Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...

(Perhaps the only way for poetic justice to prevail.)

Trump Stands Up for Saudi Arabian Values [New York Times editorial]

Surprising? Not in the least. What do you expect from a malignant imbecilic narcissist?

...dictator wannabe.

He sucks up to dictators because he admires their "accomplishments".

...and replace a dunce with an ultraconservative religious fanatic like Mike Pense❓‼️❓. Shades of the Spanish Inquisition. Trump is like a drop of water on a hot griddle bouncing from issue to issue attempting to hide his incompetence, but Pense is single minded in wanting this country to be a theocracy. We would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.

My hope is our representatives and senators will "person up" (enough of the new faces are female to make "man up" seem inappropriate and ill advised), quit the overly partisan in-fighting and focus on the nation's greater good. One Washington reporter noted there are a lot of former military among the new faces in the next congress and he has found that they have a common objective to not get caught up in partisan wrangling get the job done. If they can retain that attitude, Trump will still be an annoyance for the next two years, but better Trump than Pense

The title premise could apply to 45' (45-prime) too. Even the 1873 Colt had 6 chambers, not to mention the 1911 Colt M1A1 semiauto with even more capacity. There's enough 'solution' for every 'deserving' body.

Here's something to ponder...

Considering the constraints of the Constitution, and the makeup of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the military, has Trump got a better or worse chance of turning the country into a dictatorship than Pence has got of turning it into a theocracy?

Good point Artie but given Republican senators are now calling Trump to task for his stand on the Saudi prince's actions, a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and although the military does tend to be conservative it has been dragging its feet on many of the presidential hot buttons until they fall off the Hair God's radar and forgotten. I am not sure how much real influence he has. He does make a lot of noise, gets a lot of press, is an international joke, and an embarrassment to the nation but we can survive that.

Pense isn't the brightest candle on the alter of ultra-conservative Catholicism, but he knows congress and is cagier than Trump in dealing with them. (Trump appears to consider congress an unnecessary impediment to his reign.) As president I think Pense is far more likely to get truly onerous legislation past. The best analogy I can think of is John F Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Both very intelligent but Kennedy was far more urbane and charismatic but in spite of that was unable to get any meaningful social legislation through congress. On the other hand, although he was personally leery of most of the civil rights legislation espoused by Kennedy and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, when Johnson became president he was able to push it all through. Not because he was likable or liked but because he knew congress and where all the bodies were buried. Mike Pense is no Lyndon Johnson, but he does have that insider knowledge that makes for effective politics.

Something else to consider, have you looked at the ages of all of the leading Republicans in congress lately? Some of them are old enough to have invented dirt. How many more terms in office can 80 and 90 year olds serve survive?

I had to get Thanksgiving and our Colluder In Chief's humble declaration that he's thankful that America's got him deep in the background of my rear view mirror before I could get back to this.

Pence's ability to deal with Congress is something, but it's not at all comparable to LBJ's. The influence he gained during his twelve years in the House (two as Chair of the House Republican Conference) pales into insignificance by comparison to that gained by Johnson during his twelve years in the House and twelve in the Senate (two as Majority Whip, two as Minority Leader, and six as Majority Leader) back during the days when the two parties were separated by a mere aisle, not a barbed wire entanglement.

And although Catholicism has more adherents than any other religion in the U.S., I suspect that a lot of adherents of the other religions are at least a bit wary of it (In his next incarnation, Mueller could be investigating Vatican interference with the democratic process. ), not to mention that its largest voting block, Latinos, is hardly enamored of Republicans of any persuasion.

Trump's personality cult (Perish the thought that he ever starts cultivating Generals!) may actually give him more sway in Congress and the streets than Pence could ever hope for.

I'll believe the Republicans' indignation over his kowtowing to yet another dictator when I see, not just hear, their response, and the Democratic controlled House is a fait accompli for both.

The wild card is the Supreme Court and how far its commitment to the principles of the Constitution has strayed.

This, by the way, is Trump's prototype uniform for when he takes over. (Even kinda looks like him.)

Footnote: List of current United States Senators by age (That list as of November 24, 2018 includes John McCain, so I dunno.)

Those in their 80's may actually have an election or two left in their careers.

Abilities and talent aside, Pence himself said: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."

Given all the unChristian things that Trump has done and said, and which Pence has ignored, perhaps he should have said: "I'm a malleable Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."

"Malleable Christian"? Is that synonymous with hypocrite?

Not necessarily. All religions and ethical persuasions have built-in "safety valves" which allow for inconsistencies to be tolerated/legitimated within their constructs.
Thus, for example, could the Inquisition and the behavior of its Christian practitioners be justified.

Ha! So codification negates hypocrisy?

He calls himself a "born again, evangelical Catholic, Kabbalist", which sounds more like an attempt to cover all bases than a forthcoming description, and indeed, some of his responses to questions about his faith leading up to the election (What it means that Mike Pence called himself an ‘evangelical Catholic’) seem to support that line of thinking.

But I"m not sure that addresses your point.

No, but when any religious group takes the position their particular ethos is the ONLY correct understanding of God, they become a sect and the lifespan of sects are notoriously short. They either disagree among themselves on the exact meaning/interpretation of scripture and splinter into ever smaller groups until they become inconsequential or in extreme cases drink Koolaid.

All of the great teachers and prophets such as Isaiah, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Guru Nanek, etc. have been tolerant of a wide range of interpretation. In fact in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was crucified because he, "sat and ate with sinners". In my faith tradition, Presbyterian, one of our fundamental principals is mutual forbearance for differing opinions. There have been divisions (and reunions) in our denomination over the centuries, but the divisions always arose from the failure/inability of a group to follow that one basic principal and I would venture that is true of all human organizations.

Back to Mike Pence. As a good Roman Catholic he has confessed the Pope as his spiritual leader, but he has expressed strong opposition to the Pope's leadership on many "hot button" issues (typically sex or gender related such as the status of LGBTQ persons in the church, and the possibility of ordaining women) where the Pope has expressed a far more open position than his predecessor. Pence is bordering on becoming a member of an ultra- conservative sect.

This article is truly frightening because its statements ring true: Time for G.O.P. to Threaten to Fire Trump. I cannot have confidence that Republicans care more for our country than they do about their own power.

But they've already seen their power begin to erode, and they may be able to retain what's left of it, if not reverse the erosion, by dumping Trump in favor of Pence; and, and I hate to say it out loud because they may be listening, giving him two years in office before the next election might be their best path to retaining the White House in 2020.

More: Unfortunately, though, they'll never do the job in time to limit him to only one full term, so if he should be elected in 2020 he'll be able to run again in 2024.

But at this point, I don't know if I can see him as worse than Trump. (I think his agenda will more subject to Constitutional restraint than Trump's is.)

More: 25 seconds to post

I am a big fan of Tom Friedman and generally find his comments thoughtful and worthy of attention. But in this case, many equally knowledgeable commentators and more than a few notable Republicans are convinced that Trump and the alt-right have successfully neutered the Republican Party and there is no effective party apparatus or leadership remaining. So who or what are these Republicans, Tom Friedman is calling on to "fire" Trump? The Republican leadership in both the house and senate are firmly in Trump's camp if not his pocket. The arch conservatives have pretty much driven any moderate Republicans out of congress if not out of politics altogether. Even Trump himself in one of his twitter storms has declared that the remaining Republicans in congress are members of "his" party and he has no use for "Republicans".

So my question, "...who or what are these Republicans, Tom Friedman is calling on to "fire" Trump?" remains along with the equally important question, would Trump give a D@&* if they called on him to resign?

The plethora of recent actions/proclamations by Bozo in Chief indicates just how irrational nigh unto psychotic he is, and his behavior just keeps crossing boundaries of the extreme. He makes Caligula and Nero look like human rights activists.
How by any stretch of the imagination is this making America great again?!

And, when, oh when, are (rational) Americans going to be able to dance in the streets and sing "Ding Dong The Wicked Witch Is Dead"?!

Under Trump. America has become the GREAT...

• JOKE to the industrialized world,
• DUPE to the worlds despots,
• DISAPPOINTMENT to the worlds tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free
• FOOL to the world's scientific community
• TERROR of those who have counted on us to act as a stabilizing influence in world politics
• NOTHING to the international community
• OBJECT OF PITY to the world
• EMBARRASSMENT to the majority of its citizens with more than a Junior High School education and those living urban areas

Trump said he would make America great again and he certainly has made America "great"in many arenas but I don't think in any arena the American people want to be great in.

Well said.

And thanks to the Wacko in Chief's vision of Great America and license to kill, "the purge" begins, slowly but surely:

Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars

When you realize that Chandler is in Maricopa County, Arizona where Sheriff Joe Arpaio reigned supreme and pointedly ignored constitutional law for years, attacks on self driving vehicles shouldn't be surprising. It fits the context.

Borderline Insanity

President Trump rained cruelties on immigrants and asylum seekers and now wants hundreds of millions of dollars to address the humanitarian crisis he caused.

The Gangster-in-Chief's — to use Chuck Lorre's epithet — destruction of the real American way of life is gradually coming home to roost and to rot.

And this might be the week when his psychotic in(s)anity is recognized by his "base". They didn't seem to mind his killing children, refugees, asylum seekers et al, but now that he's killing the underemployed and undereducated in his base, as well as a few more solid middle Americans, they're likely to get a clue.

As noted in the media, because of the government shutdown, national parks are being polluted by human excrement — bringing us full circle to which nation is a "shithole" now (and we're not talking about any place on the other side of the world)!

Not only does he grab them, he is one — ie, a true c*nt in the finest British sense and tradition.

Washington as Unruly Sandbox: Squabbles, Antics and Tantrums

As the shutdown drags on, Trump-like behavior proliferates. The president "does generally force people to play down to his level" ....

Closer and closer to everyone's having to live on food stamps.

When is Congress ever going to get it through their heads that the tail is wagging the dog [sorry for the mixed metaphor] — there should be enough who have the requisite IQ to understand the problem rationally — and take out the Petulant Infant in Chief (or at least give him a time-out — preferably in a pit in the outback)?!

It continues to amaze me and force me to suspend my disbelief that most of the world still misconstrues what the current Putz-in-Chief means by his battle cry "Make America Great Again".

If nothing else, his shutdown of government services — so far the epitome of his egregious behavior — makes it abundantly clear that he planned to demonstrate his disdain for and tear down America the Great if elected to the prestigious position of President and that MAGA refers to what the nation will have to do once he is no longer in office.

Have a gander at Bob Woodward's thorough and deeply-researched FEAR : TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE (2018), which over the course of 42 chapters again and again demonstrates #45's pettiness, erratic behavior, relative ignorance, inability to learn, dangerous views, inter alia. Simply put, as Rex Tillerson (his erstwhile Secretary of State) did, "He's just a moron."

A much more accurate title would have been LOONEY TUNES & MERRIE MELODIES : TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE — but I suspect that copyright issues with Warner Bros might have precluded such.

It's worth a read if you can tolerate immersing yourself in the behavior and machinations of a loopy loco in a cuckoo's nest.

Ah! Oui! la bell(iqueus)e epoque!

Or perhaps that should be Bela Lugosi ... in his last role in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE (which is just turning 60): "Hailed as the worst movie ever made.... So mesmerizingly awful it actually improves (so to speak) with each viewing. And remember: it's all based on sworn testimony!" [Leonard Maltin's 2007 Movie Guide] Sound familiar?

Come on Grelber, tell us what you REALLY think of the Trump!

FWIW, I generally agree withy you but there are several areas where Trump deserves recognition and acclaim for his unique accomplishments:

• He has the lowest approval rating of any President since approval ratings have been measured
• By his own words he is "The King of Borrowers".
• He is the "King of Bankruptcy'
• He is a salesman's salesman.
• He is wildly successful at financing a lavish living style from businesses that operate almost exclusively in the red.
• His is an extortionist nonpariel when dealing with smaller businesses.
• He is as con man's con man.
• He is adept at dealing with corrupt organizations.
• In spite of his television persona he is a coward
• He has raised nepotism to new heights
• He has the highest number and rate of Pinochio's of any past or present politician
• the list goes on — and on — and on.

So rather than denigrate his actions, I say we should carefully document and highlight his multitudinous accomplishments dubious though they may be.

Time to get on with it ...

McCabe Says Justice Dept Officials Had Discussions About Pushing Trump Out

The former deputy FBI director, in a “60 Minutes” interview that will air fully on Sunday, said top department officials had considered recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Release the lions!

Someone on Quora asked, “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

Pretty much reflects the majority of comments in this forum.

Aside: The Russian transliteration of Trump's name is Трамп which transliterates back into English as "tramp" ... which raises the ancillary question of why one would denigrate beggars, vagrants, or Charlie Chaplin, for that matter.

"You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man."

That pretty much sums it up.

Very nicely done!

A female Trump supporter was being interviewed by Louis Theroux. When asked about Trump's flaws, she said, "Yeah, he's an #$!&, but he's our #$!&."

When my brother worked in Washington, he told me that threatening any federal official was against the law, whether you are doing it in print or speech, in jest or not. I discourage everyone from engaging in this kind of thing, for many reasons, regardless of one's political views.

Good point, but I think they'll be going after Saturday Night Live first.

Define "threatening a federal official". I have to assume that a threat would mean some specified action to bring physical harm, which is quite different from exercising one's freedom of speech rights to voice an opinion.

Maybe he'll be coming home from Hanoi in a casket ... attached to the head of an ICBM ... or so one might fervently hope.

Ooh, shades of Dr Strangelove ...

I don't like to argue subjects like this on a tech forum, but freedom of any kind isn't absolute. There are always limits. Obviously there are things you can't say and shouldn't say. As adults at least we should think more about responsibilities than rights, about how we ought to act responsibly and decently, rather than try to do whatever we can get away with.

In his 20s, my brother worked for a senator. He had to answer letters from people. If a person threatened the senator, if he wished him harm in any way, that's a federal crime. You can easily wind up on some list. As it should be. Threats of violence do occur in the lives of elected officials and sometimes actual violence. Presidents are shot at and killed. In recent years a senator from Kentucky was assaulted by his next door neighbor, a doctor, simply because the man disagreed with is opinions. The senator was hospitalized. This is primitive and barbaric. There's something sick and pathetic about people who can't disagree with each other in a civil way.

Wishing any person were dead or harmed is immature and unethical. No good comes from it, and possibly a lot of bad can come from it. It's not cute or funny or amusing or helpful.

It's not the kind of thought I have had often in my life. I can't think of a politician, or anyone, that I have agreed with all the time about everything. But that doesn't mean I want something bad to happen to them.

This behavior is especially common among those who consider themselves good, compassionate people. Which ought to make all of us stop and think.

I’d say this is a perfectly acceptable topic for The Lounge. Going back many years, to when FineTunedMac was MacFixit, The Lounge has always been designated as the forum for discussion of any non-technical issue.


I don’t know American law but I assume that the same principle (a threat is a crime) applies, whether or not a person is a politician.

That’s how it works in Canada. If you came up to me and threatened to punch me in the face, and I believed you would do it, I have been assaulted and you could be charged. And I agree with the principle. Any citizen has a right to live without intimidation.

However, I don’t recall any threats like that in this thread. Even the unfortunate (IMHO) title of the thread, “Maybe 45 needs to end it all with a .45”, isn’t a threat. It’s an opinion and opinions are okay, as is the right to disagree with them.

In the absence of verifiable data, I have trouble with the "especially common" conclusion. It makes me think about Donald Trump's dubious pronouncements about the people in the torch-carrying procession at Charlottesville:

“But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me….”

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,”

“The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,”

But in reference to the title of this thread, even Donald Trump was aware of the gravity of presidential threats. When the Dow Jones dropped a little over 1000 points one day during Obama's tenure, Trump-the-citizen said that "anyone who is president when the market drops a thousand points should be shot…out of a cannon."

He knew, or was told, that if he stopped at "shot", he could be subject to investigation or arrest for threatening the President. So the title of this thread, while a clever number play, may just be…

Of course, during his reign #45 has seen two daily drops of over 1000 points. So where is that cannon?

No disagreement here.

But the title of this thread is merely A SUGGESTION THAT HE OFF HIMSELF...not even a vaguely implied threat.

The title explicitly relates (grammatically) to suicide ... as a grand exit, maybe even as a tweet.

Rats! Artie beat me to it by 2 minutes.

Maybe it won't be necessary. What kind of brain tumour could a person get from malignant narcissism?

Stroke risk = handicap (but not for golf):

According to a recent study, More Evidence Ties Diet Drinks to Greater Stroke Risk, drinking two or more artificially sweetened beverages (such as Diet Coke) per day was associated with a greater overall risk for fatal and nonfatal stroke.

It's also been reported that the Трамп consumes 12 cans of Diet Coke per day (just 2 cans shy of the recommended dietary limit).

So, hope springs eternal.

Aside: Cool new Abby Roade avatar, ryck; downright elegant (although the puppy one was beyond cute).

Huh?

What am I missing?

That "two or more ... beverages" refers to standard cans (each 12 fl.oz = 355 mL). Ergo, he drinks at least 6x that.
14 cans would be the dietary limit.

Yeah, I got that part.


But from where does that "dietary limit" come?

It was reported this past week on a Canadian radio program, Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly, CBC Radio One.
The podcast can be found at https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence.

Aaah... The missing link.

I"m astonished by that 14 can limit; it seems enormous...far more than I'd have ever guessed would be an acceptable amount.

Makes me feel better abut the 24 cans of Pepsi/day I downed at one time; at least they contained real sugar.

More: I heard the other day that he weighed in at 243# at his annual physical...just north of his obesity benchmark; he needs to drink more of that diet crap.

Actually, Coke would like him to stop.

In the radio program, which is well worth an ear-check, this episode pointed out that Coke has been trying to gain appeal in a younger demographic but President Bonespur is defeating their objective. Every time he says something about the amount of Diet Coke he drinks, the image of the Diet Coke consumer becomes a person who is old and overweight.

When the Orange Aerie-in-Chief heard about Coke's concern, he quite predictably tweeted something along the lines of, 'I understand that Coke's not happy with me. That's okay. I'll keep drinking their garbage anyway'.

PS: I was happy to hear about the 243 pounds, although I would have guessed higher. With that much excess weight, and the amount of junk food he wolfs down, can a major cardio infarction be far behind? We can only hope.

I'm with you, and I'll guess that at least 20-25# disappeared under the C-i-c's orders to his military MD, i.e. "OK, we'll tell them that I've crossed the obesity line, but NOT by how much."

The junk he consumes constitutes a major cardio infraction, so, hopefully, a mere two letter transposition isn't very far behind.

Y'know, at this point, I think I'd prefer to see him survive until very shortly before the next election and then throw the Republican campaign into complete disarray by becoming incapacitated...or worse...or faaar worse, rather than have Pence become President sooner and solidify his position as the basis for his own run...and potential second run.

He may already be there, mentally at least. A few months ago he addressed the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Marilyn Hewson, as Marilyn Lockheed and now Tim Cook becomes Tim Apple. Har har har. I'm willing to bet that, if he met with the head of General Motors, Trump would ask him why he didn't wear his uniform.

I was just dropping in to say hello, but it looks like this thread could use some intellectual diversity, so I thought I'd just say I'm a serious Trump fan, right down to the MAGA! I think he's doing a remarkable job, especially considering the headwinds (not to mention the bogus investigations) he's been facing.

But never mind that, I hope everybody's doing well. For once, I don't actually have a tech problem that needs fixing!

Good point….and welcome too, I’m sure. It’s always good to hear the opinions and rationale of another view.


I think the dialogue would be furthered if you could put some meat on these bones. For example, what are the things Trump has done that you believe are good for America and why do you believe the investigations are bogus?

Hi JM, and welcome back....it has been too long.

I would second ryck's request for some more meat in order to get a real-world conversation started and try to avoid a divergence into emotional name calling if at all possible.

As a retired Naval Officer, with direct experience in many other countries and cultures, my personal concerns with our President's actions, policies and performance as a world leader are based on the broader picture of our Nation's perception and position on the stage of international policy and effectiveness as a result. I would welcome your inputs on how he is helping to make America great again when viewed through this window.

Hello ryck and MacManiac!

Yes, it has certainly been a long time. I'd be happy to put some meat on my pro-Trump position, but it will probably be this weekend before I have time to collect my thoughts on 'paper.' I appreciate being asked!

So that's where the old crowd lives now!

Nice new home...

Hi Alam, welcome back to you as well!

Big questions! My response ended up being at least three comments long, so I decided that's how I'd post it. If I tried to make it shorter it would just take longer, and it doesn't look like I'll be interrupting another conversation. I'll start by just referring you to this article: Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping in the Washington Examiner, and then concentrate on responding to the investigation and foreign policy questions. That list was as of last October, so I'm sure the count is higher now.

Yes, it includes a lot of cheerleading, and the Wash. Examiner is a decidedly conservative outlet, but if you want to hear anything positive about the President, that's where you have to look. It seems to me that most of the coverage devoted to Trump in other mainstream news outfits is just inside the Beltway gossip which almost none of the gazillion anonymous promulgators wants to own up to. It has also practically drowned out substantive coverage about a lot of what else the President has been doing.

In any case, while we may disagree about what constitutes desirable change, the article will give you a general idea of how Republicans on a whole see Trump. I do think that the economy has been chugging along nicely. The numbers are looking good and we're basically at full employment. Black unemployment, in particular, is way down, and that's not an accident. Trump has paid more attention to inner cities than any prior Republican in my memory. That's also why he's doing better, approval wise, in black and hispanic/latino communities than former Republican White House contenders, and I believe that's a healthy change. I think he gets a bad rap on the immigration front, but that is yet another discussion.

And on to Part Deux...

On the 24/7 Investigations

The Russian "collusion" meme seemed absurd to me from the start. People just repeated the same shallow talking points, almost in unison, over and over, when nothing that Trump was being lambasted for came any where close to questionable long-standing Clinton/Russia connections, including facilitating the sale of American uranium to the Russians, and campaign manager John Podesta's firm, which lobbied on behalf of Putin's Russian bank for years. Podesta's brother was up to his eyeballs in Ukraine. Shoot, even Joe Biden's son was involved in a tangle there. Sharyl Attkisson reported some of the basics at The Hill back in January, but it's been public knowledge far longer than that.

Even before Mueller closed up shop, it was obvious from the lack of Russia related indictments, that he wasn't finding anything. He'd pull people in for process crimes, hoping they'd offer up information in exchange for plea deals, without success. Even Manafort, whom I do not defend, was hauled up on Ukraine related charges that other prosecutors had declined to pursue years ago, and again, had nothing to do with Russian interference in the election.

If Mueller and his crack team of partisan prosecutors couldn't find anything after 2 years and $30 million, then I think it's safe to say there's just no there there. It's not like Democrats and the media haven't been trying just as assiduously to find something on Trump ever since he won the election, either. The revival of demands for Trump's taxes is about as transparent as a fishing expedition gets. They can't tell you what they're looking for, they just know there's got to be something there they can use!

The fact that the US government was spying on the opposition Presidential candidate's campaign is the real scandal here, IMO. Democrats can call it surveillance, as if that makes a difference. We've known for some time that the document on which the intell agents based their FISA application for the original and subsequent warrants was a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FISA judge was never informed of that fact. As if that weren't bad enough, when a Special Counsel is appointed, it is incumbent on the DoJ to include the crime which is to serve as the predicate for his investigation in the grant of authority. No underlying crime was specified, and that wasn't a simple oversight. There's a lot more info out there, but those are some of the highlights.

I think the rolling investigations make things more difficult on the international front. It's not the investigations per se, it's the uncertainty about what the Democrats are trying to do. People like the former Ambassador to Ukraine, who told the Ukrainians not to worry about heeding Trump, because there was no way he would be serving out his full term, are not helping the US! Sheesh!

Continuing right along....

On Foreign Policy

I have to say up front that I consider Obama's handling of foreign policy was disastrous at almost every level, so I think almost anyone would have been an improvement.

MacManiac, as navy man you must have looked on in dismay as China started building new islands in the South China Sea, no? It struck me as a patently obvious attempt to push for hegemony over the busiest sea lanes in the world. The Chinese knew what Obama wanted more than anything else from them was an environmental agreement, and they played him like a fiddle. Xi agreed (in principle!) to stop increasing emissions some time around 2031, and Obama essentially left him alone in the sandbox. If even I figured out a decade ago that the ultimate flash point was likely to be maritime, I'd have thought it must be obvious to the swells in Washington, but the previous administration did little but watch as Xi extended his reach..

The Chinese have always seen themselves as a maritime power, and controlling the South China Sea, which handles a huge percentage of global transit, would change global dynamics in substantive ways. Trump has taken Xi on directly and indirectly. Previous Presidents have complained about currency manipulation, but never did anything about it. Trump has put Xi off balance, which scares a lot of diplomats, who are all about protecting the status quo. That may seem safer, but it also inhibits positive change. The whole thing is a work in progress, but here again he's moving the needle. Xi really likes Mar-a-Lago, btw. Did you know that he's the one who asked that their first meeting take place there and not in Washington? There were other reasons for that original choice, of course, but I think he may have requested that their next meeting take place there too. It certainly doesn't hurt that Trump's granddaughter can sing and dance in Chinese.

Ditto on moving the needle with Kim Jong Un. Although their last meeting stalled out, and there will be all sorts of posturing in its wake, Trump has done more to change Kim Jong Un's trajectory than any of our previous presidents. They all eventually caved in and sent the food with which the Kims propped up their regimes. Trump even persuaded the Chinese to stop shipping coal to NK, which while largely symbolic, was still more than anybody else had managed to get them to do. South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who was not originally a Trump fan, is in Washington right now, I believe, for consultations. He has certainly welcomed the space that Trump has created for further discussions on the Korean Peninsula, and Kim Jong Un is considerably further away from launching rockets willy nilly than he was when Trump took office.

On the other side of the globe, Obama was willing to sacrifice almost every other interest to sign an agreement with Iran before he left office. He crossed a lot of red lines to get that deal done, and we still don't know what else he agreed to in the secret side deals. Iran is a bad actor, and they were in breach before the ink dried. In the aftermath of the Libya debacle, or in the midst of it, the Revolutionary Guards were stealing huge quantities of major weaponry, and dropping it off in Sudan for safe storage. BTW, Kim Jong Un was reported to view Obama's "kinetic exercise" in Libya as a cautionary tale, in re what happens to dictators who give up their nukes.

Trump has changed the whole dynamic in the Middle East. Taking down ISIS, without permanently setting off Russian and Turkish trip wires was no small achievement. Instead of focusing on brokering an Israeli/Palestinian resolution, as so many Administrations have spun their wheels trying, without success, to do, he did something new. He recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, which other Presidents had shilly shallied around, and he encouraged regional "stake holders" to take a more active part in their own defenses, particularly vis a vis Iran. The Israelis and the Saudis have even been doing some joint operations, which is certainly a first.

I don't know if you have any particular hot spots in mind, but those are a couple of the places where I think President Trump has already made a positive difference, as I see things. The picture is more mixed in Europe, but I think he may actually end up revivifying NATO, much to a lot of folks' surprise. I wonder if people generally are aware of how steady the stream of heads-of-state visiting the Trump White House has been.

I'll just arbitrarily stop here, and say again, thanks for asking, and hope you don't regret it!

I have always been able to discuss politics with anyone of any political persuasion, from liberal to conservative, from hedonist to totalitarian. People can differ on what they think is a good and proper political agenda. I also believe that all politicians are corrupt to some level, or they would not have gotten as far as they have; it is a dirty game if one chooses to play. What I cannot tolerate is the hypocrisy of the current administration, the constant changing of stories and backpedalling, and the ignorance of the roles of the branches of the government and of a free press in a democracy.

Most people accept that pretty much beginning with Gary Hart's tryst, the sexual behavior of candidates and of sitting presidents is under a public microscope. Right or wrong, the current players jumped all over a past president and sitting senators and congressmen for their peccadillos; yet, for the current administration, as long as corporate taxes are cut or a wall is built, sexual behavior does not matter. To me that is hypocrisy.

For the current administration to condemn the past one for excessive travel expenses and then in the first year of this administration exceed the costs of the previous 8 years, that is hypocrisy.

To condemn deficit spending, even if for a national good like fixing the infrastructure, and then to create and pass a budget that creates one of the fastest growing deficits in the history of the United States, that is hypocrisy.

To announce in one of the Presidential Debates of 2016 that "when [not if] I win, I will release my tax returns" and then not do it, that is hypocrisy.

To accuse the Clinton Foundation of being a pay-for-play organization and then create a Trump Foundation that buys portraits of Trump to hang in Mar-a-Lago and that as a foundation gave $0.00 in charitable donations until the "fake news" press brought the fact to light; that is hypocrisy.

And don't get me started on the welcoming of neo-Nazis literally into the White House. I am sorry, there is no such thing as a "good Nazi." Yes, I am sure that Goring loved his 6 children, maybe even doted on them. That might make him a good father, but the values he imparted to his children are not values of humanity. That makes him not a good person. If someone who participates in a white power rally imparts those similar attitudes, they are not "good people". Good people do not participate in torchlight rallies with signs condemning specific religions and races. That is hypocrisy.

Until the current administration shows an understanding, no an empathy, for those who are different from themselves, whatever that difference may be, I personally will have a hard time seeing all the good. The ends do not always justify the means.

On the mark, and very well said, Ira, but I'd say "disdain for" is a more correct description of Trump's attitude.

There is a growing number of "Americans" who don't like the Constitution because it doesn't mesh with their personal agendas, and very unfortunately, one of them has been elected President.

No success, either real or imagined, that Trump can claim can negate his assault on the traditional values that had already made America great long before he decided that its greatness needed to be remade in his image.

VERY !

Making any conclusions about the contents of the Mueller report based on the Attorney General's 4 page summary makes as much sense as saying you know all about a movie just from seeing a trailer.

Hypocrisy is the rule, not the exception, in Washington, on both sides of the political aisle. Everybody decries deficit spending, and budgets keep going up. Of course, the budgets are designed in the House of Representatives, not the White House, separation of powers being what it is.

If you haven't seen any empathy for those who are "different" from this President, we must be looking in very different places. I do think it takes a lot of work to cast Trump as a Neo-Nazi cultivator, when his daughter has converted to Judaism for her husband, and Trump's approval in Israel is running at something like 90%, among other markers. He has been meeting African American pastors and other leaders in their communities, where they have good things to say about both his understanding and his empathy. He was New York born and bred, but he certainly understands this country's blue collar workers, and the Americans in flyover country, better than most of his opposition and certainly far better than anyone in the press, to whom all Trump supporters seem to look alike.

I'd be very interested in hearing some examples of where you and Artie believe Trump and those "Americans" who elected him have traduced the Constitution. I thought it was folks on the left who embraced the "living constitution" approach.

As for the Mueller report, I think we can safely assume that he did not recommend any indictments, and there plenty of conclusions that can be drawn from that. Perhaps the Democrats who are pounding on the table for full release now, should have looked at the Special Counsel regulations which don't, in fact, require the AG to release anything to the public at all, before they embraced the Mueller appointment so unreservedly. I suspect that they were so sure he'd find something, that they didn't bother to check, which seems typical at this point. The fact that the Atty General is planning to release an appropriately redacted report goes much further than required, and actually ignores DoJ policy, which is not to release any information about an investigation which does not result in an indictment -- for what we used to call the protection of the innocent. If Barr's summary (including the statement that nothing requested by Mueller was denied to him), misrepresented Muller's findings, would Mueller sit idly by?

Thanks for taking the time, effort and thought to provide the details. I'll try to stay within the dotted lines in responding and keep our discussion moving forward....

Let me open with totally agreeing that our last president did many things on the world stage with which I took issue. He misused the military as an international police force and gave away more of the US leadership role in so many ways as to be nearly uncountable, however, this was meant to be a discussion of our current president's strengths and weaknesses, so rather than trying to make one look better by comparing him to the other I'd like to focus more on actions versus results for our current president.

I disagree that almost anyone would have been an improvement....we needed a world statesman in office to lead our nation back into a position as world role-model. Someone who could unwind and repair the damages created by past presidents (who shall remain nameless). Someone who could take input from a well-balanced staff of people holding the knowledge and experience that he might not have personally held. Someone who chose the higher path when confronted with conflicting inputs. Someone who wanted to present a consistent message to the world on values, integrity and ability. Someone who understood the deeper impacts of actions and who could anticipate the consequences before the action was presented as a "fait accompli". Someone who could be outraged in private, yet be calm in public.

The Chinese have always taken the long view....on everything. I personally was shot at in the South China Sea as a young sailor, on a US Naval vessel, nearly 50 years ago when our ship transgressed what they felt was their territorial waters (while still in International waters, by the way). Building up those same atolls to become man-made islands, then populating them with military facilities is an action that they have been planning for decades....and we have known about it and had contingency plans in-place for just as long.

Diplomacy regards the status quo as a starting point, not an ending point....and views the pace and scale of change with very cautious regard to consequences. Our current president has not yet shown any regard for the law of unintended consequences in his actions toward other nations, other political entities, his chosen staff, or even the underlying laws and standards that guide him in his duties as the leader of this nation....and when confronted with advice on how to better deal with the very real challenges that he faces, he has chosen to publicly "shoot the messenger". The level of apparent chaos and discord that is publicly displayed in the current administration has hamstrung many long-standing and effective international relationships to the detriment of our nation.

North Korea is and has been an extremely complicated situation....they are still in an active war (an armistice is NOT a treaty) with South Korea and to approach that rogue nation's loose cannon leader while being perceived by the leaders of the the rest of the world as if he too were a loose cannon leader holds way more potential for disaster than any of us want to imagine. I've spent considerable time in Korea and have seen how seriously they take the fact that the peace there is fragile....very fragile.

The Middle East....where to begin? The Western world has been interfering with and attempting to change things in that part of the world for centuries. It remains different from the Western world for a good reason....they want it to be different. Changing national boundaries (Pakistan / India / Jordan / UAE / Israel / all the rest) and assuming that all of those entities in that part of the world will follow the same cultural norms as the Western world is a huge mistake. Most folks here in the US who have never traveled outside of their home nation have a false sense of expectations for how the Middle East thinks and responds. It is different. Recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital was not done in the past for some very good reasons.....there will be consequences for that action as a result. Most of those potential consequences were clearly recognized and considered in the past by knowledgeable advisors to past presidents, who were then expected to make an informed decision regarding what action(s) to take.....I'm not convinced that our current president was open to such advice.

Our current president did NOT defeat and eliminate ISIS....any more than any of his predecessors were successful in defeating and eliminating the Taliban or Al Qaeda. We as a nation created the environment where the ISIS movement could flourish and expand in the view that through their actions (or inactions) as a nation, the US was a weak and inadequate outside influence to their region. We as a nation were responsible for creating the diplomatic alliances needed to bring effective military action into the region to overcome our past mistake(s). How we are viewed as a nation by other world leaders, European, Pan Asian, Middle Eastern, et al (BOTH our allies AND our adversaries) is critical to how effective our efforts might be when confronted by such things as ISIS.

I lived and worked in Turkey and one of the most common questions that I was asked was "What do you feel about your new President?".....to be culturally sensitive, I had to bite my lips and remain very neutral in my response while suppressing my urge to offer the same question to my Turkish friends about their "President". When the political climate there became too unstable, I had to turn my back on further work in Turkey....theirs is a challenging time, far more so than ours.

As to NATO, while I may not agree with his actions regarding our NATO relationships, I do agree with our President's analysis that our relationship, as a nation, with NATO is out of balance and change is needed.....I just think that there might be better ways to approach that need than I've seen demonstrated so far.

I really regret that we, again as a Nation, have been unable to present a consistent face to the rest of the world as we address the issues currently confronting us.

One of the predecessors to our current president once declared that, "The Buck Stops HERE!".....it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see that level of leadership once more in my lifetime.

🇺🇸 AMEN 🇺🇸

I'd say "shown contempt for." ("Traduce" is what Trump does to people he doesn't like or who don't agree with him.)

As evidenced by his constant attempts to suppress the media with his "false news" rhetoric, and more to the point, his openly expressed desire to make it illegal for the media to criticize him, Trump has shown contempt for for the First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press.

And his constant attacks on the Judiciary demonstrate contempt for the separation of powers so wisely imposed by the Constitution. (*)

Representative of Trump's constituency, I've seen right-to-life literature that complained about "nine people who weren't even elected to their positions," i.e. the Supreme Court Justices, and by extension, the Constitutional wisdom of not filling positions on the Court based on the results of popularity contests which would inevitably revolve around the expression of opinions about cases future Justices may have to hear.

The Constitution is, indeed, under attack by Trump and his minions.

(*) I've often wondered how Trump's ex-federal judge sister truly feels about his attacks on the judiciary.

Well, I'll back off my hyperbolic statement that almost anyone would have been better, but I think it's very difficult to take about foreign policy in a vacuum. We could all design better Presidents than the ones we have at any given point in time.

Yes, the Chinese take the long view, but if we've had contingency plans in place for countering the Chinese island building, you could have fooled me. I'd have thought it wiser to do some pushing back before all those new military outposts became fully operational.

I you could anticipate unintended consequences they wouldn't be unintended. I personally think the whole "choas at the White House" theme is seriously overplayed. Some of it is simply Trump's management style, to which I'm sure people who have spent their lives in government, in particular, have some trouble adjusting. As for North Korea, Trump has certainly moved the ball further than anyone else has managed to do, and it seems to me that the South Koreans, on the whole, are pretty supportive of what he has been doing.

I'm aware of Middle Eastern history, and the west's role in carving it up to their own satisfaction, and I see no indication that this president thinks that part of the world operates according to the same norms that we do. I have to say that was an illusion that the former administration seemed to hold to. Yes we and our allies under Obama's international leadership allowed ISIS to flourish, and we and our allies under Trump's international leadership brought it to its knees. It is important to distinguish between ISIS and other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, which I believe is what you were alluding to. ISIS had clear territorial goals, and managed to set up a very effectiely functioning bureaucratic state (which I have recently learned depending on taxation, not things like ransoms, for the bulk of its revenues). That state has now been virtually wiped off the map, and that represents an existential defeat in my book. Could they rise again elsewhere? Only time will tell.

As for NATO, getting recalcitrant members to meet their agreed upon obligations which they have been allowed to shirk for decades was never going to be pretty. I always thought it was the height of irony to hear Europeans disparage the amount of money the US dedicates to it defense budge, while touting the social programs that the US defense umbrella allowed them to pursue. George W. Bush, pushed for Europe to ante up, but also to begin developing specialist expertise, by country, rather than duplicating standard military structures, which hopefully is something that this President will also pursue.

I personally believe that history treat this President considerably better than a lot of his contemporaries do, but of course, that' just my opinion, and I was interested to hear yours. Thanks.

I appreciate your reply, but it strikes me as pretty weak anti-constitutional tea.


Considering the fact that the mainstream media has spent more than 2 years pimping Russian Collusion gossip and lies 24 hours a day, I'd say the President is justified in condemning fake news. Even if you still believe Trump was assisted by the Russians, I have to wonder where you were when Obama was issuing subpoenas for AP reporters' phone records, and dusting off the Espionage Act to go after journalists, surveilling James Rosen's computer, and pursuing James Risen for years. According to whistle-blower-in-chief Risen himself:


Trump may have briefly rescinded Jim Acosta's White House credentials, but that's not oppression, that's a President's privilege. He certainly makes himself available to the press often enough. On the flip side, we still aren't entirely sure who masterminded the spying on Candidate Trump, but that operation beats Watergate by several orders of magnitude.

The President may not respect the press, but that's not a first amendment infraction. It's not like the press shows any respect for the President. As far as I know, all his detractors are still out there going strong, from congratulating each other on Pulitzer Prizes for stories since proven without basis in fact, to giving each other awards for bravery and integrity. What I'm not seeing is any chilling effect. If anything i'd have said the 1st amendment is under assault from the left, when you look at the hysterics that greet even fairly mainstream conservative speakers on college campuses, and the demands that they not be allowed to speak.


I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, something about electing instead of appointing the Supremes? The only issue I'm aware of that I would call "representative" of Trump's constituency would be consensus on the importance of his promise to appoint conservative, if not originalist, Justices to the Court, as vacancies allowed. The current talk among Democrats of packing the Supreme Court with additional Justices is a far more radical offense than anything I've heard from the right. I must admit the having District Court judges taking it upon themselves to issue nationwide injunctions from the bench is habit we should not want to encourage because it ultimately wreaks nationwide legal havoc, especially when other judges in other states issue oppositie rulings. Conservatives call that legislating from the bench and are admittedly agin' it. There's nothing anti-constitutional about expressing such differences in judicial philosophies, however. Trump has complained about judges, but he has not been refusing to obey court orders.

Just as an addendum, on the treatment of others, I hope folks who have followed the "children in cages" stories from the border are aware that that practice originated under the previous administration. It was not something newly instituted by the current one. I believe they are working on ways to keep families together.

I just happened to run across this item at the Washington Examiner, right after I posted my comments.

Jimmy Carter says Trump called him to talk about China

I'd say that definitely looks like seeking input from someone with "knowledge and experience that he might not have personally held."

The President who said,"The buck stops here," is also the President who wrote to Washington Post critic, Paul Hume:

Then there's his letter to Dean Acheson:

In the present context, perhaps it's worth worth remembering that:

History has treated him kindly, but his reputation was only rehabilitated after he left office.

To which stories are you referring?

We're not focusing on this or that specific, and neither the actions of previous administrations nor executive privileges belong in the discussion. (Quite frankly, I'd think very little of any President who didn't test the limits of hir authority in an attempt to get what se thought was best for America...regardless of what I thought of it. Such an individual would be a weak, unfit leader.)

Trump has expressed a desire to silence criticism, which is step two in the dictator's handbook...a shot across the bow of the Constitution.

And because the Constitution won't allow him to silence those segments of the media that he doesn't like he's attempting to circumvent it and minimize our First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and of the press by incessantly demonizing their proponents...a lesser shot, but a shot nonetheless.

I'm no pollyanna. I understand editorial policies and priorities and slanting news, and I support Tump's right to object and fight back, but NOT in the manner in which he's doing it.

Do you seriously believe that everything published about Trump in the Washington Post is false while everything that comes across Fox News is fact?


And do you also seriously believe that HST's PRIVATE correspondence rises to the level of Trump's attacking the opposition media using every mic that's held in front of his mouth as a weapon?

A father's irate response to a critic who panned his daughter... C'mon!

And in a different vein, I respect people's right to object to unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, and I respect their right to object to the makeup of the Court that handed down those decisions, but when they take issue with the wisdom that resulted in the makeup of that Court, it's another shot across the bow of the Constitution.

It's not as obvious as Trump's attacks, but it's nonetheless indicative of an underlying, very dangerous to America rejection of one of the principles on which America was founded.

Of course Trump's anti-semitic!

If he truly embraced his daughter's Judaism he'd adamantly reject Neo-Nazis rather than coddle them and give them credibility. "Some good people," indeed.

And if he respected it, he wouldn't have tried to misuse her Rabbi's good intentions to his advantage.

I'll guess that the only thing about her marriage he approves of is that she married into a family of slime-buckets that rivals his own.

Previous Presidents have not "shilly shallied" in not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, rather they've stood fast with the international community, and rather than being the result of thoughtful consideration of the issue, Trump's moving the American Embassy was in all likelihood a birthday present to his daughter with locking down a large portion of the Jewish vote as its ultimate goal.

Of course Trump's approval rating in Israel is sky high; he's given them what they've wanted more than anything.

Orthodox (at the least) Jews, both Americans and Israelis who've maintained their American citizenship, do NOT vote for America! They vote for Israel, and they'd vote for the Frankenstein monster if it ran on a "move the embassy" platform.

Their support for Trump even as he's tolerated if not helped foster a culture of anti-Semitism is appalling and to their GREAT discredit.

Says who? If I think something is relevant I'm going to bring it up. When most of the biggest complaints against Trump seem to be that he violates civilized/political/constitutional norms, then the actions of previous Presidents and administrations are absolutely on point.


Suggesting that the President refrain from exercising his first amendment rights seems an odd way to defend the 1st Amendment, but never mind. Have you been listening to the Democrats lately? This President has no monopoly on demonization!

Here's what trying to shut down freedom of speech looks like: Campus radicals harassing conservative black speaker Candace Owens at U. Penn, screaming "Get the **** out of here," among other civilities. And this video is relatively tame, it's just the most recent one that showed up; far worse has been happening to conservative speakers (and Owens herself) on campuses all over the country. Oddly enough, it rarely happens in reverse.


So it's his style you find so deeply offensive. I get that impression from a number of the OK/but comments here.


The big difference between us is that you came across an idea that disturbed you in a pro-life pamphlet somewhere that nobody ever heard of, while I heard the court packing scheme from leading Democrats and Presidential hopefuls. Monkeying around with the Electoral College, in ways that would also horrify the Founders, seems to be pretty popular among the Democrats too, so to speak.


Are you seriously posing that question to me? If so, you apparently know so little about Trump's actual constituency, you've got nothing to work with but politically convenient stereotypes. I do think the Post's coverage has deteriorated since Bezos took over -- and the Nicholas Sandmann defamation suit isn't going to help their credibility -- but I don't even watch Fox News. Do you? Are you an MSNBC junkie? One of the reasons I originally posted here was because everybody seemed to be reading from the same script.

Thanks for sharing that with us, Kellyanne.

OK, I'm not a Moderator for this forum, but I'm gonna put on my Moderator hat none-the-less.....we're starting to get off the path of civility and logic here, and veering uncomfortably toward the direction of name-calling and bombast. Please take a turn and let's not go there. I know we can do this.....

As Pogo long ago noted: We have met the enemy and he is us ... not to put too fine a point on it.

Amen to that. Politics has turned into a lot of name-calling, sarcasm, insults, you name it. Politics should be above all that, even if we at FTM can't control it. But, we can set an example and, in a small way, try to return to a tradition of civility in political discourse.

Brings back fond memories of the old MacFixit Lounge days.

Should that not be in "facetious quotes"?!
I seem to recall that several out-of-control exchanges resulted in members being banned from MFI despite numerous warnings.
So far that's been reasonably sidestepped in FTM.

Now where did I leave those? They must be lying around here someplace! Oh, yeah! There they are: " "

As I recall the rule for POLITE conversation has for millennia been, "Never discuss sex, religion, or politics." There are too many in today's political world who seem determined to inject all three into the political discourse at the same time and sometimes personified in a single individual.

Of course eliminating sex, religion, and politics can make conversation pretty dull.


Maybe there haven't been any bannings on FTM, but suspensions have been and will be issued when discussions turn personal.

Differences of opinion are acceptable on FTM and expected in politics. Problems arise when one side or the other begins to label the other and/or one or both parties begin to take disagreement as a personal attack. Unfortunately in today's political environment it is pretty hard not to view opposition as a a personal attack because it too often is.

...let's see if we can re-estrablish a dialogue....

My point on the Chinese contingency plans was not that we would prevent their building islands, then populating same with military facilities.....that is their right on their declared territory. We make plans for how to respond, counter and mitigate such actions on their part. Defending the freedom of passage on the international waters adjacent to those facilities is what we do.

There is a very real difference in defining and exercising LEADERSHIP versus management. We need a national leader, not a national manager....managerial styles can be varied, but leadership requires a much more consistent standard. I think we could talk to this subject extensively.

This BBC article highlights what I was expressing about NOT having defeated ISIS (et al)....the rules of international warfare have gone out the window when we as a nation are confronted with a NON-NATIONAL entity such as IS which does not exist within national borders or conform to national mores as established through eons of international conflict from which springs such little tidbits of law as the Geneva Convention. There is no binding treaty to constrain the actions of the loser in that conflict which has been touted as the defeat of ISIS.

I think we share many of the same views concerning NATO....how NATO views us as a nation is dependent on how they view our Leadership in the White House.

Since Joe Biden has apparently decided to base his entire campaign message on the President's supposed endorsement of neo-nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville, I decided it was important to address that issue with the President's actual remarks -- in which he specifically excluded neo-nazis and white supremacists from his description of "fine people."

You can find a full transcript at Vox. They left out some of the crosstalk and interruptions, to make it easier to read. I am posting the relevant passage, because I believe it is incumbent on everyone to read it themselves, in toto, before passing judgment.


If anyone wants to check the transcript, I'm sure there is video around. I would just suggest looking for video of the entire press conference, and not relying on soundbites.

Rancid, racist America.
Can another civil war be far behind?
Forget Gort. Where is John Wilkes Booth when the nation really needs him?

I assume you’re thinking about the recent tweet that included the description of the four coloured women senators as troublemakers who “….should go back to the broken and crime-infested places from which they came”. The fact that the sentence structure is grammatically correct, tells me that Trump is getting help with some of his tweets.

Let's face it, the President is a guy who can barely spell and, if he had constructed the sentence, would have said “….….broken and crime-infested places they came from.”

And, why would someone help him with a racist tweet? Simple, because it is not just about racism. It’s also about changing the public perception of the Democratic Party. Trump’s tweet, and the predictably ongoing press coverage based on racism, keep a few of the more radically progressive elements of the party out front. The Republicans love it (and therefore don’t condemn the racism) because the Democrats are seen as a party of socialists who will bring the country down if they form government.

And why would Trump need help with a tweet that has such a nuance? Because he’s too stupid to think of it on his own.

I am sure there were many, but this editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle seems to capture the essence of what is wrong.

Don't get me wrong....I don't dispute that his tweet was racist. It was, absolutely. However, I think there was a secondary and hidden motive which Trump doesn't have the wit to devise on his own.

And, my suspicion continues based on the grammatical content. When a guy who is borderline illiterate correctly avoids ending a sentence with a preposition, I smell a rat.

And, speaking of rats, most Republicans are lined up behind Trump claiming that there is nothing wrong with his recent comments. One wonders how much proof they need before they realize that their leader is a white supremacist.

Note: Since posting, I see some Republicans (3 at this time) are breaking ranks and voting with the Democrats to condemn Trump's comments.

In the end it was 4 Republicans out of 197 who had the jam to condemn Trump's comments. And, incredibly, the Trump supporters are making claims such as Trump "really meant that where you came from includes places like the Bronx". (Kris Kobach, Kansas).

I assume his remark was directed at other Republican politicians....who else would be stupid enough to fall for that line?

Forget about impeachment ... too long and complicated a process.

Given his recent announcements/pronouncements and generally bizarre (compared with normal human) behavior, he is clearly mentally incompetent/unstable (read: certifiably insane).
Therefore Congress should invoke Amendment XXV and remove him from the action.
The only downside would be that Mike Pence would be elevated to the presidency, but his generally strict moral compass would preclude the wholesale destruction of the nation which is currently underway.
Don't say nay, say yay!

Luckily, Trump Is an Unstable Non-Genius

His mental deficiencies may save American democracy.

I know a few died in the wool Trump supporters who are becoming disillusioned with him and his administration. Unfortunately rather than moving to another political party their disillusion is so complete that they have lost faith in any form of government and are moving toward total anarchy as their choice for the future of the country. I'm not sure which is the more frightening concept.

If you are an iOS user and follow this thread you might be interested in something just discovered in the iOS App Store the Dump Trump for Messages sticker pack. A collection of his famous — Make that infamous — Facial expressions and gestures you can include in you text messages. They would give your progressive friends a chuckle and annoy the H#!! Out of your Republican family members. At least that is how I use them.

My thanks to keys whose question got me to looking at iOS sticker packs where I found this.

RE Ex-Envoy to Ukraine ‘Devastated’ as Trump Vilified Her
As Marie Yovanovitch testified, President Trump tweeted insults at her, drawing charges of witness intimidation.

Just when you thought that a certain someone's behavior couldn't be more egregious ...

A slime mold has higher ethical standards and a greater sense of morality ... and is cuter to boot.

Someone needs to get "disappeared".

Where is Valentine Michael Smith when we need him?

In all seriousness, here's what is likely to happen:

The House will impeach Trump but the Republican-dominated Senate will not remove him.

The fallout will continue into the 2020 elections and there may be enough Republicans who have had enough. Hopefully, he will be defeated in a landslide (which he will repudiate as having been "fixed").

It really bugs me that evangelicals, who purport to be morally superior to everyone else, embrace this scoundrel. Talk about making a deal with the Devil...

And this will be followed by a vigorous campaign saying that, in spite of overwhelming evidence, the non-removal really means exonerated. Of course, McConnell, Graham, Nunes, Jordan and other ethically challenged Republicans, concerned only about keeping their snouts deep in the public trough, will go along with it.

The following quote, from a responder at another site referencing a different aspect of Trump's actions, seems equally applicable here:

"The evangelicals who all support Trump unquestioningly should refer to the reference of an "antiChrist" in their favourite book. This guy is the epitome of the description and of course they are all "blinded by the light.""

I know evangelicals. Most of them don't pretend to be morally superior to everyone else. So that's a straw man.

If anyone considers the current president to be the Anti-Christ, that person has no idea what that word means. Which is a very common problem in today's world and esp. on the internet.

I encourage everyone to think carefully about the words they choose. Impulsivity helps no one. It can be treated with medicine.

Sometime I will address this in another thread: the big mistake of looking for a savior to be president. In America, we don't elect saints or saviors. If you look for a savior, someone will step up and fill that role. That was one mistake the Germans made. They were looking for a savior and they wound up turning their entire country over to a man who had never worked a day in his life. But he said the right words. People who were already half-mesmerized by words. He took it the rest of the way. With words. Don't fall in love with words and ideas. Actions matter most.

Don't romanticize politics. Don't idealize it. If you want romance, try dating. If you want to do good, work for a charity. If you want nice, write a letter to your mother. Politics is a practical business that has very little to do with idealism or morality.

I don't understand how to square this circle: talking about morality on the one hand, and on the other calling for the president to kill himself. If there is anyone with murder on their minds, it's not the president. It's the person who started this thread. How can one claim the moral high ground and yet encourage such an immoral act?

I request that moderators close this thread due to the inflammatory nature of the subject and title. If these are the kinds of thoughts that go through your head, I feel sorry for you.

The excuse "it's a joke" is not a defense because to some people it might not be a joke and irony doesn't go over well on the internet.