a little surprised to see you jump on the wagon. It just didn't seem your style; until the Trump rants began a disagreement didn't fall to that level (that I recall, anyway).I simply grow weary of the twisting of wrong into right and right into wrong, which you are quite good at, just like Kellyanne. And I thought my last comment made it clear I did not mean it as a compliment. I am not trying to.pretend it wasn't an insult from my perspective. I'm just surprised you see it as such, being a supporter of the policies she has been defending for years now.
"Goose-stepping leftist" carries no such ambiguity, though.Such indignation from a Trump supporter is laughable.
I suppose he'd dislike being told he's just like Trump as well?That's what I said; you intended an insult and I understood that. To intentionally take it as something you did not intend, to intentionally "misunderstand" your comment doesn't seem reasonable. Certainly such an action does not contribute meaningfully to a conversation - isn't the goal to understand what is meant (and respond accordingly) rather than pretend the meaning was something else and give a response that is meaningless to all? I mean, sarcasm can be useful but is often misunderstood in these forums - it just doesn't come across as well when there is only written words on a screen without body language, tone, etc.
I understand your point and mostly agree with it.
But let's go back to the comment you made that elicited my comparison to Kellyanne. You quoted me then replied.
"And who s the biggest bully in the room?"
Undoubtedly the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. They just aren't very good at it as everything they try fails miserably, but they do try!"
My response: "Interesting take on Congress doing it's duty of oversight, Mr. Kellyanne."
Was there not sarcasm in saying the House exercising their Constittional right to oversight is bullying? Or did you mean that literally? Was your goal--honestly--to have meaningful conversation? I certainly did not see it that way.No. It was not sarcasm. Democrats (primarily the House because they have the majority there but not limited to that body) have bullied Trump in every move he has made and in many that he did not.
It was not "oversight" to conduct a years long investigation into Trump and anyone remotely connected to him because a foreign national an unsubstantiated rumor he colluded with Putin. It was not "oversight" to howl to the stars when Trump enforced border laws congress passed, screaming about the "inhumane" action in following those laws. It was not "oversight" to sue over banning travel from terrorist laden countries that do not vet their travelers. It wasn't even "oversight" to collect opinions that Trump tried to fix the next election, which WAS the claim in the impeachment process and remains completely unproven. It is not "oversight" to ignore and actively work around federal law enforcement such as ICE as they try to enforce national law...at Trumps direction. It was not "oversight" to scream to the heavens that Trump was destroying North American trade...then sign a new treaty that all three nations benefited from. It wasn't even "oversight" to rip up Trumps speech in a political maneuver.
It was "bullying", and while Congress does have the right (and duty) to exercise at least some control over the actions of a president, the Democratically controlled House (and other liberal locations) have gone far, far beyond that. Beyond, IMO, what every other congress has ever done. We have never, for instance, seen cities and states openly defying federal law and law enforcement in hiding and protecting criminals, but we do now...because Trump is enforcing laws they don't like.
We've always seen disagreement and active obstruction to policies legislators disagreed with (that's what politics is all about), but the massive partisanship has increased beyond anything useful to the nation and is quite destructive. Our congress has deteriorated to the point of being little more than a group of children squabbling in the sandbox.
IMO.I agree with you about the partisanship. Do you think Trump has done anything to make it better or worse? Do you consider Mittch's denial of Obama's SC nominee to be a contributing factor?
I can't even comment on the rest. It is just too far beyond reason.No, I don't see Trump as doing much to make it worse. It has been building for a long, long time - far too long to blame on Trump. Democrats lost the last election by a fairly slim margin, and the popular vote has probably had more to do with divisiveness than anything Trump has done. That and the Russian attempts to split the country in two. Although I WILL say that his mouth and uncouth manner of speaking isn't helping!
Trump did not cave to Democrat demands on policy, but then no president (worth his salt) does. Trump has made some really stupid statements (even though some were true, they were still stupid to make) and gave Democrats huge openings to attack, but that isn't reason to do so - that's purely on Democrats.
Do you not shudder a bit inside when considering what the next Democrat president will face? Will we ever again have a president (with a hostile body of congress) that can accomplish anything beyond executive orders? Obama really had only one big win outside his EO's (Obamacare), just as Trump has with trade deals - what can future presidents expect? Will anyone be stupid enough to run for the office, and if they do will they care about the country or themselves?I'm sorry but your denial that Trump has done anything to make partisanship worse coupled with your claim that House oversight is bullying kills your credibility on this subject.
"Do you consider Mittch's denial of Obama's SC nominee to be a contributing factor?"
No...if the Democrats wanted to have a nominee considered for the Supreme Court they should have won the Senate. The people voted and they rejected the Democrats, so, there is no reason to consider Obama's nominee. They didn't want what the Democrats wanted...so get over it already. Winners get what winners get and loser get what losers get, like it's always been.Unfortunate ly, what goes around comes around. I look forward to your "who cares?" response when that happens.
So instead of a simple disagreement that it was wrong, it becomes "I'm gonna do it too!". Which is a very large part of why we are where we are in this country; legislators refusing to work together for the country, putting their party ahead of anything else. On both sides of the aisle.
Mitch set the precedent, Dan. And Trump has set even more with his denying Congress oversight. I hope when the shoe's on the other foot you'll like it. I don't want a POTUS of any party acting like the cretin has as far as criminality is concerned.
I don't know that he set the precedent, but he surely watered and fertilized it. So your response, as PP's, is to to do the same rather than shout to the skies that "This is not permissible!". And take action at the ballot box.
And the saga continues, with each year getting worse, all in an eternal game of "tit for tat", while you supply more water and fertilizer. Good thinking! It's bound to work better than term limits or demanding our legislators work FOR us rather than AGAINST us, isn't it?Where in earth did you get the idea that my response."is to to do the same rather than shout to the skies that "This is not permissible!". And take action at the ballot box" ?
Please tell me how the hell you got that out of anything I said? I didn't hear you complaining when Mitch played his ugly game and you certainly aren't complaining about all the ugly, vindictive, unethical, nasty moves by Trump..
Geez, talking to you is damned frustrating. You're the one defending this crap. We're merely pointing out that the tables will be turned. UNFORTUNATELY.
Did you catch that? UNFORTUNATELY.You act as though Congress members weren't elected by the people, Dan. Their oversight duties aren't supposed to be stonewalled simply because you think they should. You're fine with Republicans in Congress who turn the other way when Trump is breaking precedents long established in the Govt.
We may as well not have a Congress if a POTUS can do what he feels like rather than following policy and law. Let Trump, and whoever is POTUS now on, make the laws and decide what and how much funding to outlay.We certainly don't need a congress that won't do the job for which it was elected to keep the checks and balances and allow one branch of government to become more powerful than the other two. Some people are saying we now have a monarchy, but I think his goal is dictatorship right up there wil li'l Kim and "President" Putin.
True, Miz! You notice Trump's love affair with Kim Jon Un has fizzled somewhat. "And then we fell in love," is laughable at this time. Trump is a laughingstock to anyone with any sense at all. This doesn't include his enablers, of course.
Here's your "oversight":
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4122162
Nothing but an attempt at complete and total obstruction regardless of "crime". So far it has yielded absolutely nothing against the president in spite of years of effort by the FBI, the House of Representatives and half the judges in the land. "Oversight" my eye - it has been nothing but a long drawn out political ploy to remove a duly elected president from the "wrong" party.Excellent response. Those members of the House were elected by the people to do their job.
And they did it so well! Years of faux "investigation" into collusion between Trump and Putin! Suing to allow terrorists free reign to enter! Suing again to stop the closing of the border!. Providing impeachment witnesses that knew nothing but that all had opinions in line with the desires of the Democrat party! Trying to control how the Senate would operate!
Of course it rather fell apart when examined by the judge and jury, but hey! They tried to get him out of...wait. They tried to control Tru...wait. They tried to exercise reasonable "oversight". Yes, that's it. They tried to do their duty, through "oversight" of the President.
Sure they did.I thought you didn't approve of sarcasm. Or is that only when other people do it?
But you're right. Trump won yet another battle with the help of a cowardly GOP Senate.
Are you proud of his behavior since? And that's only what we see.
You probably are.Well, it works sometimes. You DID recognize it as sarcasm.
Yep. A cowardly GOP Senate...that refused to buckle under to Pelosi and the House Democrats in continuing the farce they started. Had the Democrats had anything to offer it might have been different, but the only error the Senate made was in allowing the posturing and political speeches from Democrats to go on as long as they did.Then you are proud of his behavior since the acquittal? I'm pretty sure it will continue.
Where in the world are you getting these crazy ideas? Certainly not from anything I said!
Accusing other people of nefarious thoughts and attitudes, simply because they are not on your "Get rid of Trump" bandwagon is not reasonable and does nothing for you believability.Is that a denial you're not proud? Seems kinda vague...
I asked the question and when you did not answer I rephrased it. Please quote where I accused you of anything. You still haven't answered, which is your prerogative, but it would be a simple matter to clarify whether or not you are proud of Trump's behavior since his acquittal. I'm not sure why you are dancing around it, but don't pretend I accused you of anything when I clearly did not.
Well, I guess you will have to specify which behavior then. A blanket answer either way seems foolish; while you will not agree that Trump does anything you approve of, I will of course disagree with that.
So which behavior, specifically, do you refer to?His behavior as human being who really cares for people and acts with integrity, honesty, and class?
Sandy may have a different query.
Okay, I hope the Dems take the Senate and denies any future Republican POTUS a SC nomination. It's never been this way before McConnell did it, but I'm sure you'll love it when it happens.
Some of the people on each side of any individual issue do this. If I respond in a forum full of Trump supporters, I guarantee you I'm going to get "ganged up on" and maybe even be called some names.
I don't endorse the name calling, lol, but the complaint I'm responding to is that anyone who supports Trump on an issue is immediately "ganged up on." What...because more than one person does not agree with you, they are now acting inappropriately? That has been the accusation more than once now, and it mirrors Trump's passive aggressive behavior IMO
Seriously? It's ok to be a bully because another bully exists?
That makes no. senseNo, not at all. But, LTLs comment is a great example of that logic going off track once again. Standing up to bullies is now being a bully. I understand some of this is a matter of perspective. However, taking "It's ok to be a bully" out of my comment has nothing to do with perspective and everything to do with simply not wanting to admit that your guy is a bully who is tearing the country apart.
I NEVER give in to a bully and I can certainly recognize one. I'd lived places where giving into bullies has tragic consequences. Unfortunately, too many Americans have lived in those places, and now we have a bully President to go with it. I'd be right alongside Juli Briskman if he came to our city.I didn't remember the Juli Briskman name. So I asked my friend Google.
Now I remember, she's the "finger" cyclist.
It was great to see her notoriety motivated her. I don't have to be a supporter or a detractor to be glad to see her getting involved and doing something more than just talking..
GAIt's good to read this. After all, we are all Americans. I should be able to say same the same if SHE-- I noticed my error
-- flipped off Obama. It's not like she attempted to hurt the guy or anything. I think I would indeed still respect her motivation and willingness to take action even if I did not like her politics. I might not like her politics actually...all I know is we share a dislike for Trump.
Hard sun, I am so sympatico with your posts I sometimes wonder if you're a long lost brother. :-)
I see that from this side also. I admit that I sometimes just don't reply to someone, when you are active in a forum, knowing that you can do it for me. It's good to know I'm not too far off in the sea away from everyone else. You need to take care of that great mind sis, lol.
It is interesting how those defending Trump can not identify who has been as annoying or abrasive from the "goose stepping" left.
With all of this back and forth, perhaps they are to stubborn to admit that Donald Trump IS one of a kind.I don't know about the "one of a kind"; we've had some real characters in the White House in past years. But he is surely a rare breed.
True, I have made it my business to have analyze earlier Presidencies. And while I disagreed with policies of a number of GOP presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, Trump crosses the line, his style and manner is just another detriment in addition to his policies, IMHO.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
Up is down. Wrong is right. Those who fight the bully are the bullies.
"Whenever we say 'nationalism,' the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler," she said. "You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler had just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine."
She added: "The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism. So in thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don't really have an issue with nationalism. I really don't. I think that it's OK."
--Candace Owens, conservative commentator and pro-Trump activist Trump's enablers do indeed mimic him, Don. In more ways than one...
I'm afraid I'm crying uncle. You can't convince believers that no proven facts equates to opinion. They'll just keep claiming their opinion is fact.
General Kelly said Vindman did exactly what he was supposed to do in Trump's Ukraine scheme. I do believe Kelly over the habitual liar.
Related Discussions
- 43
Bullying. Why would someone who is self-confident bully others?
by MJC 9 years ago
Bullying. Why would someone who is self-confident bully others?I think it doesn’t make any sense. Does it mean that bullies have a poor self-esteem? They feel that, when they bully their victim they would gain a better self-image. Why they don’t know that, through bullying, they’re damaging exactly...
- 38
What should be the penalty for school bullies?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
What should be the penalty for school bullies?School bullies should be expelled from schools and placed in juvenile detention or prison. They deserve no clemency nor reeducation whatsoever. If a "child" is old enough to bully another, he/she should be criminalized.
- 27
Do you think a name and shame website of school bullies - would be a good idea o
by singleaple 6 years ago
Do you think a name and shame website of school bullies - would be a good idea or not ?Should school bullies be made to pay for what they did later in life or not ?
- 20
Is a bully really hiding his/her fear?Yes No
by glmclendon 12 years ago
Is a bully really hiding his/her fear?Yes No
- 57
Question about Bullies
by Rafini 14 years ago
Do you remember, back when you were in elementary school, and there were one, two, three or more kids who weren't very nice to others in class? I'm not talking about the upper grade school bully, but the ones found in every grade level. The minor bullies, I guess you'd say. The...
- 29
Can a bully ever become a trusted President?
by Joan King 12 years ago
Can a bully ever become a trusted President?Mitt Romney wants to be president but admits to bullying a gay teenage student. As the report goes, Romney didn't like the bleach blond hair of the student draped over one eye so he tackled him, pinned him to the ground and cut off his hair as the...