Really?
 

"It is much easier to act presidential than what we are doing here tonight, believe me," Trump said. "With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that's ever held this office."

Wow, sometimes the crap that comes out of his mouth borders on either laughable, scary or just outlandish. I'm pretty sure there are a few between Trump and honest Ab, that's assuming you (I certainly don't) consider Trump to even be acting presidential. How about these guys Donald; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy.

He's got my vote for other best of categories; abrasive, delusional, thin skinned and narcissistic certainly come to mind.

classic Clintonism wrapped in a Trumpism

he "can" but chooses not to....

You forgot the part where he said

"I think, with few exceptions, no president has done anywhere near what we've done in his first six months," Trump asserted.

Named the new post office in Biloxi Miss. after Wilbur Mills and a new SC justice.

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1125485]"It is much easier to act presidential than what we are doing here tonight, believe me," Trump said. "With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that's ever held this office."

Wow, sometimes the crap that comes out of his mouth borders on either laughable, scary or just outlandish. I'm pretty sure there are a few between Trump and honest Ab, that's assuming you (I certainly don't) consider Trump to even be acting presidential. How about these guys Donald; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy.

He's got my vote for other best of categories; abrasive, delusional, thin skinned and narcissistic certainly come to mind.[/QUOTE]

Franklin Roosevelt, in terms of preserving this nation under the principles on which it was founded, may well have been the worst President in American History. His administration did more than any other to cripple our constitutional foundation. And he was a liar in far more significant ways than Trump. His whole Presidency was a lie in the face of his campaign promises. He ruled not only exactly opposite to the way he promised, but even in a far worse way than that opposite direction should have gone. His whole administration was a pretense of constitutionality. In actuality, the Constitution was made null and void in its most basic structure by his "New Deal." Some of his touted "brain trust" admitted indirectly or specifically that they intentionally twisted, sidestepped, tortured, or totally disregarded the words and meaning of the Constitution in order to create the biggest step in creating the massive bureaucratic, regulatory, administrative state that exists today.

And he was as big or bigger of a bully than Trump. He was more successful in his bullying than Trump because he had more Press backing, and especially the backing of the increasingly Progressive academic world. And that world created the history writers and commentators who cast him in the mode of some big, heroic, saver of "democracy" (not the Republic). In actuality, his policies extended and worsened the depression which was finally reversed by more business friendly administrations that followed him.

And as for "collusion" with Russia, it was his agreements and favoritism for Stalin which was the biggest contribution to the fall of China and Eastern Europe into the clutching hands of communism. His administration was riddled with communist agents or operatives, and he overlooked that because of his alliance with Russia.

His cousin Theodore Roosevelt was a sort of John the Baptist forerunner for FDR. Teddy believed that the President should not be constricted by the Constitution. And he acted that way. He strongly practiced the politics of the Bully Pulpit. And he was a bully. But, unlike Trump, he got good Press coverage and praise by Progressive historians.

Thomas Jefferson was a Founder and tried, not always succeeded, to preserve our republican constitutional republic.

Truman was shackled a bit by his ties to FDR and, though he made moves to remove the communist influence in our government, he still let some remain. "Give them hell Harry" was liked for his forthright off the cuff and somewhat abrasive persona. If he were President today, and a Republican, the Press would try to make him look like a buffoon.

Woodrow Wilson could be in second place to FDR as worse President. Or he might be in first place. He was one of the philosophical founders of the administrative regulatory state. And he was an avowed racist. He praised the film "Birth of a Nation" which was a tribute to the Ku Klux Klan

Andrew Jackson was directly responsible for the infamous "Trail of Tears" death march of an Indian nation. He was a far more ferocious bully than Trump could ever be.

JFK was beloved by everyone at the time, but his policies might not have differed much from Trump's. And he had a far more scandalous personal life than Trump. But the media didn't focus on such things back then.

Ike was Ok.

But "acting presidential" was always in the eyes of the beholders. And for most, it was mostly an act. In reality, many, including some of those you mentioned, were scoundrels either politically or personally. Or Both.

And the Presidents you mentioned were all to some degree, some hugely, narcissists. Maybe not Ike.

I'm pretty sure this is entirely accurate :humpty: think about it...

Not entirely accurate. If he said this it might be

I think, no president has done anywhere near what we've done in his first six months"

Oh we are in for a helluva ride - probably what we deserve.

But had Hillary won, might not be all beer and skittles. In fact it would be depressing and crappy too. Here is some interesting Alternative History

On Earth 2:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/meanwh...rticle/2008805

Presidential to me means treating your constituents with respect, regardless of differences of opinions. Presidential to me means not threatening someone's seat in the house if they don't fall in line, regardless of the fact they are doing the job they were elected to do. Presidential to me means honoring anyone's wish to serve and lay down their lives for our country, regardless of gender; especially when you promised to do just that. Presidential to me means trusting in those in your own admistration and not treating them like dog #^&#^&#^&#^& when they do the right thing. Send him some size 16 clown shoes, he would wear them well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The eight Presidents you listed: "Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy" would not, actually, fit your definition of being Presidential. Some a bit closer to it than others, but none would pass your whole test, nor completely, any part of it. The worst would have been Franklin Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson who were far worse than Trump re your test. The others would all fail in varying degrees, Ike being the least unpresidential (most presidential) re your definition.

By the time Trump finishes his stint, he may fall somewhere in the mix of Presidents you've mentioned or he might wind up being more "Presidential" according to your qualifications than all of them.

The Weekly Standard article you cite presents us with the irresistible quandary created by an immovable human condition. He calls that condition tribalism. And he would like to "roll it back".

But the animating essence of political parties is the tribalism he wishes to roll back. To what condition do you roll back that which is tribalistic in nature? Does rolling back mean getting rid of political parties?

He presents party tribalism as a condition which makes no party better than any other. His "earth 2 test" shows the parties as mirror images in their view of each other--the us good/them bad syndrome. and the "only" reason some Republicans are trying to alibi the Trump Jr. emails is because of this tribalism. And so, by the flip of his earth 2 test, if President Hillary's daughter had such emails the Republicans would decry them like the Dems do re Trump's emails. And, by extending the test, the Democrats would alibi for Chelsea as the Republicans are doing for Trump Jr.

Political parties in this country have acted this tribalistic way from the beginning. There is no condition prior to that to which they can be rolled back.

So, if "us" is better than "them," and "better" is what each party views as its way of believing and doing, is there some way of objectively deciding which way of governing is better? Or does it simply come down to choosing which tribe suits you best?

The author hints at the solution for tribalism when he says "But the problem with that view is that there’s no limiting principle to it." And he hints at the reason we are in the tribal quandary with "Now we can argue about which side incubated this virus within the body politic." He says "(I’d make the case that it was the left.)"

But he, in my opinion, misspeaks when he says that tribalism is "a value set completely untethered from ideology, or reality, or community." Political tribalism is very tethered to its ideology (to the point that it would alibi for one of "us" in order to defeat the ideology of "them"). And that is the harsh reality of the unlimited power to impose ideology. I think that he would do better to stick to the problem being that there is no limiting principle to check party tribalism. And by extension, there is therefor no limiting principle to check the governing power of either "us" or "them."

So was he hinting, at least to some degree, that the lack of a limiting principle could be the lack of adherence to something like a Constitution. Something which prescribes the duties and limits of government power? And is he hinting, at least to some degree, that it was Progressives who, with their ideology of unlimited government, "incubated this virus within the body politic" when he says that he would make the case that it was the left that did it?

I think so. Or else, if we don't understand the need for a limiting principle, we are stuck with the irresistible quandary.

"Meanwhile, on Earth 2 ...
However you might feel about a given Trump scandal, ask yourself how you'd feel if it was President Hillary Clinton facing the same challenge."

been there done that

for starters.....I wouldn't be the least bit surprised

and the left and media would be in typical full defense mode relentlessly explaining that it's not a big deal and that everyone does it...yada yada....

soooo...yawn:)

have you seen he Stock Market?

Imagine if Hillary made fun of a former POW or fawned like a little girl over a Russian President.

heh...heh...no need to "imagine"

“Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F— off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of “First Family Detail,” a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

"Kessler writes flatteringly and critically about people in both parties. Regarding the Clintons, Kessler presents Chelsea as a model protectee who respected and appreciated her agents. He describes Bill as a difficult chief executive but an easygoing ex-president. And Kessler exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.

“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”

He adds: “Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”

Kessler was an investigative reporter with the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post and has penned 19 other books. Among much more in “First Family Detail,” he reports:

 “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military,” former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”
“Hillary didn’t like the military aides wearing their uniforms around the White House,” one former agent remembers. “She asked if they would wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was actually really offended by it.”

I read that fast but didn't see anything about making fun of a former POW or her fawning all over Putin. Maybe you can highlight the section?

Pretty pathetic when almost the full congress has to pass a law that won't allow the Pres. to lower sanctions w/o their approval bc they don't trust the Pres.

Well, seeing that is actually one area of responsibility of Congress, Foreign Affairs. Kinda like when Congress was saying it may need to block/mitigate Obama's Iran disaster?

We can whatabboutism most all day

Well just when I thought nobody could Trump the Donald when it came to inappropriate behavior when you are representing the highest office, the new press secretary proved me so Fing wrong.

Tough week for the Oval Office, firings and hirings, campaign promises going down in flames, thankfully his twitter account will keep him entertained.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody was fired ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, that would have probably been the more professional way to handle the changes wanted, rather than the emasculating way this administration goes about forcing change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Half a dozen one way, six the other. Allowing one to resign gives the appearance of mutuality, consent, agreement, and volition. Being fired simply cuts your balls off.

As far as the blunt, possibly insulting, possibly true, tweets that Trump uses to influence the resignation, those can be implied if not stated in simply firing someone.

In the end, the reasons for departure will be "interpreted" and the methods will be judged, one way or the other, depending on the minds and biases of the observer.

You gotta admit , new guys an improvement but then to the left, that doesn't really matter , right ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is correct...seems the same people that are perpetually upset by all of the incompetent liars in the administration .....are then
appalled when those incompetent liars are fired, resign or otherwise (unfairly)dispatched ...curious :huh:

My late father was a republican, a honest man, a gentleman and an eagle scout. Having worked with him the last 15 years of his working life, I know he would be embarrassed to see Trump and his arrogance in front of the Boy Scouts of America. Pretty sure Trump is missing way to many of this qualities in my personal opinion, he is anything but a Boy Scout, sad to have to apologize for the political agenda he brought to the Boys.

A Scout is:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.

There are things he reveres. He loves and reveres this country's greatness. To the point he wishes to restore it.

naming the SC justice was HUGE for many people like me. Huge.

Did he de-fund Planned Parenthood? Or is that still being discussed?

He hasn't done a lot of what he said he'd do, that is for sure. Tax reform, infrastructure, building the wall, health care reform...

"Presidential to me means treating your constituents with respect, regardless of differences of opinions."

In that regard, Obama was also extremely un-presidential. Obama was just as thin skinned as Trump, but not as crass in response.

NO ONE I stalking about the economy. He gets at least an A- there.

The GOP nominated two men, in 2008 and 2012, who fit those criteria fairly well. The country wasn't interested. Hilary wouldn't have stacked up well to the Boy Scout standards, either.

Integrity was not on the ballot in 2016.

The House of Representatives has the power of the purse. It is their responsibility to fund or defund. Likewise with tax reform, health care bills, etc. etc. The President can suggest, ask for, demand, bully, but in the end all he can DO is veto or sign the bills.

Like Obama, he has pen in hand. The disunited, backstabbing, cowardly, lying, Republican Congress isn't taking care of the DOING.

That is what Trump should be talking about instead of all the BS. Here is where I agree with you 100% Jim . . The rate of economic growth , I believe, doubled last quarter .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Trump is a thinned skinned, narcissistic bully, but my Fidelity account loves him. I wish his administration would just get its #^&#^&#^&#^& together, just ignore the BS and do your job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device