Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions under fire over Russia meetings

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not sure what you're talking about [moving the goal post] I know Trump constantly moves the goal posts. Maybe you could clarify?

You said:
"Trump tweeted that Schumer met with the Russian Ambassador also. Schumer's response was he'll testify under oath what they discussed and asked if Trump and his cabinet would do the same. Somehow I don't think Pres. Trump will take him up on it"

Sessions sufficiently and correctly and specifically answered the question that was asked, not the general question that the media "interpreted" that he was asked--which already had moved the goalpost from his answer to the question posed to supposedly having to answer a question that wasn't asked.

No one, not even Trump, has asked Schumer to testify, nor to do it under oath. So his bravado is meaningless. But now, because of that meaningless bravado, the goalpost of "interpreting" whether Sessions lied or not (which already was a moved goalpost from his correct answer) has been moved to whether Trump and his cabinet would answer something under oath.

This is the method of expanding something from nothing. Which is what appears to be going on. There seems to be a method to the madness of stalling Trumps appointments other than just opposing everything he tries to do. Just before he left office, Obama expanded the circle of those who could have access to classified phone intercepts. (which could have been damaging to his administration if he had done that at the beginning of his tenure). So it is more difficult to discover who is disseminating the leaks to the media. By slowing down Trumps ability to "drain the swamp" of Obama loyalists in the intelligence agencies, they will continually be able to "drip, drip" stuff that may have the appearance of connection to Russia.

The real crime that is unquestionably happening is the leak of classified information. All for a political reason. The media is all in a constant buzz at the "drip, drip," but has nothing to say about its illegality, nor its potential danger to the nation's security. All this fabricated hornets nest of "bad optics," of the lightweight threat of Russian influence (which has been going on for a long time but only since Trump won did it seem to matter) deflects from the real and dangerous power and influence of the so-called "shadow government." This unprecedented use of our own deep state to try to bring down a government should frighten us more than Trump's bumble mouth.

[wdmso]

Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Lie (he thought a BJ wasnt sex its was just a BJ) but he did lie


Sessions : “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
some how not a lie and here we go again with others telling us what he really ment to say or that he answered honestly


what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.


The question was easy "communicated with the Russian government"
session willfully dodged and gave a false answer ... If he told the truth
franken would of followed up and sessions would have stated what he now is saying 3 days later


but again another shoe drops disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention using campaign money and later in his Senate office in Washington.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Po LI(e is silent) tician

I don't think that all politicians lie. Certainly some do occasionally Certainly some do a lot. But with the 24-hour news cycle every comment is digested and it has gotten to the point where every misstatement is considered a lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Lie (he thought a BJ wasnt sex its was just a BJ) but he did lie

If he truly thought that a BJ was not sex, then he did not lie. Perhaps, as Clinton did not know what sex is, you do not know what a lie is.

Sessions : “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

You left out the context of "those activities." Sessions claims he "did not have communications with the Russians" within the context of the activities under examination, which was Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump. I do realize, however, that if it is difficult for you to grasp that saying something you believe to be true, but which is not true, is not a lie, you may have even more difficulty understanding that statements stripped of context can be worse than meaningless, they can be used to say that a statement is as lie when it isn't.

some how not a lie and here we go again with others telling us what he really ment to say

Sessions told us what he meant to say. I think that he would be the one to know that better than anybody else. And what he said was a specific response to a contextual question. Spence would understand this. Again, you may have trouble with that.

or that he answered honestly what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.


The question was easy "communicated with the Russian government"
session willfully dodged and gave a false answer ... If he told the truth
franken would of followed up and sessions would have stated what he now is saying 3 days later

If, in your scenario, Sessions answered Franken's follow up with what he is now saying, then what he is now saying clarifies that what he said in the first place is true. But, again, I understand that you have a hard time understanding that.

but again another shoe drops disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention using campaign money and later in his Senate office in Washington.

The previous shoe didn't "drop." It was thrown at Sessions. And thrown back. As far as this current shoe being thrown, we'll see if it hits the mark. There sure are a lot of shoes flying at Trump and his team. And there sure seems to be a frenzied assistance by the media to keep them flying toward their target.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sessions sufficiently and correctly and specifically answered the question that was asked, not the general question that the media "interpreted" that he was asked--which already had moved the goalpost from his answer to the question posed to supposedly having to answer a question that wasn't asked.

.

The "bar" wasn't moved, a 2nd one was created when Sessions choose to answer the question the way he did (and if he did it based on a lawyers advice, I can now understand why people here think so little of attorneys). The 2nd "bar" is whether he lied to congress, not whether someone met with the Russian ambassador. He met with the Ambassador during the time period when the hacking was a front page issue (6 months ago) so it is hilarious to compare his meeting with Schumers or Pelosi from 7 years ago.

Trump repeatedly said that no one had anything to do with Russia and he didn't think anyone he deal with did either. That has been shown not to be correct time and again as members of his campaign and others had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agents in the year prior to the election. If Trump didn't make those statements things would be different. - so since Trumps statements have proven to be not true, let him (and Schummer) take lie detector tests to see the truth. Trump even made comments about Hillary's emails before they were release so trying to get to the bottom of the hack makes sense. Others on Trumps national security team even had language removed from the Repub. platform that mentioned giving the Ukraine weapons.

It is interesting that before campaign Americans had like a 15% favorable rating of Russia, now it is like 33%. (I wonder what Reagan would think of that). If someone from the Obama admin. did the things people from the Trump admin. seem to have done, this site would have needed another server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Trump of course being Trump started a fire across the street to deflect the continued interest in the Russian involvement and as usual he is blaming Obama for the supposed wire tap.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The "bar" wasn't moved, a 2nd one was created when Sessions choose to answer the question the way he did (and if he did it based on a lawyers advice, I can now understand why people here think so little of attorneys).

What's with this "bar" thing? I said the goalpost was moved (a common expression for what you did). I didn't mention any "bar." You move the goalpost then you change the word. Are you lying? You accuse Trump of lying when he misspeaks (or moves the goalposts)!

The 2nd "bar" is whether he lied to congress, not whether someone met with the Russian ambassador. He met with the Ambassador during the time period when the hacking was a front page issue (6 months ago) so it is hilarious to compare his meeting with Schumers or Pelosi from 7 years ago.

Are you saying that a Senator, one on the armed services committee, is not allowed, or must get clearance, to speak to a Russian ambassador because of what is front page news? Or that he is under suspicion if he does--even without any evidence of collusion. You do realize that investigations are supposed to be instigated because of evidence in hand, not in order to find evidence? The evidence is supposed to precede the investigation. Otherwise it is referred to as a witch hunt or fishing expedition.

Trump repeatedly said that no one had anything to do with Russia and he didn't think anyone he deal with did either. That has been shown not to be correct time and again

Obviously Trump could not possibly know that "no one" had anything to do with Russia. And are you saying that it has been shown that Trump "didn't think" anyone he dealt with did either? How can what he thought be shown, other than what he says he thought?

as members of his campaign and others had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agents in the year prior to the election.

Is this what you're referring to?:

"Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said."

That all sounds foggy and inconclusive and doesn't give any evidence of campaign collusion. And doesn't point to anything Trump would necessarily know about. So does that mean you are lying or spreading fake news in that you are pinning something nefarious or illegal on Trump that has not been so pinned by our intelligence agencies?

If Trump didn't make those statements things would be different. - so since Trumps statements have proven to be not true,

Which statements by Trump were untrue? The one stating that no one had anything to do with Russia is so absurd that it cannot even be considered a lie. Either he considers himself clairvoyant or he meant, as usual, something different. Or the one where he didn't think anyone he dealt with did either? Its been shown that he didn't think that?

let him (and Schummer) take lie detector tests to see the truth. Trump even made comments about Hillary's emails before they were release so trying to get to the bottom of the hack makes sense. Others on Trumps national security team even had language removed from the Repub. platform that mentioned giving the Ukraine weapons.

Talk about hilarious! Trump vs Schummer in a duel of truth! Actually, I think if enough questions were asked about various things, I think Trump would win.

It is interesting that before campaign Americans had like a 15% favorable rating of Russia, now it is like 33%. (I wonder what Reagan would think of that).

Correlation is not causation. And, even if it were in this instance, this is a nothing burger.

If someone from the Obama admin. did the things people from the Trump admin. seem to have done, this site would have needed another server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Seem" is the key word. Or made to seem might be more accurate.

Hey, how about the leaking of classified information? You got anything to say about that?

[PaulS]

I made a mistake by saying bar instead of goal post. Lying - good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I made a mistake by saying bar instead of goal post. Lying - good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i
Sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes.

[PaulS]

No, he frequently out and out lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

But hea Kushner and Flynn sat down in December at Trump Tower with Sergey Kislyak, according to a senior administration official, who described it as an "introductory meeting" and "kind of an inconsequential hello."
The meeting lasted for about 10 minutes, the official added. I know busy ambassadors run around for 10 min meetings

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia. Gordon added that at no time did any inappropriate chatter come up about colluding with the Russians to aid the Trump campaign.

they Never asked them to stop hacking meddling
in our election

and this is FOX news answer:

The longtime Russian ambassador met with seven then-Democratic senators in a single sit-down in 2013, among other discussions – and reportedly was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

and then you have House Speaker Paul Ryan put it Thursday, “We meet with ambassadors all the time.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, he frequently out and out lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's see. Here in this thread you make a Trumpian sort of misspeak by saying "bar" instead of "goalpost." Now, when Trump does that sort of thing, it's called a lie.

Then you try to claim that the "bar" (goalpost) was not moved, but that it was "created." Actually, that's just another way, a parsing, to say that the goalpost was moved--just create another goalpost in a different spot. That is, moving the goalpost from the position of answering the question from the context in which it is asked to the position of answering it in a broader context.

So you used the moved goalpost to infer that Sessions "lied." That his answer (his kick) didn't go through the uprights. But it actually did. It went squarely through the uprights of the first position of the goalpost. Your moving it to another position made it impossible for the kick to be good, to be true. Ergo, you manufactured a Sessions' "lie."

You also attribute, in this thread, two "lies" to Trump by parsing "lie" to being "not correct . . . time and again." Or Proven to be not true." Well, not correct is not a lie unless it is intended to be so. Nor, likewise, is "not being true." But not only is the "time and again" an unsubstantiated statement, but your "proved to be not true" is incorrect, not true. Your example of Trump's "didn't think" that his people where colluding with Russians is not only, on its face, not provable (you can't prove that he didn't think something), but your example of his campaign members "repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agencies" was not proven to be campaign collusion, as I pointed out in the Times article, nor even proved whether those conversations had anything to do with Trump. So your proof amounts to innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations for which there is no real evidence.

Now I'm not going to call these accusations lies, but when Trump says stuff like this, it is said that he lies--even by you. So I don't know if you're out and out lying, but your statements and misuse of words, just in this thread, would be called lies by folks like you if they came out of Trump's mouth. That's why I said "sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes."

And, then, there is called a lie of omission. I asked for comments a few times, once in this thread to you, about the classified leaks against Trump. I asked if you had anything to say about those. They are real, not just foggy accusations. They are illegal and a threat to national security. Did you just forget, or did you intentionally omit to make a comment--a lie of omission? Maybe like you would accuse Sessions of?

I'm not accusing you of lying. But can you see how throwing out the word "lie," like the word "racist" and others, in loose, haphazard manner, ain't nice, and no way to make reputable argument or civil discussion?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Let's see. Here in this thread you make a Trumpian sort of misspeak by saying "bar" instead of "goalpost." Now, when Trump does that sort of thing, it's called a lie.

Then you try to claim that the "bar" (goalpost) was not moved, but that it was "created." Actually, that's just another way, a parsing, to say that the goalpost was moved--just create another goalpost in a different spot. That is, moving the goalpost from the position of answering the question from the context in which it is asked to the position of answering it in a broader context.

So you used the moved goalpost to infer that Sessions "lied." That his answer (his kick) didn't go through the uprights. But it actually did. It went squarely through the uprights of the first position of the goalpost. Your moving it to another position made it impossible for the kick to be good, to be true. Ergo, you manufactured a Sessions' "lie."

You also attribute, in this thread, two "lies" to Trump by parsing "lie" to being "not correct . . . time and again." Or Proven to be not true." Well, not correct is not a lie unless it is intended to be so. Nor, likewise, is "not being true." But not only is the "time and again" an unsubstantiated statement, but your "proved to be not true" is incorrect, not true. Your example of Trump's "didn't think" that his people where colluding with Russians is not only, on its face, not provable (you can't prove that he didn't think something), but your example of his campaign members "repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agencies" was not proven to be campaign collusion, as I pointed out in the Times article, nor even proved whether those conversations had anything to do with Trump. So your proof amounts to innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations for which there is no real evidence.

Now I'm not going to call these accusations lies, but when Trump says stuff like this, it is said that he lies--even by you. So I don't know if you're out and out lying, but your statements and misuse of words, just in this thread, would be called lies by folks like you if they came out of Trump's mouth. That's why I said "sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes."

And, then, there is called a lie of omission. I asked for comments a few times, once in this thread to you, about the classified leaks against Trump. I asked if you had anything to say about those. They are real, not just foggy accusations. They are illegal and a threat to national security. Did you just forget, or did you intentionally omit to make a comment--a lie of omission? Maybe like you would accuse Sessions of?

I'm not accusing you of lying. But can you see how throwing out the word "lie," like the word "racist" and others, in loose, haphazard manner, ain't nice, and no way to make reputable argument or civil discussion?

I couldn't make it through the whole post. Got as far as the 2nd sentence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I couldn't make it through the whole post. Got as far as the 2nd sentence

That demonstrates why you think the way you do and say the things you say. Lack of information leads to false conclusions. Which, if you're Trump, will be called lies. And what is humorous is that what you say you couldn't make it through is pasted in italics right above your disclaimer. Those reading your post of self-willed ignorance will see that which you are ignorant of. And it doesn't make you look good.

But ignorance, they say, is bliss. Stay happy.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That demonstrates why you think the way you do and say the things you say. Lack of information leads to false conclusions. Which, if you're Trump, will be called lies. No, he out and out lies. And what is humorous is that what you say you couldn't make it through is pasted in italics right above your disclaimer. Those reading your post of self-willed ignorance will see that which you are ignorant of. And it doesn't make you look good.

But ignorance, they say, is bliss. Stay happy.

I know you have said in the past "what difference does it make" when I have pointed his glaring lies.

Keep defending a liar - shows a lack of morals on your part (see I can do that too).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I know you have said in the past "what difference does it make" when I have pointed his glaring lies.

Uh huh, moving the goal post again.

Keep defending a liar - shows a lack of morals on your part (see I can do that too).

See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies, whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual liesAt one point in the past you said "what difference does it make", whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie. Can you give me an example

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump. When dd you ask me? How did I "deflect"? And why do you think someone has to respond to everything you say?

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

doesn't the left traditionally hate and mock morality and those who speak of it...suddenly it's a big deal???

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies

PaulS :At one point in the past you said "what difference does it make",[Detbuch: in debating with you, it often doesn't make any difference. If you specifically bring up what I was referring to, I might be able to give you a more specific answer.

whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

PaulS: Can you give me an example Detbuch: I gave you some examples in the thread where you couldn't get past the second sentence,

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

PaulS: When dd you ask me? How did I "deflect"? And why do you think someone has to respond to everything you say? Detbuch: In post #37 of the Sessions thread. And you don't have to respond to everything I say. But when you respond to most of the minor, unimportant stuff and not the more significant, it sure looks like your dodging, deflecting, moving goal posts, and "lying" by omission.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

PaulS: I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

Yes you do have a high opinion of yourself. And, like Trump, you know how to make someone you don't like look like an immoral liar.

[detbuch]

Why this massive daily frenzy over something for which there is no evidence? But even if there was some collusion, why not treat it like all the foreign collusions and inner surveillances that have gone on before? When Ted Kennedy asked the Russians in 1983 to help defeat Reagan in the upcoming 1984 election, and that was exposed later, WHILE KENNEDY WAS STILL A SITTING SENATOR, there was no media uproar, no congressional investigation, no tiny slap on the wrist, no call for him to step down . . . nothing. When Obama blatantly interfered with the re-election of Netanyahu--no big deal. No little deal. Not to worry. When Obama surveilled journalists that did stuff he didn't like--just a little blip, then gone. When we all removed Saddam Hussein there was later a big hullabaloo against Bush, but helping to remove Gaddafi and straining to remove Assad, no problem. When FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet agents who helped to turn China over to Mao and all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin, eh, the way the cookie crumbles. FDR's reputation was not tarnished. He is one of the Democrat's icons.

There does seem to be a pattern. When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes you do have a high opinion of yourself. And, like Trump, you know how to make someone you don't like look like an immoral liar.

Yes, I do have a high opinion of myself. If you think a thrice married, serial liar () who has a long history of bankruptcy and stiffing people has more morals than you, then perhaps you need to reexamine your actions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, I do have a high opinion of myself. If you think a thrice married, serial liar () who has a long history of bankruptcy and stiffing people has more morals than you, then perhaps you need to reexamine your actions.

Bill Clinton isn't known for being a gentleman, and Hilary has been known to bend the truth. But again, it's only a character flaw when Republicans do it.

I would bet you, Paul, are a much better human being than Trump is. The Clintons? Not so much.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.

I am not interested in Trump. It is tiresome to constantly be hearing, reading, talking about Trump. I didn't know much, nothing of significance, about him until he became a presidential candidate. The only emotional, guttural, "feeling" I associated with him (watched a small part of one of his Apprentice shows, couldn't stomach more than that) was a mild dislike. Then, as candidate, the supposed "truth" about him became the subject du jour. The dirt was suddenly "exposed." He became this nasty, evil brute who hated and mistreated everybody but himself. The quintessential narcissist.

Seemed strange that who was once one of the golden boys could so quickly fall so low. Felt a little sorry for him. But watching his performances, first against the mealy mouthed Republicans who were afraid that their shadow might not look right and tried to appear to be saying the right things in correct ways (except maybe Cruz a little bit), then against insufferable Hillary, and then against the sanctimonious Press, I began to have some admiration for his fearless responses and even his supposedly outrageous claims. He actually began to be more likeable, more human, foibles and all. Stories about the good and charitable things he had done were more believable. The outstanding way his children turned out, the dedication he seemed to have for his family, in spite of how many times he was divorced, hearing him talk on conservative radio (conversations which most progressives were ignorant of) fleshed out a different human being than what was being defined by all his opponents (very few who impressed me as paragons of virtue or of ability or honesty or of concern for my issue--preservation of the Constitution).

I didn't think he would win the nomination, so was not overly concerned about who he was being made out to be. But when he did win it, and then went up against Hillary, it became apparent to me that how he was being portrayed was as much, or more, an exaggeration as were some of his whoppers. It was apparent, to me, that most of what were called his lies were not, objectionable as they might have seemed. It was also apparent that they were effective. There was, and probably still is, effective method in his wacky, outlandish comments. And it is genuinely entertaining, as well as satisfying, to see the reactions they elicit from his opponents and the Press. His latest bomb that Obama wire-tapped him being a case in point. He went from defense to offence and now there's this floundering around looking for "evidence" and coming up with rebuttals that are more damning to the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians than damning to Trumps statement. He keeps turning chit to Shinola.

But enough about Trump! Get on with appointing Gorsuch. Return power to the states. Get a couple more SCOTUS Justices and fill a hundred lower court vacancies with original textualists. I don't care where Trump was allowed by some groupie to put his hand 10 years ago. The real Trump doesn't compare badly as a person to the host of Presidents we've had in the past. We tend to forget some of the real doozies that have occupied that office, and forget the sexual proclivities and closet foul mouths of most of the "great" ones.

The President is not the Pope. Not the King. Not the Dictator. He is first and foremost the defender of the Constitution, and the faithful executor of his office. If he is virtuous in that, much as we might like him to be "moral" in terms of our own personal interpretation of morality, we should not expect more.

And there is such a thing as redemption. I may be way off, but there appears to be some of that in Trump. On the other hand, there is also the authoritarian in him. Maybe just ego which comes with presidential territory. And he may turn out to be more of a lefty than is good. It is right that Presidents don't serve more than two terms.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I am not interested in Trump. It is tiresome to constantly be hearing, reading, talking about Trump. I didn't know much, nothing of significance, about him until he became a presidential candidate. The only emotional, guttural, "feeling" I associated with him (watched a small part of one of his Apprentice shows, couldn't stomach more than that) was a mild dislike. Then, as candidate, the supposed "truth" about him became the subject du jour. The dirt was suddenly "exposed." He became this nasty, evil brute who hated and mistreated everybody but himself. The quintessential narcissist.

Seemed strange that who was once one of the golden boys could so quickly fall so low. Felt a little sorry for him. But watching his performances, first against the mealy mouthed Republicans who were afraid that their shadow might not look right and tried to appear to be saying the right things in correct ways (except maybe Cruz a little bit), then against insufferable Hillary, and then against the sanctimonious Press, I began to have some admiration for his fearless responses and even his supposedly outrageous claims. He actually began to be more likeable, more human, foibles and all. Stories about the good and charitable things he had done were more believable. The outstanding way his children turned out, the dedication he seemed to have for his family, in spite of how many times he was divorced, hearing him talk on conservative radio (conversations which most progressives were ignorant of) fleshed out a different human being than what was being defined by all his opponents (very few who impressed me as paragons of virtue or of ability or honesty or of concern for my issue--preservation of the Constitution).

I didn't think he would win the nomination, so was not overly concerned about who he was being made out to be. But when he did win it, and then went up against Hillary, it became apparent to me that how he was being portrayed was as much, or more, an exaggeration as were some of his whoppers. It was apparent, to me, that most of what were called his lies were not, objectionable as they might have seemed. It was also apparent that they were effective. There was, and probably still is, effective method in his wacky, outlandish comments. And it is genuinely entertaining, as well as satisfying, to see the reactions they elicit from his opponents and the Press. His latest bomb that Obama wire-tapped him being a case in point. He went from defense to offence and now there's this floundering around looking for "evidence" and coming up with rebuttals that are more damning to the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians than damning to Trumps statement. He keeps turning chit to Shinola.

But enough about Trump! Get on with appointing Gorsuch. Return power to the states. Get a couple more SCOTUS Justices and fill a hundred lower court vacancies with original textualists. I don't care where Trump was allowed by some groupie to put his hand 10 years ago. The real Trump doesn't compare badly as a person to the host of Presidents we've had in the past. We tend to forget some of the real doozies that have occupied that office, and forget the sexual proclivities and closet foul mouths of most of the "great" ones.

The President is not the Pope. Not the King. Not the Dictator. He is first and foremost the defender of the Constitution, and the faithful executor of his office. If he is virtuous in that, much as we might like him to be "moral" in terms of our own personal interpretation of morality, we should not expect more.

And there is such a thing as redemption. I may be way off, but there appears to be some of that in Trump. On the other hand, there is also the authoritarian in him. Maybe just ego which comes with presidential territory. And he may turn out to be more of a lefty than is good. It is right that Presidents don't serve more than two terms.

In a presidential primary debate, he bragged about the size of his hands. It's way beneath the dignity of that office. He does stuff like that a lot. It's a choice on his part unless he has tourettes. Policy wise, he was my favorite among the two choices. In time, maybe his vulgar tantrums will fail to be newsworthy. Not yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

I have no issue with him calling out the press because he is right. Truth doesn't bother me. But tweeting that Meryl Streep is overrated? If trump said she's an a-hole who gave a standing ovation to a violent, convicted child rapist, I would have liked that. Instead he engaged in the thoughtless personal attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In a presidential primary debate, he bragged about the size of his hands. It's way beneath the dignity of that office. He does stuff like that a lot. It's a choice on his part unless he has tourettes. Policy wise, he was my favorite among the two choices. In time, maybe his vulgar tantrums will fail to be newsworthy. Not yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The size of his hands thing was a response to somebody's negative comment on the size. He didn't initiate it out of thin air. He debunked what was said. The dignity of that office is, for me, denigrated when a President trashes the Constitution. When a President becomes grabs more power than is delegated to him. When he does not do what the office calls for him to do. And when he consistently goes back on his promises.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have no issue with him calling out the press because he is right. Truth doesn't bother me. But tweeting that Meryl Streep is overrated? If trump said she's an a-hole who gave a standing ovation to a violent, convicted child rapist, I would have liked that. Instead he engaged in the thoughtless personal attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, she attacked him first. Trump strikes back. I think she had it coming. And if he believes she is overrated, why not throw it back to her. Seriously, did the earth shake when he said she was overrated? Although, I like your version of what he should have said. Kind of think, though, that would have gotten a more earth shaking response than the one given to him after saying she was overrated.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, she attacked him first. Trump strikes back. I think she had it coming. And if he believes she is overrated, why not throw it back to her. Seriously, did the earth shake when he said she was overrated? Although, I like your version of what he should have said. Kind of think, though, that would have gotten a more earth shaking response than the one given to him after saying she was overrated.

She did attack him first, and there is an adult way to respond to that, which is to use her own actions to tear her to shreds, but do it like an adult, like a prosecutor would do.

The earth doesn't shake when he does any of these things. But I'm on his side, and yet these things make me wince. If he responded by saying "she tosses laurels at the feet of child rapists, so I'm not concerned what she thinks of me", THAT would earn my respect. It would also make people think twice before throwing cheap shots at him. I don't want him to take the abuse silently like Bush did, but respond like a smart, mature adult. Sarcasm and humor is fine too, but put some factual truth in there. He just sounds like a little baby brat.

I hope we're on the right track. Have a good night.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She did attack him first, and there is an adult way to respond to that, which is to use her own actions to tear her to shreds, but do it like an adult, like a prosecutor would do.

The earth doesn't shake when he does any of these things. But I'm on his side, and yet these things make me wince. If he responded by saying "she tosses laurels at the feet of child rapists, so I'm not concerned what she thinks of me", THAT would earn my respect. It would also make people think twice before throwing cheap shots at him. I don't want him to take the abuse silently like Bush did, but respond like a smart, mature adult. Sarcasm and humor is fine too, but put some factual truth in there. He just sounds like a little baby brat.

I hope we're on the right track. Have a good night.

Yeah, I wish he was Reaganesque. But he is Trump. And Reagan also didn't have the Dems, the Press, or the establishment Republicans on his side. And if Trump was Reaganesque, he still wouldn't have them on his side.

There is probably a lot more than Trump's personality that arouses the frenzy to take him down. The hysteria is over what many say was a true watershed election, one which could have entrenched a Progressive globalist oriented government and opened the door wide to a more rapid surrender of sovereignty to a socialistic world order. Or which could put a halt to that direction and reestablish the so-called American experiment. And the election did not stop that battle.

That may sound extreme or desperate, but look at what is happening politically in the West. We, in the West, have been quietly herded into that world order, bit by bit, through most of the twentieth century. And the past half century was shaped by Western guilt for what Progressive Liberals claimed was its rape of the rest of the planet. It has reached the point where the Progressive governments of the West encourage and legislate massive emigration into its boundaries of those in the world we oppressed. This was supposed to create world harmony.

But it exacerbated the hatred of the "less advanced" peoples for the richer people of the West. And it validated more and more demands by the third world on the unjustly fat and comfortable West. And our own Progressively educated youth joined this march of social justice not only supporting the elimination of borders but demanding free stuff for everybody.

And we were told that all was well and good, that mass emigration was good. That workers were needed. That any stories of violence were manufactured or overplayed. And that protesting was racist. That resisting was nationalism. Nazism. Which sounded nice and just, and it delayed any significant pushback.

But the native populations in the West began to see the degradation of their cultures, more violence than was admitted, policies that transferred what they thought was their birthright to others who did not create the wealth and freedom of the West. And were awakened to the realization that demographics pointed to their becoming a minority in their own countries.

Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords. This time not by ruthless tyrants, but by intellectuals who claimed to know how everyone should live. And that way was not what they loved and cherished. A way not connected to ancestors and family lineage, not to their beliefs, their religions, their cultural identities. A way that would eliminate all of that. And would, at the same time, relinquish what they had to what promised to be a veritable invasion of foreigners, many of whose ancestors fought their own in the past.

We have not been told how many Europeans support Trump. Cheered for his victory. And are becoming more "conservative" wishing to preserve their cultures. All of Eastern and Central Europe is becoming nationalistic and pushing back against immigration. Britain opted out of the EU in order to retain its sovereignty. France, with the greatest number of immigrants, may well elect a right winger. Germans as well as Italians, Danes, Swedes, etc. are protesting against what has been happening to their countries.

Trump is part of that revolution. If you actually listen to the tenor of the voices in Europe which are against the destruction of their cultures, you will hear voices that make Trump sound like Santa Claus. A sometimes crude Santa. And wishing that he wouldn't say things to make us wince is just pissing up a rope. Trying to be what he isn't would not be convincing.

Right now, he is fighting a war against which he cannot win if his base abandons him. And his opposition would not be any nicer to him nor less fervent to get rid of him if he was "presidential." How much he is being used by the establishment Republicans may be seen with what legislation they pass. The health care bill they've concocted does not bode well if it is as described by the more conservative Repubs. This may all just slide back into the same old Republicans as Democrat lite. And Progressivism may return stronger than ever. And Trump may help that along. If he survives. We shall see.

Have a good night.