(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.


But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.

Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.

The photo quite clearly says screen shot.

The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.

When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.

Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.

If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".

Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get this:



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.


But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.

Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.

The photo quite clearly says screen shot.

The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.

When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.

Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.

If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".

Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.pn



qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

(05-11-2017 05:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.


But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.

Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.

The photo quite clearly says screen shot.

The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.

When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.

Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.

If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".

Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.pn



qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

Oh Jesus Christ. Yes, the picture of Abe was a screenshot from a video, which was shot by a media outlet. My whole point was that other media, not JUST the WH photog are regularly at these meetings at the end for the ceremonial handshakes. And that was something you explicitly said didn't happen.

So you missed the remainder of my response, specifically about Russia duping the WH. During the meeting, only personal photogs were supposed to be allowed in to witness the meeting and take photos (it was a "No Media" meeting). However, it turns out that the WH did not know that the Russian photog was actually working for Russian media.

So it turns out that the WH did not bar US media from the media and allow in Russian media. Instead, they were conned into doing so and they are pretty pissed. See the link I posted earlier http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/o...-russians/

Quote:The White House did not anticipate that the Russian government would allow its state news agency to post photographs of an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's ambassador to the US, a White House official said.

Photos of Wednesday's meeting, taken by a Russian state news media photographer one day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey amid questions about possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow, were ultimately posted by Russia's news agency, TASS...

(05-11-2017 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.


But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.

Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.

The photo quite clearly says screen shot.

The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.

When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.

Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.

If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".

Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.pn



qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

Oh Jesus Christ. Yes, the picture of Abe was a screenshot from a video, which was shot by a media outlet. My whole point was that other media, not JUST the WH photog are regularly at these meetings at the end for the ceremonial handshakes. And that was something you explicitly said didn't happen.

So you missed the remainder of my response, specifically about Russia duping the WH. During the meeting, only personal photogs were supposed to be allowed in to witness the meeting and take photos (it was a "No Media" meeting). However, it turns out that the WH did not know that the Russian photog was actually working for Russian media.

So it turns out that the WH did not bar US media from the media and allow in Russian media. Instead, they were conned into doing so and they are pretty pissed. See the link I posted earlier http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/o...-russians/

Quote:The White House did not anticipate that the Russian government would allow its state news agency to post photographs of an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's ambassador to the US, a White House official said.

Photos of Wednesday's meeting, taken by a Russian state news media photographer one day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey amid questions about possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow, were ultimately posted by Russia's news agency, TASS...

yeah, conned. But the original hoopla was about the supposed exclusion of the American press by Trump in favor of Russians. That is what I thought was a silly accusation, and it turns out it is. Now if you want to say that somebody at the WH should have checked the credentials of this photographer better, I think we can agree on that.

(05-11-2017 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.

The photo quite clearly says screen shot.

The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.

When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.

Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.

If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".

Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.pn



qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

Oh Jesus Christ. Yes, the picture of Abe was a screenshot from a video, which was shot by a media outlet. My whole point was that other media, not JUST the WH photog are regularly at these meetings at the end for the ceremonial handshakes. And that was something you explicitly said didn't happen.

So you missed the remainder of my response, specifically about Russia duping the WH. During the meeting, only personal photogs were supposed to be allowed in to witness the meeting and take photos (it was a "No Media" meeting). However, it turns out that the WH did not know that the Russian photog was actually working for Russian media.

So it turns out that the WH did not bar US media from the media and allow in Russian media. Instead, they were conned into doing so and they are pretty pissed. See the link I posted earlier http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/o...-russians/

Quote:The White House did not anticipate that the Russian government would allow its state news agency to post photographs of an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's ambassador to the US, a White House official said.

Photos of Wednesday's meeting, taken by a Russian state news media photographer one day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey amid questions about possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow, were ultimately posted by Russia's news agency, TASS...

yeah, conned. But the original hoopla was about the supposed exclusion of the American press by Trump in favor of Russians. That is what I thought was a silly accusation, and it turns out it is. Now if you want to say that somebody at the WH should have checked the credentials of this photographer better, I think we can agree on that.

Had this situation not been a con job, and the WH let in Russian media, but not American, I think the hoopla would still be justified.

I mean, the WH actually agrees with me on that since they are also pissed that the Russian photographer was acting as Russian media.

(05-11-2017 06:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).

And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.

My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.

The first one - not the video. If you hit "reply", you get qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.pn



qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png



I don't want to conflate the posing for handshake pics with pics taken while holding a press conference. If there was a press conference after this meeting, and only the Russians were invited/allowed, you would have a point. But if not, you don't.

If I am ever lucky enough to be invited to the White House by the POTUS, I will certainly ask for a photo of me shaking hands with him/her. I do not expect him to invite in a whole gaggle of news crews and reporters and then expect me to find one who took the picture and get it from them.

Oh Jesus Christ. Yes, the picture of Abe was a screenshot from a video, which was shot by a media outlet. My whole point was that other media, not JUST the WH photog are regularly at these meetings at the end for the ceremonial handshakes. And that was something you explicitly said didn't happen.

So you missed the remainder of my response, specifically about Russia duping the WH. During the meeting, only personal photogs were supposed to be allowed in to witness the meeting and take photos (it was a "No Media" meeting). However, it turns out that the WH did not know that the Russian photog was actually working for Russian media.

So it turns out that the WH did not bar US media from the media and allow in Russian media. Instead, they were conned into doing so and they are pretty pissed. See the link I posted earlier http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/o...-russians/

Quote:The White House did not anticipate that the Russian government would allow its state news agency to post photographs of an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's ambassador to the US, a White House official said.

Photos of Wednesday's meeting, taken by a Russian state news media photographer one day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey amid questions about possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow, were ultimately posted by Russia's news agency, TASS...

yeah, conned. But the original hoopla was about the supposed exclusion of the American press by Trump in favor of Russians. That is what I thought was a silly accusation, and it turns out it is. Now if you want to say that somebody at the WH should have checked the credentials of this photographer better, I think we can agree on that.

Had this situation not been a con job, and the WH let in Russian media, but not American, I think the hoopla would still be justified.

I mean, the WH actually agrees with me on that since they are also pissed that the Russian photographer was acting as Russian media.

The narrative has changed from "The WH barred Americans but let in Russians" to "The WH was conned".

I think the original narrative was contrived BS and so it turned out to be. The current narrative is bad enough, and seems to be true.

Well, one thing we have learned: they still take handshake photos at a "No Media" meeting. Don't need the media for that.

Wow Trump conned by the Russians
That is unpossible!

(05-11-2017 07:04 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Wow Trump conned by the Russians
That is unpossible!

Especially since he is taking orders from them, right? They are conning their own flunkies!!!

Just want to gauge people's thoughts on the news stories coming out about the Trump/Comey dinner and the he said, she said business with regards to Trump being told he wasn't being investigated, Trump asking Comey to pledge his loyalty to him, and then the really bizarre tweet about how Comey better hope that Trump didn't tape their conversations.

Thoughts?

(05-12-2017 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just want to gauge people's thoughts on the news stories coming out about the Trump/Comey dinner and the he said, she said business with regards to Trump being told he wasn't being investigated, Trump asking Comey to pledge his loyalty to him, and then the really bizarre tweet about how Comey better hope that Trump didn't tape their conversations.

Thoughts?

Mike Royko said that beginning with JFK, we've been electing Presidents who were to some degree "goofy."

I think that's been upped by an order of magnitude.

(05-11-2017 10:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 07:04 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Wow Trump conned by the Russians
That is unpossible!

Especially since he is taking orders from them, right? They are conning their own flunkies!!!

I get the sarcasm here, but I submit that one can be beholden to another, yet at the same time be conned or mislead by that person as well. For example, a Trump staffer can be beholden to Trump but also be mislead or mistreated by him.

I'm not arguing that Trump is beholden to the Russians, or that he was conned by them the other day. I'm currently just offering a rebuttal to the general logic of your argument.

That said, I do get the feeling that the line that Trump would have to cross for you to turn on him is pretty far. Certainly much further than RiceLad's or mine. But also, I feel safe in guessing, much further than the line you may have had for Obama.

(05-12-2017 09:33 AM)Barrett Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 10:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 07:04 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Wow Trump conned by the Russians
That is unpossible!

Especially since he is taking orders from them, right? They are conning their own flunkies!!!

I get the sarcasm here, but I submit that one can be beholden to another, yet at the same time be conned or mislead by that person as well. For example, a Trump staffer can be beholden to Trump but also be mislead or mistreated by him.

I'm not arguing that Trump is beholden to the Russians, or that he was conned by them the other day. I'm currently just offering a rebuttal to the general logic of your argument.

That said, I do get the feeling that the line that Trump would have to cross for you to turn on him is pretty far. Certainly much further than RiceLad's or mine. But also, I feel safe in guessing, much further than the line you may have had for Obama.

At least you get the sarcasm.

From the git-go, I have felt, and said, that the whole Russian conspiracy theory didn't hold water, and this is just another example of it. If Trump is dancing to Putin's tune, then why would Putin spotlight this by sneaking in a Russian newsman without Trump's knowledge? Either Trump is a Russian puppet, or he was conned, but not both. Yet the Resistance touts each as an indictment on Trump.

Read this

If by "turn on him" you mean turn TO the Democrats, you are right, it would take a lot for mr to go back there. (yes, I used to lean left, shocker) That's because my personal opinions on the issues most important to me do not align with the Democrat party's or their candidates. My vote and support is not predicated on gay marriage (pro) or abortion (neutral) or gun control (somewhat against) or the death penalty (against). I have opinions on those issues, but they are not major issues for me, as they are for some. Nor am I for every little nuance of the way Trump does things -frankly some of the things he does appall me. But what should I do - all of a sudden agitate for his removal and replacement by ...? Pence? Clinton? Schumer? Not really that happy with any of those. Maybe I just need to reconcile myself to the fact that Trump is a horse of a different color, not fitting the mold others have made for him. Oh, wait, check, done that.

I was more against Obama because he was more for things I was against. Isn't that the American way? It seems not, sometimes. I am not for anything and everything Trump is for, and say so, but largely that is like whispering into a gale.

Basically I am a moderate in most things, and neither Trump nor the Democratic party fit that definition. But at least Trump is more in agreement with me more of the time on the things more important to me. Even when Alien meets Predator, there is a lesser evil.

when there is something to complain about, like Trump getting conned by the Russians, fine, I will join in the bullfrog chorus. But not on just anything and everything the man does. Not just because he is Trump, and not Clinton.

I hope that helps.

(05-12-2017 09:33 AM)Barrett Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 10:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 07:04 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Wow Trump conned by the Russians
That is unpossible!

Especially since he is taking orders from them, right? They are conning their own flunkies!!!

I get the sarcasm here, but I submit that one can be beholden to another, yet at the same time be conned or mislead by that person as well. For example, a Trump staffer can be beholden to Trump but also be mislead or mistreated by him.

I'm not arguing that Trump is beholden to the Russians, or that he was conned by them the other day. I'm currently just offering a rebuttal to the general logic of your argument.

That said, I do get the feeling that the line that Trump would have to cross for you to turn on him is pretty far. Certainly much further than RiceLad's or mine. But also, I feel safe in guessing, much further than the line you may have had for Obama.

You are assuming that everyone has a "line to cross" in the debate. The unabashed 'resistance' (their terminology, not mine) to Trump from Day One has been astronomical. far more than present for Obama, or even the previous high water mark of Bush Derangement Syndrome from the outset (probably with a good push for the "they STOLE the election crowd.) I would hazard that the people that had 'no tolerance' for Trump from the outset (as opposed to actually having a 'line to cross') is vastly more than either of our previous two presidents.

So yes, at least OO has a line to cross, as do I. I see very few people who didnt vote for Trump who actually have a line at all, to be honest. (probably OO and myself are just about the only two that I have experienced that fall into that category, to be honest).

So, pardon me if I really don't take your moral "line to cross" chastising very seriously at all, especially with the built-in opposition de jure that seems far more the rule than the exception than which you imply.

And, to be blunt, while I did not vote for either Trump nor Hillary, Hills in my book *still* takes the show position with a massive gap to the place position for me in that race, even ex post facto. In short, am I "happy" with Trump? Not by a long shot in a absolute sense. But, in a relative sense, I am still exceptionally pleased with the outcome.

Man, the way you argue/discuss is pretty unpleasant. OO has repeatedly said that Trump was not his choice for president, and what RiceLad has tried to explore over the last few months is at what point would OO think "I maybe now would have preferred if Clinton had won." I offered up that RiceLad's line I'm sure was much lower on that question (as admittedly is mine). That speaks to a general dislike of the guy or his policies or both. And OO answered my question, and from that answer, I don't get the sense that he felt offended or chastised by it. I certainly meant no chastisement. Rather, he explained the basis of why--as between Trump and Clinton--it would be a pretty uphill climb for him to believe that Trump is worse than Clinton.

Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

No worries, Tanqtonic. I'll freely admit I never liked Trump (even when he wasn't a politician), so I probably wouldn't give him a fully fair shake, and my tolerance on him may be unfairly low. But come on, can we agree at least that the dude is not likable? :)

A friend of mine just summed it up pretty well:

"I don't know if photo ops with Kissinger and weird tweets about secret tapes are the best ways to avoid Nixon comparisons."

(05-12-2017 11:38 AM)Barrett Wrote:  No worries, Tanqtonic. I'll freely admit I never liked Trump (even when he wasn't a politician), so I probably wouldn't give him a fully fair shake, and my tolerance on him may be unfairly low. But come on, can we agree at least that the dude is not likable? :)

I think Trump is pretty detestable in the 'human being' category, without any hesitation in my book. I've stated before that he is a narcissistic, blowhard, power-hungry, authoritarian, self aggrandizing j-ck-ss who is a willy-nilly and terrible liar and latches onto whatever floats out there as a guiding principle; but not much different in most respects from the previous President being a narcissistic, blowhard, power-hungry, authoritarian, self aggrandizing j-ck-ss who is a good and calculating liar and who made sure never to reveal in a truthful manner any of his guiding principles.

But, being a "likable guy" does not have a 1:1 correspondence to being an effective President, or for that matter, how much rope I will give an individual in assessing their governance.

For examples:

Jimmy Carter -- likable guy (when in office, not the smarkfest hate filled ex-president he is now), complete and utter failure as President in my book.

LBJ -- detestable human being; but an effective President for many things.

I have grandsons, 17 and 14. I do not consider Trump a good role model for them. I would consider GWB a good role model, so that may make some people unhappy. But even good role models are not great role models. All of them have lapses and bad choices somewhere along the way.

I have no granddaughters, but if I had I would not consider Hillary a good role model for them. I don't think Hillary is a good role model for anybody, male or female.
Condy Rice would be my choice there.

I don't think there is a line I could cross where I would consider that I wish Hillary had won the election. Maybe if the Russian plot thingie bears out, where Trump is just part of a nest of Russian spies in the WH. I think we have better odds of discovering an advanced civilization on the Moon. I think she is so reprehensible and rotten. JMHO. But I can wish that Kasich and any of a half dozen others had won. Already there. But nobody ever asks me how I can defend Kasich.

(05-12-2017 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have grandsons, 17 and 14. I do not consider Trump a good role model for them. I would consider GWB a good role model, so that may make some people unhappy. But even good role models are not great role models. All of them have lapses and bad choices somewhere along the way.

I have no granddaughters, but if I had I would not consider Hillary a good role model for them. I don't think Hillary is a good role model for anybody, male or female.
Condy Rice would be my choice there.

I don't think there is a line I could cross where I would consider that I wish Hillary had won the election. Maybe if the Russian plot thingie bears out, where Trump is just part of a nest of Russian spies in the WH. I think we have better odds of discovering an advanced civilization on the Moon. I think she is so reprehensible and rotten. JMHO. But I can wish that Kasich and any of a half dozen others had won. Already there. But nobody ever asks me how I can defend Kasich.

I agree that there is almost no chance that we find out that Trump and Co. are a bunch of spies.

I disagree that the chance that some of them colluded with the Russians for financial or political gain around the 2016 election, is much greater. And as of now, they must be considered innocent (until proven guilty). However, there are so many situations that raise questions that I will be more surprised if there was no collusion at all, than if there was some.