(05-02-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?
I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.
You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...
"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"
Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

So are you saying that Trump’s relationship with this doctor is more important on the world stage than Korean peace talks? Seriously?

I think that is exactly what he said. But we can forgive him - there are lots of Democrats, much higher placed, who are more concerned with finding or making a blemish on Trump than in things like peace in Korea or bringing jobs back.

(05-02-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?
I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.
You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...
"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"
Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

So are you saying that Trump’s relationship with this doctor is more important on the world stage than Korean peace talks? Seriously?

I think that is exactly what he said. But we can forgive him - there are lots of Democrats, much higher placed, who are more concerned with finding or making a blemish on Trump than in things like peace in Korea or bringing jobs back.

Perhaps people can be both concerned with unethical behavior and appreciate positive actions?

(05-02-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?
I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.
You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...
"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"
Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

So are you saying that Trump’s relationship with this doctor is more important on the world stage than Korean peace talks? Seriously?

I think that is exactly what he said. But we can forgive him - there are lots of Democrats, much higher placed, who are more concerned with finding or making a blemish on Trump than in things like peace in Korea or bringing jobs back.

LOL. Good grief, you guys.

It was a joking acknowledgement that it *isn't* remotely as important as the NK situation.

But I didn't feel like jumping in to an already multi-page debate, particularly the part about whether Trump should/is getting credit, which also isn't important relative to whether or not we have Korean War, part 2 or outbreaks of peace and love. In a nutshell, it's possible Trump's bad cop act helped SK be the good cop and got things moving. Still makes me nervouse because the projections for a military confrontation in Korea are absolutely horrific. I've seen estimated death tolls in the millions, and that's coventional warfare only. There's a reason presidents from Truman on have ended up settling for the unsatisfying status quo.

The doctor thing is both highly humorous and important:

1) Seriously, have you seen the interviews with the doctor from the campaign?

2) Now we know what we all suspected, that the ridiculous letter was penned by Trump. It sounded like a fake note from the parents written by a fourth grader. And the man who wrote it is now POTUS.

3) If Trump actually did have the doctor raid the office and take the records, that's a crime.

4) And WHY would he do that?

Also, if he produced a fake doctors note during a campaign where he was attacking Clinton's health, that's not insignificant dishonesty.

But apparently if X is the number of lies Trump must tell before his supporters/defenders admit it's an issue, x=infinity.

Speaking of Trump lies, now he's saying he repayed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money. If that's true, then how many false statements has he previously made about the situation?

And last but not least, surely we can all see the humor in him hiring Emmett Flood - maybe he's not so different than Bill and Hill after all....

(05-03-2018 07:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?
I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.
You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...
"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"
Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

So are you saying that Trump’s relationship with this doctor is more important on the world stage than Korean peace talks? Seriously?

I think that is exactly what he said. But we can forgive him - there are lots of Democrats, much higher placed, who are more concerned with finding or making a blemish on Trump than in things like peace in Korea or bringing jobs back.

Perhaps people can be both concerned with unethical behavior and appreciate positive actions?

Not seeing the appreciation much.

Despite frenzied and continuous obstructionism and 7/24 attacks from the left on everything possible, we have somehow gotten movement in the Korean situation and a tax bill passed. I wonder where we might be if he wasn't under constant attack.

As I said earlier, the best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. I guess lots of presidents gave North Korea their lunch money. Obama gave everybody his lunch money. Trump was elected because he was different. Hillary was not elected because she was more of the same. Really, what was her platform? Vote for me, it's my turn, let's make history?

I didn't vote for Trump, but I am beginning to wish I had been smart enough to discern the toughness we need under the veneer of crudeness.

So what i see is a bunch of little blue people jumping up and down over every real and imagined damage they can do to Trump, without regard for what it may do to Americans or America. Is there something bad about rising employment and returning jobs that just makes you yearn for the days of 18,000 Dow? Is there something about Korean peace talks that makes you yearn for the days of American presidents decorously shipping aid to to the NK dictator to placate him?

Trump is hardly perfect, but he is getting things done, and having to drag half the country behind him as he does it. I wonder what he could do if he had cooperation.

Maybe this is the plan:

1. Win the House in 2018.
2. Bring Pence into the investigation
3. Impeach them both.
4. President Pelosi

Then the world will be wonderful again.

(05-01-2018 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have a new sheriff in town and both Lad and Kim know it.

Whether you call it saber rattling or bellicose is immaterial. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. THAT is the new approach.

What a fundamental misread of the whole scenario. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town, and it's Kim. It's the guy who relentlessly tested his nukes and finally proved that he not only had them, he could deliver them. If you knew your history, you would know that DPRK has *long* desired and offered to sit down on equal terms with the US, leader to (dear) leader. Every president until now has refused to accord this murderous, pariah state such respect and legitimacy (we've always sent lower-level officials). It is not Trump who has forced Kim to the table, it is exactly the other way around.

I don't blame Trump for the state of affairs that was bequeathed to him by his predecessors, but to laud him for his new approach and his toughness, etc., in bringing about this hopeful new dawn is cheerleading spin of the sort that Kim himself would be proud of.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I wish the hounds would back off and let him work.
[...]
I wonder where we might be if he wasn't under constant attack.
[...]
I didn't vote for Trump, but I am beginning to wish I had been smart enough to discern the toughness we need under the veneer of crudeness.
[...]
I wonder what he could do if he had cooperation.

Just...wow. I should probably warn you, your anti-democratic (lowercase d most definitely intended) slip is showing.

Your disturbing yearnings for a strongman/caudillo aside, the job of democratic leader is the one Trump himself asked for. Dealing with opposition -- even vigorous, constant opposition -- is in the American president's job description, like it or not. It is a skill, and quite simply not one he possesses. Now, I don't think Obama had it, or Hillary either for that matter, but Trump exacerbates his problems with unforced errors to a far greater degree. With the lying, the crudeness, the vanity, the immaturity, and I am too depressed to go on, he makes it impossible for the entire other half of this already divided country, and quite a bit of his "own" half, to take him seriously. You see the opposition to him as reflexive and immovable, and no doubt there is some truth to that, but by his own (many, many) faults and missteps he inflames this opposition, hardens it, entrenches it, feeds it, and adds to it. No wonder you see no other option than to magically wish his opposition away, because he is so utterly hopeless at *earning* any ground in the way a real leader in a democracy should be able to do.

(05-03-2018 11:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have a new sheriff in town and both Lad and Kim know it.

Whether you call it saber rattling or bellicose is immaterial. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. THAT is the new approach.

What a fundamental misread of the whole scenario. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town, and it's Kim. It's the guy who relentlessly tested his nukes and finally proved that he not only had them, he could deliver them. If you knew your history, you would know that DPRK has *long* desired and offered to sit down on equal terms with the US, leader to (dear) leader. Every president until now has refused to accord this murderous, pariah state such respect and legitimacy (we've always sent lower-level officials). It is not Trump who has forced Kim to the table, it is exactly the other way around.

I don't blame Trump for the state of affairs that was bequeathed to him by his predecessors, but to laud him for his new approach and his toughness, etc., in bringing about this hopeful new dawn is cheerleading spin of the sort that Kim himself would be proud of.

So, i see, up to now, Kim was stymied by the wise leadership of previous presidents in refusing to meet with as equals, and now he has found a dupe who plays into his hands by standing up to him. Interesting take.

You bet I am antiDemocratic, Big D, if that means anti-wishywashyness. Tired of watching US back down to tinpots. Iran, Iraq, NK, Russia - we always backed down and out to preserve the peace. Rooseveldt said 'speak softly and carry a big stick". Carrying the stick is meaningless unless the other guy thinks you will use it. For the first time, people think we might use the stick.

In other respects, we hold similar views. I think it is entirely possible that Kim has spent his country into near-bankruptcy with his tests in order to get a dip-lomatic solution in which he can get what he really wants - international recognition, economic help, etc. A big gamble, because if it fails, he has painted himself into a corner. In poker terms, it might be a check-raise all-in bluff. If it works, great rewards, if it fails, great disaster. Kim is not just reacting - he has an agenda. Let's see if he gets what he wants, in toto.

Quote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I wish the hounds would back off and let him work.
[...]
I wonder where we might be if he wasn't under constant attack.
[...]
I didn't vote for Trump, but I am beginning to wish I had been smart enough to discern the toughness we need under the veneer of crudeness.
[...]
I wonder what he could do if he had cooperation.

Just...wow. I should probably warn you, your anti-democratic (lowercase d most definitely intended) slip is showing.

Your disturbing yearnings for a strongman/caudillo aside, the job of democratic leader is the one Trump himself asked for. Dealing with opposition -- even vigorous, constant opposition -- is in the American president's job description, like it or not. It is a skill, and quite simply not one he possesses. Now, I don't think Obama had it, or Hillary either for that matter, but Trump exacerbates his problems with unforced errors to a far greater degree. With the lying, the crudeness, the vanity, the immaturity, and I am too depressed to go on, he makes it impossible for the entire other half of this already divided country, and quite a bit of his "own" half, to take him seriously. You see the opposition to him as reflexive and immovable, and no doubt there is some truth to that, but by his own (many, many) faults and missteps he inflames this opposition, hardens it, entrenches it, feeds it, and adds to it. No wonder you see no other option than to magically wish his opposition away, because he is so utterly hopeless at *earning* any ground in the way a real leader in a democracy should be able to do.

What were the unforced errors in relation to North Korea and taxes?

I do see the Democrats as reflexive. Why not?

Magically? Just saying if the left was not so reflexive, maybe they could get their minds off doctor's notes and Dem oppo research masquerading as intelligence, and get on with the business of running the country.

(05-03-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe this is the plan:
1. Win the House in 2018.
2. Bring Pence into the investigation
3. Impeach them both.
4. President Pelosi
Then the world will be wonderful again.

That could be the plan. But here's where it falls apart. 1-3 could happen, but it takes a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove from office. And there's no way 1) democrats get 2/3 of the senate this fall, or 2) any republican would vote to remove even a serial killer from office if it meant President Pelosi.

I could see enough republicans voting to remove Trump to get him out. But not Pence too, not with Nancy lurking. At least, I hope 2) is true, and I know 1) is. Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe this is the plan:
1. Win the House in 2018.
2. Bring Pence into the investigation
3. Impeach them both.
4. President Pelosi
Then the world will be wonderful again.

That could be the plan. But here's where it falls apart. 1-3 could happen, but it takes a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove from office. And there's no way 1) democrats get 2/3 of the senate this fall, or 2) any republican would vote to remove even a serial killer from office if it meant President Pelosi.

I could see enough republicans voting to remove Trump to get him out. But not Pence too, not with Nancy lurking. At least, I hope 2) is true, and I know 1) is. Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

Yes, I knew this was such a long shot as be unrealistic. Probably ten times more likely than actual Trump-Russia collusion, though. So, .001%> .0001%

Seems like the Dems are going to a great length to put President Pence into office. Perhaps they think a more traditional person will be easier to beat in 2020.

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  a serial killer in the White House

Might not be the first.

" In exchange for immunity from prosecution, Estes was also prepared to provide the United States Department of Justice information of eight killings orchestrated by Johnson, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[16] He claimed that Wallace persuaded Jack Ruby to recruit Lee Harvey Oswald and that Wallace fired a shot that struck Kennedy."

Wallace

Neil Cavuto on Trump's pathological lying:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/386170...your-swamp

I said above that if X was the number of lies Trump needs to tell for his defenders to turn on him, it seems to be infinity for most of them.

But props to Cavuto. His X was finite, and Trump has reached it...

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

(05-04-2018 11:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Neil Cavuto on Trump's pathological lying:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/386170...your-swamp

I said above that if X was the number of lies Trump needs to tell for his defenders to turn on him, it seems to be infinity for most of them.

But props to Cavuto. His X was finite, and Trump has reached it...

I don't think there is a number that could cause large numbers of Trump supporters to defect UNLESS the Democrats can put up a viable alternative. somebody who is squeaky clean, has never told a lie, is willing to stand up to dictators, wants to bring jobs back, and lower taxes.

Personally I don't mind his lying. So he says his hands are big. so what? So he messed with a porn star a decade ago. so what? What do those have to do with stealing the election?

I look at what he is accomplishing, despite the concentrated efforts of the left, and say so what to all these little things the left is blowing all out of proportion. I don't care if he lies 20 times a day, if he gets NK to the peace table, brings jobs back, stops Iran's gift nuclear program, etc. These are the important things, while the left dwells on minutiae.

BTW, leftists, do you think Democrats lie less, or just about more important things?

(05-04-2018 11:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Neil Cavuto on Trump's pathological lying:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/386170...your-swamp

I said above that if X was the number of lies Trump needs to tell for his defenders to turn on him, it seems to be infinity for most of them.

But props to Cavuto. His X was finite, and Trump has reached it...

I don't think there is a number that could cause large numbers of Trump supporters to defect UNLESS the Democrats can put up a viable alternative. somebody who is squeaky clean, has never told a lie, is willing to stand up to dictators, wants to bring jobs back, and lower taxes.

Personally I don't mind his lying. So he says his hands are big. so what? So he messed with a porn star a decade ago. so what? What do those have to do with stealing the election?

I look at what he is accomplishing, despite the concentrated efforts of the left, and say so what to all these little things the left is blowing all out of proportion. I don't care if he lies 20 times a day, if he gets NK to the peace table, brings jobs back, stops Iran's gift nuclear program, etc. These are the important things, while the left dwells on minutiae.

BTW, leftists, do you think Democrats lie less, or just about more important things?

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

It's neither knee jerk nor partisan. There are lots of people in both parties that would trouble me more than a serial killer in the white house. A serial killer would do less damage than most of them. Mitch McConnell is IMO an idiot. I would not want him in the white house. Same for Chuck Schumer and John Boehner. Paul Ryan is just kind of nothing.

Ted Kennedy was not, as far as we know, a serial killer. He only killed once. But I would have preferred most serial killers to him, so fortunately he never made it.

I find Pelosi to be a thoroughly disgusting and despicable human being. There are certainly those who have been accused of being serial killers that I would find less objectionable.

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

Funny I have noted that OO and #'s have previously noted that there are several Ds that they have voted for / would vote for.

Pelosi happens to be one on his NFW list, as she is on mine.

(05-04-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

Funny I have noted that OO and #'s have previously noted that there are several Ds that they have voted for / would vote for.

Pelosi happens to be one on his NFW list, as she is on mine.

I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.
\
I have heard Pelosi talk, so she is one that I could not vote for. Hillary was/is another. It was disappointing when to me when Trump was nominated, as I thought it meant we would have to suffer through Hillary. Thank goodness enough Americans did not share my fatalism.

Generally speaking, the Dems I could consider are the most moderate, the kind that a half century ago were called conservative Democrats and are now called DINOs. A dying breed, and the party treats them like lepers, so I think it safe to assume I will never again(!) vote for a Democrat for President. Where have the Blue Dogs gone?

(05-04-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

Funny I have noted that OO and #'s have previously noted that there are several Ds that they have voted for / would vote for.

Pelosi happens to be one on his NFW list, as she is on mine.

I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.
\
I have heard Pelosi talk, so she is one that I could not vote for. Hillary was/is another. It was disappointing to me when Trump was nominated, as I thought it meant we would have to suffer through Hillary. Thank goodness enough Americans did not share my fatalism.

Generally speaking, the Dems I could consider are the most moderate, the kind that a half century ago were called conservative Democrats and are now called DINOs. A dying breed, and the party treats them like lepers, so I think it safe to assume I will never again(!) vote for a Democrat for President. Where have the Blue Dogs gone?

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

A serial killer would almost certainly cause less damage -- including fewer deaths -- than a Pelosi regime.

(05-04-2018 05:50 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 11:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, I just said I'd rather see a serial killer in the White House than Nancy Pelosi. I said that because I meant it.

I'm just going to point out that OO spent several posts trying to say it's the Dems who are too knee jerk and partisan, and then you immediately posted this...

A serial killer would almost certainly cause less damage -- including fewer deaths -- than a Pelosi regime.

That's pretty much my thinking.