Trump Presidency Death Watch

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on July 28, 2017 - 10:03pm

After the first six months of the Presidency that we've just witnessed, what are the chances he's going to make it another 3.5 years?

Any guesses on what will do him in?

Do you still think he'll make it the full term?

I have to say I put the odds he'd leave at not very high until this week...but with the turmoil we're seeing in his staff and the way he attacks even those close to him, I can't see how he is going to attract anyone of any caliber to support him. I really can't.

This is a very amazing thing to watch.

Submitted by svelte on August 26, 2017 - 4:44pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
flu wrote:
Oh CNN is totally left. At least the website is and the majority of the editorials they choose to run. If you can't see that, you are blind.

BBC is much more centered imho.

What standards are you using? CNN in relation to Breitbart?

Brian it is not surprising you can't see how left CNN is because you are as far left as humanly possible. Full Tilt left.

Therefore, everything from your perspective looks either center or right.

But CNN is definitely left. I think it used to be more centered back in the CNN Headline News days, but not any more.

As I said before, at the gym I watch CNN and Fox side-by-side. I see how each presents the news for an hour each day. CNN is very very much the left point of view, Fox is very very much the right point of view. Neither even comes close to middle ground.

There are things that pop up on Fox that I would never even hear about if I just watched CNN - CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit their narrative. I could make an identical sentence with the works "Fox" and "CNN" switched and it would be equally true.

Submitted by sdduuuude on August 28, 2017 - 3:08pm.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

You know, zk and Harvey, fuck you both for calling me a Trump supporter.

I didn’t call you a trump supporter. I agreed with harvey’s statement that trump supporters have concluded that it’s wrong for trump non-supporters to attack him personally and that only attacks on his policies are valid.

I could have included a sentence stating that sdduuuude isn’t necessarily a trump supporter, and I probably should have, but I didn’t think it was necessary at the time.

OK. I'll buy that and retract it for you, but not Harvey.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

Just because I say the liberals are acting like morons, and they are,

How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?

They are getting sucked in by Trump's antics, playing his game. Trump plays the "any publicity (bad or good) is good publicity" game and he baits the liberals and the liberal side of the press with every word and they fall for it every time.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

doesn't mean I'm a Trump supporter or a Republican or a Fox watcher.

No, but your position seems to be more consistent with fox propaganda than it does with common sense. And you’ve always seemed a common-sense type of guy, outside of politics. Hence the conjecture that you probably watch fox.

What exactly is my position ? I have taken two positions in the two threads, both presented from a position that is neither conservative nor liberal.

Both you and Harvy and the other ultra-liberal (Hi Flyer, I think) seem to have taken me for a conservative, trump-supporting Fox-watcher simply because I don't agree with the liberals on every point. It is a highly annoying straw-man type of approach that makes a reasonable argument impossible, and why the "F-you" message to Harvey still applies.

Just because I'm watching the Chargers play and I say "I think the Chargers are going to win this game" doesn't mean I'm a Chargers fan.

Just because think the liberals are getting their asses kicked, and will continue to do so for some time, doesn't mean I'm a Trump supporter.

Position 1, regarding "Trump Presidency Death Watch"
I disagree that the Trump Presidency is in jeopardy - in terms of him actually getting removed from office before his term ends. That is my position.

The liberal side seems ineffective in pinning Trump to anything that is a specific reason for getting impeached.

The liberal side cries "foul" at every little thing so that when he does do something really bad, the complaints feel old and weak.

Position 2: from "Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country"
My position is that Fox news is not responsible for the Trump victory, nor is Trump's Presidency destroying our country any more than it has already been destroyed by the Republicans and Democrats before him.

Does that make me a Fox watcher ? No.

I think a point you are missing, very badly, is that Fox news is a result of Conservative views, not a cause of them. The Republican Party has been around longer than Fox News.

Some people, even me, will hold opinions that match up with what Fox is spewing just out of random chance. That Fox takes those to the extreme should not confuse you into thinking that Fox has driven people in a direction that is different from one they have been going their whole lives.

Also, I believe that Fox news was born out of an environment where the existing networks were becoming less and less objective - and more and more liberal.

Does this belief make me a Fox watcher ? No.
Does it even make me a Republican ? No.

Does it make me a hater of both the the biased liberal and conservative news programs that want us to believe they are objectively presenting the news ? You bet.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

Trump is making the liberals look like fools. Plain and simple.

How is that, exactly?

I would argue that he’s making his supporters (and therefore a sizeable majority of republicans) look pathetic and disgusting for supporting such a vile human being, and I’m quite curious to see how you think he’s making liberals look like fools.

The Trump haters think themselves very clever and righteous when they point out Trump's character flaws even though such flaws are blatantly obvious to everyone. They fail to realize that many people were left in the lurch by liberal politics so they are willing to put up w/ those flaws to undo the effects of Obama.

This isn't my position. This is my description of what is happening. I hope you understand the difference.

The liberals think they are in an intellectual battle with a complete moron so they should be winning. They are wrong. And they are losing.

As such, they are fools.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

The liberals sent Hillary to battle. She sucked so badly that Trump, even with all the adjectives you use to describe him, beat her. Strangely, you blame Fox news for this and not the shortcomings of the liberal message.

Hillary was a very weak candidate. Mostly because many Americans had a very dim view of her, which was mostly due to fox et al. besmirching her for the past 30 years. Regardless of why she was weak, she was weak, and the democrats did send her to battle. Big mistake, I agree. But even with the dim view that most Americans had of her, she wouldn’t have lost to trump without a lot of help from fox (in addition to the help they provided by smearing her for decades). She wouldn’t have lost to a man who doesn’t deserve to be a high school teacher, let alone the president.

So I do blame fox (and the rest of the right-wing noise machine). They took a woman who was brilliant and tough, but lacked vision and warmth, and they tore her down while they built up trump, and they conned millions of Americans into thinking a man who is neither brilliant nor tough, and who also lacks vision and warmth, and who has the temperament of a 3rd grade bully, among countless other disqualifying personality traits, was better than her.

Many high school teachers would be insulted by that comment.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

When Clinton was getting his cigar smoked by "that woman" the message from the Democrat side was that the character of the person didn't matter, it was what he accomplished as President.

See, it’s that kind of faulty reasoning that makes me think you watch right-wing media. I don’t understand how, without some kind of manipulation having occurred, a smart guy like you can’t see the problem with that logic. To wit: Getting your cigar smoked by an intern does not make you an ineffective president. Trump's human failings do. If you can't see how trump's personal flaws make him a terrible president, ask me for a list. (If you do partake of non-right-wing media, you'll already know this, as items on said list are reported by the NYT and WAPO quite regularly. One generally doesn't see them on fox, though.)

As I have said - I don't partake in either CNN or Fox type news watching.

It isn't faulty reasoning at all. It is an objective description of the past. Clearly the story spun by the Democrats was exactly as I said - that fooling around on one's wife indicated no character flaws that would suggest he is unfit to be president.

To me, fooling around on your wife is quite awful, by the way. It shows a lack of loyalty and makes it impossible to believe one's commitments. So, that would translate pretty badly into being a good President.

I am pointing out that you can't have it both ways - Either point to character flaws and say they matter or say they don't - not that they matter for one and not for another.

With that said, though, I tend towards the idea that the measure of the Presidency is the political direction taken under his watch and little else. I am consistent in that for either Repub or Demo - unlike Trump or Clinton supporters.

I thought Obama was a highly respectable person and very articulate, though I dislike the direction the country took under his watch.

Trump is an awful person and makes a mockery of the Presidency but we have to wait and see where he takes us - if anywhere.

zk wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

Let the sour grapes continue.


Sour grapes means that you want something but can’t have it, and therefore conclude that that thing you wanted before you found out you couldn’t have it is bad. Doesn’t apply in this case.

I'll give you that one because of logical perfection. Well said.

Perhaps "grasping at straws" is better.

Let the non-lethal attacks on Trump continue.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 28, 2017 - 6:49pm.

svelte wrote:
you are as far left as humanly possible. Full Tilt left.

Therefore, everything from your perspective looks either center or right.

Would you say that George Soros is a leftist? To me, he's just a real capitalist who wants a progressive open world, not a inward looking small minded world.

Submitted by zk on August 30, 2017 - 12:29pm.

zk wrote:

How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?


sdduuuude wrote:

They are getting sucked in by Trump's antics, playing his game. Trump plays the "any publicity (bad or good) is good publicity" game and he baits the liberals and the liberal side of the press with every word and they fall for it every time.

I think you’re giving trump more credit than he deserves. Take his rally in Phoenix, for example. If you think that trump’s game is to bait what you see as the liberal side of the press rather than trump just being unable to control himself, I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there.

And, if that really is his game, he’s playing the wrong game. He’s the president of the United States now. He doesn’t need publicity. He needs to get things done. And he needs to bring the country together. Just by being president he’s going to get all the press necessary or desirable and then some. The “any publicity is good publicity” game is played by candidates or actors or salesmen. Not presidents.

Most important, if he says and does things that are bad for the country, those who oppose him are supposed to ignore it for fear of giving him publicity? That doesn’t make sense to me.

zk wrote:

sdduuuude wrote:

doesn't mean I'm a Trump supporter or a Republican or a Fox watcher.

No, but your position seems to be more consistent with fox propaganda than it does with common sense. And you’ve always seemed a common-sense type of guy, outside of politics. Hence the conjecture that you probably watch fox.


sdduuuude wrote:

What exactly is my position ? I have taken two positions in the two threads, both presented from a position that is neither conservative nor liberal.


I didn’t say you’d taken a conservative position. I said (implied) you took a fox position.
sdduuuude wrote:

The liberals have cried "wolf" too much on Trump and have not picked their battles well at all.
Rather than pointing out specific policies that have resulted in specific problems, they just attack Trump personally.
When something concrete emerges, will they be able to take advantage of it ? I doubt it.

That’s a fox position. Fox will tell you that unless a “specific policy” is involved, there can’t be a problem. There doesn’t need to be a specific policy for there to be a problem. Trump has divided the country and the world. He has pissed off our allies and played dangerous games with our enemies. Those are serious problems, caused by trump’s ignorance and bad temperament (among other traits).

sdduuuude wrote:

Both you and Harvy and the other ultra-liberal (Hi Flyer, I think)

Whoa, stop right there. Ultra liberal? You’re kind of doing the same thing there as you accuse me of. I have not indicated any policy positions that would identify me as “ultra liberal.” I hold positions on some issues that are right of center. All my positions probably used to add up to “centrist” or something a little left of that until the events of 2008 convinced me that some higher level of regulation and oversight are necessary in the financial sector (and probably in general). That moved me left on that issue, and further left overall. But I am far from an “ultra liberal.” Not that there’s anything wrong with being more liberal, but I think being “ultra” anything is unlikely to be a well-reasoned position.

What you might be seeing and mistaking as ultra liberalness are two things:

I despise lies and propaganda because they manipulate people into acting against their own interest and against the interests of this country, and they push people into doing the bidding of those who manipulate them. And conservatives are infinitely better at propaganda than liberals. And they have, with their propaganda, created an alternate reality for conservatives that has caused many of them (I’m not talking about you, I’m talking in general) to be unresponsive to actual facts, reason, and logic. And, being very much a facts, reason, and logic kind of person, that is particularly galling to me. I’d be happy to agree to disagree with anyone who is dealing from truth and disagrees with me. But when someone is swallowing and regurgitating lies and emotions that have been fed to them and is unable to see the truth anymore, I’m no longer happy to disagree with them. I’m disgusted and angry and fearful for our country.

The second is my hatred of trump. I don’t hate him because he’s conservative. I disagree with him because he’s conservative. I hate him because he’s a terrible human being. And his terrible traits are doing great damage to our country.

sdduuuude wrote:

Just because think the liberals are getting their asses kicked, and will continue to do so for some time, doesn't mean I'm a Trump supporter.

The democrats are surely not playing this hand as well as they could. But Trump’s approval rating is 35%, and he has basically no legislative achievements. I don’t see this as getting their asses kicked.

sdduuuude wrote:

Position 1, regarding "Trump Presidency Death Watch"
I disagree that the Trump Presidency is in jeopardy - in terms of him actually getting removed from office before his term ends. That is my position.

Here’s my prediction: As soon as Mueller comes out with his report, trump will quit. There will be so much in there that shows the country, even the republicans, that he needs to be impeached (mostly financial dealings, and possibly obstruction of justice) that impeachment and removal from office will be inevitable. So he’ll quit before that happens. Of course he’ll blame the “liberal media” and the democrats and anybody else that pops into his line of sight at the moment. It won’t be his fault he has to quit, of course. But he’ll quit. And if he doesn't quit (which he will), he'll be impeached and removed from office.

sdduuuude wrote:

The liberal side seems ineffective in pinning Trump to anything that is a specific reason for getting impeached.

Republicans control congress, and it won’t matter what the democrats do until republicans are on board. Granted, the democrats are pretty lame at getting republicans on board with anything. But one party getting the other party on board with anything ended a long time ago in Washington.

sdduuuude wrote:

The liberal side cries "foul" at every little thing so that when he does do something really bad, the complaints feel old and weak.

“Every little thing” that liberals cry foul about is a thing that used to be a thing that would cause a massive uproar in this country. Trump does one of those things almost every day. You’re suggesting that we just let the country slide into a new normal where the president can just lie right to our faces and yell at and hang up on foreign leaders and not condemn nazis and attack members of his own party and make stupid, dangerous, off-the-cuff comments about the most dangerous situation in the world and accuse his predecessor of an impeachable offense with no evidence and do all the other “little” things he’s done?

sdduuuude wrote:

Position 2: from "Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country"
My position is that Fox news is not responsible for the Trump victory, nor is Trump's Presidency destroying our country any more than it has already been destroyed by the Republicans and Democrats before him.

Does that make me a Fox watcher ? No.

Hmmm. Ok. But if you can’t see the damage that trump is doing that republicans and democrats before him haven't done, that’s probably because you only think that “specific policies” can cause damage. I’d be interested in hearing why you think that.

sdduuuude wrote:

I think a point you are missing, very badly, is that Fox news is a result of Conservative views, not a cause of them. The Republican Party has been around longer than Fox News.

I think it’s more complicated than that. Yes, republicans have been around longer than fox. But the republican party of today is not the same as the republican party before fox news. Not by a long shot. And I think a big part of that change has been the right-wing noise machine.

Conservatives are much less tolerant than they used to be of any views different from theirs. Fox has been telling them for decades that conservatives are strong and manly and self-reliant while liberals are pansies and snowflakes and lazy moochers. They’ve vilified the other side to a degree that wasn’t there before. And when the other side is villains rather than people that you disagree with, there’s going to be less tolerance of their views. Yes, liberals have become less tolerant also. That’s a continuation of the divide that was turned, by the right-wing noise machine, from a sometimes-contentious dislike for each other into divisive hate.

Conservatives are much less willing to work across the aisle. Back in the Reagan era, there was much more compromise and negotiation. Now it’s anything you can do to win and fuck the other side. I think they can get away with that now more than they could before because nowadays Americans are more divided and they want their politicians to say, “fuck the other side.”

Conservatives are much more willing to obstruct. For 8 year under Obama, all republicans wanted to do was cause Obama to fail. Their goal wasn’t for America to succeed (which, I think we all agree, should be their goal), it was for Obama to fail.

So republicans have been around longer than fox, but the republican party that exists today was not around before fox. It is, in my opinion, largely a result of the cultural and political changes wrought by fox and the rest of the right-wing noise machine.

Fox et al. took conservatives’ hopes and dreams and, mostly, fears and hatreds and stoked them. They stoked them for all they were worth. Conservatives (humans) feel good when their fears and hatreds and hopes and dreams are acknowledged and validated and encouraged. For most humans, if you have a tv station that acknowledges and validates and encourages your fears and hatreds and hopes and dreams and tells you that you’re right and righteous and strong and manly and great and that those on the “other side” are wrong and weak and lazy and stupid, that’s going to make you feel really, really good, and you’re going to watch that tv station.

And that’s what fox does. And that has taken a disagreement and cultivated it and encouraged it stoked it and and turned it into an intense, visceral hatred. It has changed our culture, and it has changed our politics. And its focus on emotion and away from reason has created a country where we can elect a man who, among countless other disqualifying traits, is clearly a bald-faced liar with the temperament of a wasp who’s spent 40 minutes on musical hold.
(I wish I could take credit for that joke. There are some very funny insults in here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre... )

sdduuuude wrote:

Some people, even me, will hold opinions that match up with what Fox is spewing just out of random chance. That Fox takes those to the extreme should not confuse you into thinking that Fox has driven people in a direction that is different from one they have been going their whole lives.

As I said above, while they might’ve started off in a particular direction, if that direction was to the right, fox has taken many of those people who were headed in that general direction and herded them to a much less reasonable and more extreme place.

sdduuuude wrote:

Also, I believe that Fox news was born out of an environment where the existing networks were becoming less and less objective - and more and more liberal.
Does this belief make me a Fox watcher ? No.

Well, that certainly was fox news’ point of view. If it’s one that was yours coincidentally, that’s cool. It’s one I disagree with.

sdduuuude wrote:

Does it make me a hater of both the the biased liberal and conservative news programs that want us to believe they are objectively presenting the news ? You bet.


Well, I hate both of them, too. But our opinions on which is which undoubtedly differ.

sdduuuude wrote:

The liberals think they are in an intellectual battle with a complete moron so they should be winning. They are wrong. And they are losing.

As such, they are fools.


I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. They’re fools because they think they’re in an intellectual battle (and you think they're not), or because they think trump’s a moron (and you think he’s not), or because they are and he is and (you think) they’re losing anyway?

sdduuuude wrote:

Many high school teachers would be insulted by that comment.

I did say “isn’t qualified to be a high school teacher.” But yeah, I don’t know why I picked high school teacher. That was stupid. That’s an extremely important job and one that should have very-highly-qualified candidates. And I should've picked a job that requires really low qualifications and said trump wasn't qualified for it. If I ran a school and trump was the janitor’s assistant I’d fire him.

sdduuuude wrote:

It isn't faulty reasoning at all. It is an objective description of the past. Clearly the story spun by the Democrats was exactly as I said - that fooling around on one's wife indicated no character flaws that would suggest he is unfit to be president.

To me, fooling around on your wife is quite awful, by the way. It shows a lack of loyalty and makes it impossible to believe one's commitments. So, that would translate pretty badly into being a good President.

I am pointing out that you can't have it both ways - Either point to character flaws and say they matter or say they don't - not that they matter for one and not for another.

I’m not trying to have it both ways. I agree that fooling around on your wife is quite awful. And it is definitely a strike against your character. Clinton had that one strike on his character that didn’t, as far as anybody has ever shown me, affect the way he conducted business. It is ludicrous to equate that to trump’s obvious, numerous, and massive character flaws that almost continually affect the way he conducts business, and in an obviously detrimental way.

sdduuuude wrote:

With that said, though, I tend towards the idea that the measure of the Presidency is the political direction taken under his watch and little else. I am consistent in that for either Repub or Demo - unlike Trump or Clinton supporters.

I thought Obama was a highly respectable person and very articulate, though I dislike the direction the country took under his watch.

I’m very curious what a non-fox-influenced person disliked about the direction Obama took the country on his watch. I'm not being snarky or anything. I really want to hear what you have to say about that.

sdduuuude wrote:

Trump is an awful person and makes a mockery of the Presidency but we have to wait and see where he takes us - if anywhere.

He’s already taking us somewhere. He’s taking us to a place where our allies are angry at us, our enemies are more dangerous to us, the world is disgusted by us, and our people are more divided than ever.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on August 30, 2017 - 11:24am.

Since Trump got rid of Bannon I think his odds of surviving his whole term have improved greatly. He's pivoting to more of a mainstream Republican, and end of the day he will only be removed if the Republicans want him gone.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 30, 2017 - 2:53pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:
Since Trump got rid of Bannon I think his odds of surviving his whole term have improved greatly. He's pivoting to more of a mainstream Republican, and end of the day he will only be removed if the Republicans want him gone.

Exactly where was his pivot? Certainly not in his Phoenix speech last week. EO banning transgender people from the military in opposition to the recommendation of the Pentagon? Pardoning someone convicted of violating the constitution? Is there a mainstream Republican here that agrees with those two moves?

Trump is who he is. He has no policy. None. There will be no pivot. Ever.

Submitted by svelte on August 30, 2017 - 6:21pm.

SK in CV wrote:
poorgradstudent wrote:
Since Trump got rid of Bannon I think his odds of surviving his whole term have improved greatly. He's pivoting to more of a mainstream Republican, and end of the day he will only be removed if the Republicans want him gone.

Exactly where was his pivot? Certainly not in his Phoenix speech last week. EO banning transgender people from the military in opposition to the recommendation of the Pentagon? Pardoning someone convicted of violating the constitution? Is there a mainstream Republican here that agrees with those two moves?

Trump is who he is. He has no policy. None. There will be no pivot. Ever.

Yeah I don't think he's pivoted.

But I do think there is more stability in the Trump Administration now - I think that happened when Kelly became Chief of Staff, not when Bannon left. Bannon leaving is a result of Kelly.

I agree with dude that the odds are still much greater that Trump stays 4 years that he's out before then. And actually the odds of him leaving dropped further when Kelly came aboard as CoS. I'm just not convinced that a man of Kelly's caliber will be able to tolerate Trump for long and therefore the odds of Trump getting into a serious bind and leaving will increase yet again after Kelly leaves. Probably after the start of the year.

Submitted by svelte on September 1, 2017 - 4:08pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Would you say that George Soros is a leftist? To me, he's just a real capitalist who wants a progressive open world, not a inward looking small minded world.

I don't really follow Soros so I have no opinion, sorry.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 3, 2017 - 12:11pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

With that said, though, I tend towards the idea that the measure of the Presidency is the political direction taken under his watch and little else. I am consistent in that for either Repub or Demo - unlike Trump or Clinton supporters.

I thought Obama was a highly respectable person and very articulate, though I dislike the direction the country took under his watch.

Trump is an awful person and makes a mockery of the Presidency but we have to wait and see where he takes us - if anywhere.

I wonder what you think the aspirational aspects of the Trump presidency are?

Trump seems to be all all about grievances, not aspirations. As least, I can understand how Reagan was aspirational. Of course Kennedy and Obama were aspirational leaders. Hillary certainly was for women.

In the world now, Trudeau and Macron are young aspirational leaders. Xi Jinping is very forward thinking and adopted a globalist agenda. Merkel is the business executive. Trump represents retrenchment, not the leader of the free world.

Submitted by svelte on October 20, 2017 - 7:13am.

svelte wrote:
actually, putting John Kelly in as Chief of Staff was probably the best thing he's done. Kelly has a real chance at getting the WH operating properly, as proof by his first action being firing Scaramucci.

The two wild cards are whether Trump will continue to listen to him, and whether Kelly will have any real power over Trump's son and stepson. I'm betting 'no' on all counts, but I could certainly be surprised.

I bet Kelly has had enough by December.

Kelly is now stepping into the political dogfight. Had to discuss the death of his son, Rep. Wilson. He has now been dragged into the mud up to his knees.

When it gets waist deep, he'll probably start looking for the exit sign. We may still be on track for a December exit, we'll see.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 20, 2017 - 7:52am.

svelte wrote:

Kelly is now stepping into the political dogfight. Had to discuss the death of his son, Rep. Wilson. He has now been dragged into the mud up to his knees.

When it gets waist deep, he'll probably start looking for the exit sign. We may still be on track for a December exit, we'll see.

He's already up to his neck in it. He's proved that he's just as comfortable as his boss telling lies.

Submitted by harvey on October 20, 2017 - 8:39am.

A stooge for Trump.

What a pathetic way to end a distinguished career.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 20, 2017 - 10:06am.

svelte wrote:
svelte wrote:
actually, putting John Kelly in as Chief of Staff was probably the best thing he's done. Kelly has a real chance at getting the WH operating properly, as proof by his first action being firing Scaramucci.

The two wild cards are whether Trump will continue to listen to him, and whether Kelly will have any real power over Trump's son and stepson. I'm betting 'no' on all counts, but I could certainly be surprised.

I bet Kelly has had enough by December.

Kelly is now stepping into the political dogfight. Had to discuss the death of his son, Rep. Wilson. He has now been dragged into the mud up to his knees.

When it gets waist deep, he'll probably start looking for the exit sign. We may still be on track for a December exit, we'll see.

If Kelly exit in December as you predict, who will manage Trump? It’ll be fun to watch.

I listened to John Kelly’s whole press conference, He doesn’t deny that Trump said what he said to Johnson’s widow. He doesn’t deny that Trump kept on referring to Johnson as “your guy” without calling him by name.

Essentially, Kelly counseled Trump not to call. Trump asked if Obama called and Kelly said Obama didn’t call him. So Trump used that info as a political weapon.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 20, 2017 - 4:35pm.

SK in CV wrote:
svelte wrote:

Kelly is now stepping into the political dogfight. Had to discuss the death of his son, Rep. Wilson. He has now been dragged into the mud up to his knees.

When it gets waist deep, he'll probably start looking for the exit sign. We may still be on track for a December exit, we'll see.

He's already up to his neck in it. He's proved that he's just as comfortable as his boss telling lies.

SK, you were right. John Kelly is proving comfortable telling lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...

What’s wrong with Trump and his people telling lies and digging deeper.
Just apologize to Miesha, Johnson’s widow, and say she misunderstood the intent of Trump’s words.

Submitted by svelte on October 20, 2017 - 4:48pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

What’s wrong with Trump and his people telling lies and digging deeper.
Just apologize to Miesha, Johnson’s widow, and say she misunderstood the intent of Trump’s words.

Impossible, that would have been the smart thing to do. :-)

Submitted by SK in CV on October 20, 2017 - 7:54pm.

svelte wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:

What’s wrong with Trump and his people telling lies and digging deeper.
Just apologize to Miesha, Johnson’s widow, and say she misunderstood the intent of Trump’s words.

Impossible, that would have been the smart thing to do. :-)

That would be the Trump way to apologize. To put the onus on the gold star wife. Apologize and still make her responsible. Though he'll never do that either. The respectful way to apologize would be to accept responsibility for not making himself clear. That he made the mistake, not her.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 21, 2017 - 12:33am.

SK in CV wrote:

That would be the Trump way to apologize. To put the onus on the gold star wife. Apologize and still make her responsible. Though he'll never do that either. The respectful way to apologize would be to accept responsibility for not making himself clear. That he made the mistake, not her.

You’re too smart SK. Powerful men never apologize and take responsibility at the same time because that would make them losers and liable. And even when they pay out a settlement, it’s only in an effort on their part to amicably resolve a dispute.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 13, 2018 - 12:22pm.

I’m learning that the Trump way is not that bad as long as you can stay at the top.
Because Trump is now president, because he represents the Republican Party and the country, he will always have defenders.

Out of self preservation, our institutions, our country do not want a disgraced president so we will protect Trump.

I’ve also learned that if you live in a nice place and have nice things, it’s perfectly normal and American to consider other places shitholes. That’s how a “normal” guy talks and feels.

Submitted by phaster on January 13, 2018 - 3:45pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

...because he represents the Republican Party and the country, he will always have defenders.

Out of self preservation, our institutions, our country do not want a disgraced president so we will protect Trump.

I’ve also learned that if you live in a nice place and have nice things, it’s perfectly normal and American to consider other places shitholes. That’s how a “normal” guy talks and feels.

#SADLY the concept of politically protecting "those of our own kind" is a part of popular political lore,... or simply stated

Quote:

He [Trump] may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3010...

as to the "shithole" perspective,... FWIW on occasion I find myself in some pretty posh places that are exclusive and require one to make it past staff that function as riff raff filter,... anyway from what I've seen first hand, ultra fancy surroundings w/ staff in place to filter out those that don't belong, doesen't mean there won't be some really dumb $hit heads present,...just sayin

anyway anyone else take some timeout for "fire and fury"

I was intrigued enough to read the book,... and my own take on the topic is there is nothing really new (just a variation of old themes)

Quote:

...First, most adults have learned to sit still. But mentally, Trump is still a 7-year-old boy who is bouncing around the classroom. Trump’s answers in these interviews are not very long — 200 words at the high end — but he will typically flit through four or five topics before ending up with how unfair the press is to him.

His inability to focus his attention makes it hard for him to learn and master facts. He is ill informed about his own policies and tramples his own talking points. It makes it hard to control his mouth.

...Second, most people of drinking age have achieved some accurate sense of themselves, some internal criteria to measure their own merits and demerits. But Trump seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself.

...Third, by adulthood most people can perceive how others are thinking... But Trump seems to have not yet developed a theory of mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opini...

As for the latest,...

Quote:

Lawyer paid $130k to silence adult-film star over sexual encounter with Trump: report

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...

why go to movies to watch a drama, when there is real world "news" $hit that I would not have believed if it was part of plot line in a low budget soap opera (or comedy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPrJxTvgdQ

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 13, 2018 - 4:41pm.

130k seems so low.

Will be nice when trump dies. Big street parties.

How long before after trumps death does he gets rehabilitated , like Nixon? Will prolly be revered like Reagan in 2060. If there’s still a usa

Submitted by zk on January 13, 2018 - 5:53pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
130k seems so low.

I was thinking the opposite.

First off, I don't care that he boned a porn star while he was married and paid her to keep quiet. He's done many horrible things that were important; this wasn't one of them.

She, on the other hand, should be embarrassed. If I were her, I'd pay HIM to to keep quiet.

Submitted by phaster on January 14, 2018 - 2:25pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:

130k seems so low.

Will be nice when trump dies. Big street parties.

How long before after trumps death does he gets rehabilitated , like Nixon? Will prolly be revered like Reagan in 2060. If there’s still a usa

trump's political reign, and legacy,... akin to the emperor caligula?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uL1bZii6k

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/j...

Submitted by njtosd on January 15, 2018 - 9:45am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
130k seems so low.

Will be nice when trump dies. Big street parties.

...

I’m not saying that he’s any good, but do you think we’d get someone better? How is it that Americans are fascinated with celebrities (Trump was in a sense), such as Oprah, as Presidential candidates? I kept thinking that after Trump there might be a pendulum swing back toward a Democratic candidate more like Jimmy Carter (minus the Billy Beer, etc.).

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 15, 2018 - 10:29am.

oh wait. i forgot.

we are doomed.

Submitted by zk on January 15, 2018 - 10:49am.

njtosd wrote:

I’m not saying that he’s any good, but do you think we’d get someone better?

It seems impossible to me that we wouldn't. I mean, who would be worse?

I met a dude with Down Syndrome the other day. Really nice fella. He'd be better than trump. I saw a homeless lady this morning. I think she's an alcoholic. She'd probably be better than trump. Oprah is a fool who has her head three feet up her own ass and promotes quack doctors. She'd be terrible, but better than trump. I know a couple 7th grade kids who would be way, way, way better than trump.

Stephen Miller might be worse. Maybe. No, probably not. No, I can't think of a single person in the United States who would be a worse president than donald trump. He's the king shithole. He's King Shithole. And he wants to be Dictator Shithole.

I agree that Americans' fascination with celebrities is stupid. But I don't think it's terminal. I think we can find somebody worthy. We need somebody reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, strong, and at least somewhat charismatic (or at least persuasive and good with people). Someone who can create and sell a positive message. Someone like Barack Obama. Are people like him really that rare? I don't believe they are. Although that belief is fading as this country struggles to find worthy leaders.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 15, 2018 - 11:39am.

zk wrote:

Someone like Barack Obama. Are people like him really that rare? I don't believe they are. Although that belief is fading as this country struggles to find worthy leaders.

Obama is intelligent, intellectually curious, thoughtful, deliberate and he knows policy. But he’s black. That’s why 1/2 the population dislikes him.

The old white male dominated order is coming to an end. Women are going to college more. Women and minorities are demanding equal pay and equal opportunity.
Ironically, merit based immigration will accelerate the undoing of the old order.

I watched the whole 1 hour meeting Trump held with congressional leaders over immigration. The guy is a dumbass. He does not understand nor has he any interest in policy.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 15, 2018 - 11:47am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
oh wait. i forgot.

we are doomed.

The current flaw in our system is that we elect badass dumbasses.

I heard a professor say China’s system actually elevates the most intelligent,
proven leaders. Technocrats who know how to make things work. What held China back before was that revolution brought uneducated peasants to power; but they got over that.

Submitted by njtosd on January 15, 2018 - 2:02pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

. . .

Obama is intelligent, intellectually curious, thoughtful, deliberate and he knows policy. But he’s black. That’s why 1/2 the population dislikes him.
. . .

That makes for a fun sound bite, but is it true? I mentioned Jimmy Carter in an earlier post. Very intelligent, intellectually curious (graduated from Annapolis), deliberate and, in my opinion, had more of a devotion to the common good that Barack Obama (for example, his work for Habitat for Humanity, etc.). But after a single term, he lost in a landslide to Reagan (Oprah equivalent), with Reagan receiving the highest number of electoral votes ever won by a non-incumbent presidential candidate. Carter was ridiculed at an alarming rate, with Saturday Night Live even making fun of Amy Carter (which they also did with Chelsea Clinton but have removed in later reruns). http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...

I really think that the animosity is *toward* being intelligent and deliberate. The average American (and apparently the average Russian and the average Brit and who knows who else) likes the bravado, false or otherwise. It makes them feel good. Intellectual arguments and justifications do not tend to give people good feelings. It's why people eschew proven medical treatments in favor of snake oil. But the question is - how do you fix it?

Submitted by njtosd on January 15, 2018 - 2:05pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

I heard a professor say China’s system actually elevates the most intelligent,
proven leaders.

Or it kills them, depending on the day.

Submitted by harvey on January 15, 2018 - 4:28pm.

njtosd wrote:
That makes for a fun sound bite, but is it true? I mentioned Jimmy Carter in an earlier post. Very intelligent, intellectually curious (graduated from Annapolis), deliberate and, in my opinion, had more of a devotion to the common good that Barack Obama (for example, his work for Habitat for Humanity, etc.). But after a single term, he lost in a landslide to Reagan (Oprah equivalent), with Reagan receiving the highest number of electoral votes ever won by a non-incumbent presidential candidate. Carter was ridiculed at an alarming rate, with Saturday Night Live even making fun of Amy Carter (which they also did with Chelsea Clinton but have removed in later reruns). http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...

I really think that the animosity is *toward* being intelligent and deliberate. The average American (and apparently the average Russian and the average Brit and who knows who else) likes the bravado, false or otherwise. It makes them feel good. Intellectual arguments and justifications do not tend to give people good feelings. It's why people eschew proven medical treatments in favor of snake oil. But the question is - how do you fix it?

There's some nuance to to the idea that many Americans didn't like Obama because he was black. It's not that simple.

Many Americans didn't like him because was exotic (although many of the Americans in this category also wouldn't use the word "exotic.") For many mainstream Americans, he was a foreigner. He had an odd, "African," name. He could relate to other religions, particularly Islam. He made the effort to pronounce foreign words accurately.

Now anybody looking at him objectively would understand that he was as American as anybody. Born in America, raised middle-class by a single mom, went to church on Christmas and Easter, and became successful through achievement at our own institutions.

But there was that funny name and that articulate way of speaking. It was easy to frame him as something that more resembled an African delegate from the UN than a middle-class American who rose to prominence on merit. His opponents took full advantage of what many saw as an unusual background.

If he had an "ordinary" black name, like Jackson - if his father was from Mississippi instead of Kenya, then his race would not have been exploitable as a negative.

It wasn't just that he was black, it was that he was "African."

I don't think the comparison to Carter really works. Carter was never really seen as an intellectual. Of course he was educated but he was also a farmer and a military veteran. But he was mild-mannered and easy to portray as "weak." (Personally, I never believed he was weak and think that some of his critics even today irresponsibly misrepresent his legacy.)

And Reagan wasn't just a celebrity. He was two-term governor of one of the largest economies on earth, had an impressive history of political activism, and was generally a very smart guy and effective leader.

But, yeah, there's a backlash against intellectualism. Maybe if collgess didn't emphasize coursework like "gender studies" education would be taken more seriously.

Ahh the good ol' days, when even the presidents we did not like were qualified, capable leaders who maintained the dignity of the office...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.