Trump calls press enemy of the people

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

We are ALL on the same side Wayne
USA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree
I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here... but someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I agree
I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here... but someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here"

My favorite sentence ever, in this forum, and I mean that with 100% sincerity.

"someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
"

I thought Obama was by far, the most divisive POTUS we had ever had. Trump is more overtly offensive and probably more polarizing, I don't think that can be denied.

Trump's treatment of women (not much different than Bill Clinton), the way he talks about women, and his criticism of McCain for getting shot down and captured? Horrible.

Obama's treatment of white cops? Equally horrible and offensive, in my opinion.

Again, the media, in support for the democrat party, makes it very difficult for the GOP to nominate a true gentleman, look at how they treated McCain and Romney. A Republican of character will never, ever be tread as such. So it would be political suicide to nominate someone who isn't willing, and very able, to fight back ruthlessly, and to hit below the belt when necessary. I love it when Trump puts on the brass knuckles and goes after someone who deserves it, like Maxine Waters or MSNBC. I don't like it when he does it to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If the media on both sides would agree to clean it up, there would never be a political need for Trump. The GOP tried, they tried with McCain and Romney. It didn't work.

If you want to see what I mean, watch the confirmation hearings for whoever Trump nominates for SCOTUS. It will be the ugliest political theater ever, I predict.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I thought Obama was by far, the most divisive POTUS we had ever had. Trump is more overtly offensive and probably more polarizing, I don't think that can be denied.

Obama's divisiveness was largely driven by a large number of people who disliked him because he's black.

Again, the media, in support for the democrat party, makes it very difficult for the GOP to nominate a true gentleman, look at how they treated McCain and Romney.

McCain would have like won if he didn't pick a running mate that was an instant SNL punching bag and tell everybody things are great when the recession was clearly coming. The Romney race was pretty close but it's hard to unseat an incumbent when things are going pretty well. But sure, blame the media, blame blame blame.

If you want to see what I mean, watch the confirmation hearings for whoever Trump nominates for SCOTUS. It will be the ugliest political theater ever, I predict.

I don't think they'll be able to upstage the GOP's treatment of the FBI last week. My prediction is that it will be pretty civil.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama's divisiveness was largely driven by a large number of people who disliked him because he's black.


McCain would have like won if he didn't pick a running mate that was an instant SNL punching bag and tell everybody things are great when the recession was clearly coming. The Romney race was pretty close but it's hard to unseat an incumbent when things are going pretty well. But sure, blame the media, blame blame blame.


I don't think they'll be able to upstage the GOP's treatment of the FBI last week. My prediction is that it will be pretty civil.

"Obama's divisiveness was largely driven by a large number of people who disliked him because he's black. "

That crap, does more for Trump, than if you donated a million bucks to his campaign. Despite what liberals believe, it's actually possible to be both black and an azzhole. Obama was a world-class azzhole IMHO, and skin color has zip to do with why I feel that way.

"McCain would have like won if he didn't pick a running mate that was an instant SNL punching bag "

Absolutely wrong. After he picked Palin (before she imploded), he leapt ahead of Obama in the polls and stayed there until the economy crashed. After that , Lincoln could have been running with Reagan as his VP, and the GOP would have lost. You are wrong on the historical facts there

"The Romney race was pretty close but it's hard to unseat an incumbent when things are going pretty well"

True. Even harder when the media is portraying Romney as a heartless plutocrat because he's rich, and even better, a sexist because he - GASP! - kept resumes of talented women in a binder. So Bill Clinton is a feminist hero, but Mitt Romney is a sexist. That just makes all kinds of sense. And it's that "logic", that is why your party is in complete disarray right now.

A year after Obama won, the GOP obviously hated his agenda, but they had a message, a plan, and a way to communicate it (the Tea Party). And it worked spectacularly well, look at where the GOP is right now, compared to where they were on the day of Obamas inauguration. I cannot believe the comeback.

I don't see the Democrats - even with Trump's help - making that kind of comeback. If the nutjob who won the democrat house primary in NYC is the future of the democratic party, the GOP doesn't need me to send any more donations, they are all set. America likes their presidents (even jerks like Trump) to be moderate. We don't, in the aggregate, like radical liberals. Unless they are black and hip and very smooth talking and very likeable.

"But sure, blame the media, blame blame blame"

Have you seen the medias favorability ratings? I'm not making it all up.

"My prediction is that it will be pretty civil"

Tell that to Chris Matthews, who has been the Twilight Zone for a week. It can't be civil, because the liberal wing of the party is (1) growing, and (2) demanding action, and the moderates in the party can't afford to look weak in the eyes of the militant liberals. Imagine the no-win situation that moderate democrats senators are in, who are up for re-election in November, in states that Trump won big, like WV and ND. What are they supposed to do? If they support the nominee, the liberals go berserk, if they oppose the nominee, many of their state voters will go berserk. That's a pickle.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here"

My favorite sentence ever, in this forum, and I mean that with 100% sincerity.

"someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
"

I thought Obama was by far, the most divisive POTUS we had ever had. Trump is more overtly offensive and probably more polarizing, I don't think that can be denied.

Trump's treatment of women (not much different than Bill Clinton), the way he talks about women, and his criticism of McCain for getting shot down and captured? Horrible.

Obama's treatment of white cops? Equally horrible and offensive, in my opinion.

Again, the media, in support for the democrat party, makes it very difficult for the GOP to nominate a true gentleman, look at how they treated McCain and Romney. A Republican of character will never, ever be tread as such. So it would be political suicide to nominate someone who isn't willing, and very able, to fight back ruthlessly, and to hit below the belt when necessary. I love it when Trump puts on the brass knuckles and goes after someone who deserves it, like Maxine Waters or MSNBC. I don't like it when he does it to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If the media on both sides would agree to clean it up, there would never be a political need for Trump. The GOP tried, they tried with McCain and Romney. It didn't work.

If you want to see what I mean, watch the confirmation hearings for whoever Trump nominates for SCOTUS. It will be the ugliest political theater ever, I predict.

why because they stole the last one or #2 they are historically always ugly or 3 a little bit of both

divisive tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. you think thats not Trump ??

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

why because they stole the last one or #2 they are historically always ugly or 3 a little bit of both

divisive tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. you think thats not Trump ??

"why"

Because they hate not getting their way, they really hate losing to Trump, and they are terrified (despite what both Spence and I believe) that Roe V Wade is in danger.

"they are historically always ugly "

Only in recent history. The partisan ugliness started with Bork, IMO. I can't deny that what the GOP did in 2016 wasn't partisan. But the American people gave the senate control to the Republicans, and it stands to reason they didn't do that so the GOP would let the court slant left. Given that the GOP kept the senate in the subsequent election, it would appear that the people weren't all that upset with what the GOP did.

"divisive tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. you think thats not Trump "

Of course Trump fans those flames with his idiocy. But he didn't come close to starting it. It started when Bush won re-election, then it got really ugly when despite democrat claims that we'd be getting out of Iraq, Bush got them to support the surge, and it worked. Bush, who they claimed was an idiot, made them all look like morons, and they lost their minds (leading to the phrase 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'), and it's been ugly (on both sides) since.

It's ugly on both sides, but not equally ugly in my opinion Often, the GOP wants to discuss policy. Often, the liberals want to shut them up and demonize them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Because they hate not getting their way, they really hate losing to Trump, and they are terrified (despite what both Spence and I believe) that Roe V Wade is in danger.

Democrats would be remiss in their duty to not use the issue to rally voters for the mid-terms.

Only in recent history. The partisan ugliness started with Bork, IMO. I can't deny that what the GOP did in 2016 wasn't partisan. But the American people gave the senate control to the Republicans, and it stands to reason they didn't do that so the GOP would let the court slant left. Given that the GOP kept the senate in the subsequent election, it would appear that the people weren't all that upset with what the GOP did.

There has always been some level of partisan bickering. The big divide we see today wasn't because of Bork, it was the Republican effort to create a permanent majority via the K Street project.

Of course Trump fans those flames with his idiocy. But he didn't come close to starting it. It started when Bush won re-election, then it got really ugly when despite democrat claims that we'd be getting out of Iraq, Bush got them to support the surge, and it worked. Bush, who they claimed was an idiot, made them all look like morons, and they lost their minds (leading to the phrase 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'), and it's been ugly (on both sides) since.

The issue with Bush started the moment the people realized he took our country to war in Iraq under a weak and dubious justification.

It's ugly on both sides, but not equally ugly in my opinion Often, the GOP wants to discuss policy. Often, the liberals want to shut them up and demonize them.

Both parties play games. What I've seen the last 20 years is the GOP favors conspiracy theories over facts. You have a FOX News party, the party of Trump.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Democrats would be remiss in their duty to not use the issue to rally voters for the mid-terms.


There has always been some level of partisan bickering. The big divide we see today wasn't because of Bork, it was the Republican effort to create a permanent majority via the K Street project.


The issue with Bush started the moment the people realized he took our country to war in Iraq under a weak and dubious justification.


Both parties play games. What I've seen the last 20 years is the GOP favors conspiracy theories over facts. You have a FOX News party, the party of Trump.

Can I remind you if the senators who voted for that war? Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Edwards, etc...they voted to invade, based on the same intelligence bush saw.

It was when the war became unpopular, and only then, that they all blamed bush for deceiving us into war.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I agree
I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here... Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, but I don't think I can say the same.

I am hoping Scott takes me surfcasting in Newport this year and I'm waiting for Chris to invite me out to catch some tuna!