So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

I have no problem with Trump tweeting his thoughts directly to the world. My issue is what his thoughts are and how he does not filter them. He uses Twitter as a bully pulpit too frequently, too often does not actually know what he is talking about, regularly makes incendiary claims with no support, and on and on.

But nice red herring.

(06-20-2017 10:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

I have no problem with Trump tweeting his thoughts directly to the world. My issue is what his thoughts are and how he does not filter them. He uses Twitter as a bully pulpit too frequently, too often does not actually know what he is talking about, regularly makes incendiary claims with no support, and on and on.

But nice red herring.

Getting uncivil again. Please stop telling me my thoughts on this matter are a red herring. The implication is,that I am trying to cover up spmething by leading you astray. I am not.

I just don't see this as a big deal. If some of you are concerned, maybe explain why this is going to change what the MSM reports.

(06-20-2017 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

I have no problem with Trump tweeting his thoughts directly to the world. My issue is what his thoughts are and how he does not filter them. He uses Twitter as a bully pulpit too frequently, too often does not actually know what he is talking about, regularly makes incendiary claims with no support, and on and on.

But nice red herring.

Getting uncivil again. Please stop telling me my thoughts on this matter are a red herring. The implication is,that I am trying to cover up spmething by leading you astray. I am not.

I just don't see this as a big deal. If some of you are concerned, maybe explain why this is going to change what the MSM reports.

My goodness, apparently any critique of your argument is now being uncivil... You grossly misstated my thoughts on a matter, and it appeared to be to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

And I find this concerning for a few reasons.

One, it is the only regularly scheduled time when the press can ask the administration questions about current events. Those questions and subsequent answers can provide significant insight into where the POTUS is taking the country and the decisions he is making. Reducing the ability of the press to report reduces the ability for others to know that sort of information.

Second, it dulls the press' sword (which is why it was done). Regardless of the president, the press is around, and protected by the 1st amendment, to help act as a check on the administration and challenge them. By making it more difficult to report on these briefings (or curtailing them altogether), it reduces the ability of the press to probe and challenge the administration when necessary. I for one don't want to live in a country where the POTUS gets to dictate how they are covered by the media.

Third, I want a WH that is not opaque. That was one of the big knocks on the Obama admin, and Trump is taking it a whole step further. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And this will change what the MSM reports because they will not have the side of the WH in many stories. And then for other items, they won't have stories at all. It's not like the only articles written by the reporters are about scandals (those are just the ones that get the most attention).

So answer me this, are you OK with a reclusive executive branch that avoids probing questions? If so, why?

(06-20-2017 11:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

I have no problem with Trump tweeting his thoughts directly to the world. My issue is what his thoughts are and how he does not filter them. He uses Twitter as a bully pulpit too frequently, too often does not actually know what he is talking about, regularly makes incendiary claims with no support, and on and on.

But nice red herring.

Getting uncivil again. Please stop telling me my thoughts on this matter are a red herring. The implication is,that I am trying to cover up spmething by leading you astray. I am not.

I just don't see this as a big deal. If some of you are concerned, maybe explain why this is going to change what the MSM reports.

My goodness, apparently any critique of your argument is now being uncivil... You grossly misstated my thoughts on a matter, and it appeared to be to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

And I find this concerning for a few reasons.

One, it is the only regularly scheduled time when the press can ask the administration questions about current events. Those questions and subsequent answers can provide significant insight into where the POTUS is taking the country and the decisions he is making. Reducing the ability of the press to report reduces the ability for others to know that sort of information.

Second, it dulls the press' sword (which is why it was done). Regardless of the president, the press is around, and protected by the 1st amendment, to help act as a check on the administration and challenge them. By making it more difficult to report on these briefings (or curtailing them altogether), it reduces the ability of the press to probe and challenge the administration when necessary. I for one don't want to live in a country where the POTUS gets to dictate how they are covered by the media.

Third, I want a WH that is not opaque. That was one of the big knocks on the Obama admin, and Trump is taking it a whole step further. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And this will change what the MSM reports because they will not have the side of the WH in many stories. And then for other items, they won't have stories at all. It's not like the only articles written by the reporters are about scandals (those are just the ones that get the most attention).

So answer me this, are you OK with a reclusive executive branch that avoids probing questions? If so, why?

Nice red herring.

A. At this regularly scheduled time, are the press unable to ask questions due to the lack of cameras?

B. Why does the lack of cameras make the press unable to report?

C. Tweeting all the time is not being opaque, and holding press conferences is not opaque, whether or not they are videoed. Not holding press conferences and not tweeting is being opaque.
d. Why won't they have the side of the WH. Does it have to come on tape for them to believe their ears?

The lat questions n is just silly, and a set up. Nice set up.

(06-20-2017 11:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 11:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So when Trump tweets his thoughts directly to,the world, you hate that, and now you say he is trying to be opaque, and you hate that. Too open, too closed damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Look, I have no problem with either the recording or,the,lack,of,recording. When they go months with nothing at all,, that would concern me.

But I think boohooing because Sean would not let me take his picture while he was talking To me is just a crybaby media that wants anything to cry about.

I have no problem with Trump tweeting his thoughts directly to the world. My issue is what his thoughts are and how he does not filter them. He uses Twitter as a bully pulpit too frequently, too often does not actually know what he is talking about, regularly makes incendiary claims with no support, and on and on.

But nice red herring.

Getting uncivil again. Please stop telling me my thoughts on this matter are a red herring. The implication is,that I am trying to cover up spmething by leading you astray. I am not.

I just don't see this as a big deal. If some of you are concerned, maybe explain why this is going to change what the MSM reports.

My goodness, apparently any critique of your argument is now being uncivil... You grossly misstated my thoughts on a matter, and it appeared to be to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

And I find this concerning for a few reasons.

One, it is the only regularly scheduled time when the press can ask the administration questions about current events. Those questions and subsequent answers can provide significant insight into where the POTUS is taking the country and the decisions he is making. Reducing the ability of the press to report reduces the ability for others to know that sort of information.

Second, it dulls the press' sword (which is why it was done). Regardless of the president, the press is around, and protected by the 1st amendment, to help act as a check on the administration and challenge them. By making it more difficult to report on these briefings (or curtailing them altogether), it reduces the ability of the press to probe and challenge the administration when necessary. I for one don't want to live in a country where the POTUS gets to dictate how they are covered by the media.

Third, I want a WH that is not opaque. That was one of the big knocks on the Obama admin, and Trump is taking it a whole step further. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And this will change what the MSM reports because they will not have the side of the WH in many stories. And then for other items, they won't have stories at all. It's not like the only articles written by the reporters are about scandals (those are just the ones that get the most attention).

So answer me this, are you OK with a reclusive executive branch that avoids probing questions? If so, why?

Nice red herring.

A. At this regularly scheduled time, are the press unable to ask questions due to the lack of cameras?

B. Why does the lack of cameras make the press unable to report?

C. Tweeting all the time is not being opaque, and holding press conferences is not opaque, whether or not they are videoed. Not holding press conferences and not tweeting is being opaque.
d. Why won't they have the side of the WH. Does it have to come on tape for them to believe their ears?

The lat questions n is just silly, and a set up. Nice set up.

No, when daily briefings are held, the press can still ask questions. Did I suggest otherwise? I also didn't suggest that they were unable to report. I specifically mentioned that it made it more difficult, not impossible.

You seem to continually grossly misrepresent my views in your responses, which is honestly kind of frustrating.

Why isn't the press on the side of the WH? Throughout the campaign Trump absolutely abused them and treated them as the enemy. I can't think of a better way to get people interested in investigative journalism to try and ask difficult and probing questions.

But if you had to pick, would you rather have a press that is ornery or one that is complacent?

And why wouldn't you answer my question? It wasn't a set up or a leading question. Your response could easily be that you aren't OK with a reclusive White House, but you don't see this action being indicative of one... How is that a set up?

Optimistic, if you were being sued in a lawsuit, would you want the other side deposed on video, with a recorded transcript, when it was explaining the basis of its case against you?

Before you say press briefings aren't a lawsuit, I'll agree. They're not. But lawsuits are about (or are supposed to be about) getting to the truth, and pressure testing each party's allegations, statements, and reasonings is an essential part of that process.

In that sense, there are some similarities here. The press are the eyes and ears of the electorate in a democracy. In that role, they should be able to really pressure test what our political leaders say, report on their exact words, and show how they respond to hard questioning. At least, that's my opinion. It's also my opinion that I'm fine with a somewhat adversarial relationship between the press and elected officials. The press are not supposed to be performing PR; they're supposed to be challenging politicians whose words and actions have the ability to affect our lives.

Do you really not see *any* meaningful difference between holding an unrecorded press conference--which allows further room for debate as to what was really said and what is just "fake news," as if that's what we really need here--versus having clear, recorded press conferences where there is an actual record we can go to if there is a dispute about what was said? The needle doesn't move for you at all? And it would not move for you had it been Obama or Hillary who instituted this new development?

(06-20-2017 11:45 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Optimistic, if you were being sued in a lawsuit, would you want the other side deposed on video, with a recorded transcript, when it was explaining the basis of its case against you?

Before you say press briefings aren't a lawsuit, I'll agree. They're not. But lawsuits are about (or are supposed to be about) getting to the truth, and pressure testing each party's allegations, statements, and reasonings is an essential part of that process.

In that sense, there are some similarities here. The press are the eyes and ears of the electorate in a democracy. In that role, they should be able to really pressure test what our political leaders say, report on their exact words, and show how they respond to hard questioning. At least, that's my opinion. It's also my opinion that I'm fine with a somewhat adversarial relationship between the press and elected officials. The press are not supposed to be performing PR; they're supposed to be challenging politicians whose words and actions have the ability to affect our lives.

Do you really not see *any* meaningful difference between holding an unrecorded press conference--which allows further room for debate as to what was really said and what is just "fake news," as if that's what we really need here--versus having clear, recorded press conferences where there is an actual record we can go to if there is a dispute about what was said? The needle doesn't move for you at all? And it would not move for you had it been Obama or Hillary who instituted this new development?

Nope. Just don't see that it makes a difference. I guess ever.yone is worried that when the WH says"that's not what we said", the denials of 50 top reporters who were there won't be enough.

We just had an no guilty verdict in the shooting of a man that was caught on videotape and Facebook. Makes you wonder about the value of recordings, doesn't it? Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

If it had been Obama or Hillary, I would wonder why they did that since their relationship with most of the media was so cozy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But I wouldn't worry about not getting the news of what was said in their press conferences without a recording. At least, not if some of the media could remember how to take a note, using pen and paper. The rest, I guess, would just say, "something was announced but I don't know what since I had no video to look at".

(06-21-2017 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We just had an no guilty verdict in the shooting of a man that was caught on videotape and Facebook. Makes you wonder about the value of recordings, doesn't it? Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Ah I see, you're saying that Spicer or Trump or someone else in the administration is likely to actually shoot a member of the press during a briefing at the rate things are going, and video "evidence" would only confuse things rather than serve justice. Fair point!

(or maybe assault a member of the press with a podium or something).

(06-21-2017 01:53 PM)erice Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We just had an no guilty verdict in the shooting of a man that was caught on videotape and Facebook. Makes you wonder about the value of recordings, doesn't it? Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Ah I see, you're saying that Spicer or Trump or someone else in the administration is likely to actually shoot a member of the press during a briefing at the rate things are going, and video "evidence" would only confuse things rather than serve justice. Fair point!

(or maybe assault a member of the press with a podium or something).

Depending on who he shoots, it could be ruled justifiable homicide. [/levity]

So, if Spicer DID shoot a member of the press from the podium, is a video needed to convict? Or will the 50 eyewitnesses pass muster?

It would be interesting to see though. Just like I would love to see video of the Gettysburg Address. Guess we will never know what he REALLY said that day.

Nope, just saying the press can do their job without video cams.

Is anybody saying they cannot?

Related question: lots of judges ban video from courtrooms. Is that so injustice can be done in secret?

(06-21-2017 04:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 01:53 PM)erice Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We just had an no guilty verdict in the shooting of a man that was caught on videotape and Facebook. Makes you wonder about the value of recordings, doesn't it? Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Ah I see, you're saying that Spicer or Trump or someone else in the administration is likely to actually shoot a member of the press during a briefing at the rate things are going, and video "evidence" would only confuse things rather than serve justice. Fair point!

(or maybe assault a member of the press with a podium or something).

Depending on who he shoots, it could be ruled justifiable homicide. [/levity]

So, if Spicer DID shoot a member of the press from the podium, is a video needed to convict? Or will the 50 eyewitnesses pass muster?

It would be interesting to see though. Just like I would love to see video of the Gettysburg Address. Guess we will never know what he REALLY said that day.

Nope, just saying the press can do their job without video cams.

Is anybody saying they cannot?

Related question: lots of judges ban video from courtrooms. Is that so injustice can be done in secret?

There's speculation that one reason the Gettysburg Address was so short was so it could be reprinted in its entirety on one newspaper page.

Courts ban videos but have stenographers to keep a complete transcript. Is there a verbatim transcript of the daily briefings?

I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I feel like this is a frog in boiling water situation, where all of these little changes to norms continue to build and build and no one notices the issues they all cause until it's too late.

On their own the constant lies Trump says on Twitter, revocking recording capabilities, complete opaqueness of WH visitor laws, no tax release of tax returns, etc. are not major afronts to democracy. But you keep putting them together and it just doesn't feel right - it looks like the administration is intentionally being overly secretive and unwilling to answer to the American people.

(09-30-1974 04:24 PM)JSA Wrote:  There's speculation that one reason the Gettysburg Address was so short was so it could be reprinted in its entirety on one newspaper page.

Just like Trump and the Twitter character limit!

He's Lincoln!

Awesome.

(06-21-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I think it's a pretty looooong runway . . .

(06-21-2017 05:27 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I think it's a pretty looooong runway . . .

There's the problem. You guys think this is in defense of Trump. Just saying, the press can still report the news.

As for pretty bad ideas, I have been saying for a year now the Wall is stupid. HELLO? Is this thing on?

I guess I will just have to repeat everything again, since y'all are so selective in your hearing. Trump has done/is doing/wants to do some things I like. he also has done/is doing/wants to do some things I don't like.

When the original list of 17 candidates announced for the nomination, he was about 14-16 on my list. Kasich was first. When it was reduced to 4, Kasich was first again. In between, I went for other candidates - Fiorena, Rubio, others, bu tas they dropped out, I still did not become a Trumpster. I voted for Rubio in the primary. I did not cast a vote for president in the general. Originally, there was one democratic candidate who might have gotten my vote against Trump, Jim Webb. Democrats hated him. Hooda thunk it, Democrats and me like different things.

I think Trump has a lot of bad qualities, some of which are not qualities I would like in a President and some of which are not qualities I would like in a person. Among his bad qualities are NOT collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Those are just formless smoke thrown up to serve the interests of the Democratic party in 2018.
Yet I still would not see him as a role model for my grandsons.

I would not ever vote for Hillary, as she is one of the worst human beings in North America. The deal was sealed for me when she sidled up to Susan Smith and whispered the lie du jour into the ear of a grieving mother. How you guys can overlook that behavior is beyond me. Totally reprehensible and self-serving. True, didn''t much like her before. Zero accomplishments in office and in life, yet she deserves it, it's her turn. Better with Hillary. Snobbish and entitled are not attractive qualities to me. But what the heck, i'm just a deplorable.

Nothing above is new. You have all heard it before. Yet we get the {quoted above}statements purporting that I rubberstamp everything Trump does or says.

A little honesty, fellows, goes a long way.

(06-21-2017 11:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:27 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I think it's a pretty looooong runway . . .

There's the problem. You guys think this is in defense of Trump. Just saying, the press can still report the news.

As for pretty bad ideas, I have been saying for a year now the Wall is stupid. HELLO? Is this thing on?

I guess I will just have to repeat everything again, since y'all are so selective in your hearing. Trump has done/is doing/wants to do some things I like. he also has done/is doing/wants to do some things I don't like.

When the original list of 17 candidates announced for the nomination, he was about 14-16 on my list. Kasich was first. When it was reduced to 4, Kasich was first again. In between, I went for other candidates - Fiorena, Rubio, others, bu tas they dropped out, I still did not become a Trumpster. I voted for Rubio in the primary. I did not cast a vote for president in the general. Originally, there was one democratic candidate who might have gotten my vote against Trump, Jim Webb. Democrats hated him. Hooda thunk it, Democrats and me like different things.

I think Trump has a lot of bad qualities, some of which are not qualities I would like in a President and some of which are not qualities I would like in a person. Among his bad qualities are NOT collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Those are just formless smoke thrown up to serve the interests of the Democratic party in 2018.
Yet I still would not see him as a role model for my grandsons.

I would not ever vote for Hillary, as she is one of the worst human beings in North America. The deal was sealed for me when she sidled up to Susan Smith and whispered the lie du jour into the ear of a grieving mother. How you guys can overlook that behavior is beyond me. Totally reprehensible and self-serving. True, didn''t much like her before. Zero accomplishments in office and in life, yet she deserves it, it's her turn. Better with Hillary. Snobbish and entitled are not attractive qualities to me. But what the heck, i'm just a deplorable.

Nothing above is new. You have all heard it before. Yet we get the {quoted above}statements purporting that I rubberstamp everything Trump does or says.

A little honesty, fellows, goes a long way.

Why is Clinton being brought up? I find it interesting how frequently she is brought up by our conservative leaning posters.

And we stated, in essence, that you rubberstamp everything Trump does or say because, since the election, you have. Pretty much any time ANY criticism is leveled, you've come to the defense of Trump either directly or by trying to divert the criticism somewhere else. Here are a few examples (a lot of which don't even deal with Russia or obstruction of justice):

Your pushback on a hypothetical about requiring a test be administered to presidential candidates after an interview with Trump (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-142...id14299891)

Your defense about Trump's flub about Andre Jackson (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14306331)

Your tangential argument that one example of Trump's bad habit of parroting the last thing he heard was not him lying (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14307429)

Supporting Trump's decision to allow Russian media into a closed door meeting, and not the US (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14326986)

After I posted photos of Trump treating the Russian ambassador nicely and being ice to Angela Merkel, you pivot immediately away from it without commenting on your thoughts on how Trump is now seemingly doing the same thing you were criticizing Obama for (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14335841)

Ah, the ol' Trump bow in Saudi Arabia and somehow you disagreeing with me about his avoidance of a term by agreeing with me (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14351827)

Support of various Trump members incorrectly filling out their security clearance paperwork (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...14365806).

And I'm sure I could keep going.

I will 100% admit that I am very critical of this president, and I have been since he started running. Perhaps your pushback/deflection is just a natural reaction to the team dynamics of this thing, which is understandable. Pretty much everyone is willing to brush off more things that their side did as opposed to the other.

(06-22-2017 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 11:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:27 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I think it's a pretty looooong runway . . .

There's the problem. You guys think this is in defense of Trump. Just saying, the press can still report the news.

As for pretty bad ideas, I have been saying for a year now the Wall is stupid. HELLO? Is this thing on?

I guess I will just have to repeat everything again, since y'all are so selective in your hearing. Trump has done/is doing/wants to do some things I like. he also has done/is doing/wants to do some things I don't like.

When the original list of 17 candidates announced for the nomination, he was about 14-16 on my list. Kasich was first. When it was reduced to 4, Kasich was first again. In between, I went for other candidates - Fiorena, Rubio, others, bu tas they dropped out, I still did not become a Trumpster. I voted for Rubio in the primary. I did not cast a vote for president in the general. Originally, there was one democratic candidate who might have gotten my vote against Trump, Jim Webb. Democrats hated him. Hooda thunk it, Democrats and me like different things.

I think Trump has a lot of bad qualities, some of which are not qualities I would like in a President and some of which are not qualities I would like in a person. Among his bad qualities are NOT collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Those are just formless smoke thrown up to serve the interests of the Democratic party in 2018.
Yet I still would not see him as a role model for my grandsons.

I would not ever vote for Hillary, as she is one of the worst human beings in North America. The deal was sealed for me when she sidled up to Susan Smith and whispered the lie du jour into the ear of a grieving mother. How you guys can overlook that behavior is beyond me. Totally reprehensible and self-serving. True, didn''t much like her before. Zero accomplishments in office and in life, yet she deserves it, it's her turn. Better with Hillary. Snobbish and entitled are not attractive qualities to me. But what the heck, i'm just a deplorable.

Nothing above is new. You have all heard it before. Yet we get the {quoted above}statements purporting that I rubberstamp everything Trump does or says.

A little honesty, fellows, goes a long way.

Why is Clinton being brought up? I find it interesting how frequently she is brought up by our conservative leaning posters.

And we stated, in essence, that you rubberstamp everything Trump does or say because, since the election, you have. Pretty much any time ANY criticism is leveled, you've come to the defense of Trump either directly or by trying to divert the criticism somewhere else. Here are a few examples (a lot of which don't even deal with Russia or obstruction of justice):

Your pushback on a hypothetical about requiring a test be administered to presidential candidates after an interview with Trump (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-142...id14299891)

Your defense about Trump's flub about Andre Jackson (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14306331)

Your tangential argument that one example of Trump's bad habit of parroting the last thing he heard was not him lying (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14307429)

Supporting Trump's decision to allow Russian media into a closed door meeting, and not the US (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14326986)

After I posted photos of Trump treating the Russian ambassador nicely and being ice to Angela Merkel, you pivot immediately away from it without commenting on your thoughts on how Trump is now seemingly doing the same thing you were criticizing Obama for (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14335841)

Ah, the ol' Trump bow in Saudi Arabia and somehow you disagreeing with me about his avoidance of a term by agreeing with me (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14351827)

Support of various Trump members incorrectly filling out their security clearance paperwork (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...14365806).

And I'm sure I could keep going.

I will 100% admit that I am very critical of this president, and I have been since he started running. Perhaps your pushback/deflection is just a natural reaction to the team dynamics of this thing, which is understandable. Pretty much everyone is willing to brush off more things that their side did as opposed to the other.

Clinton is being brought up because she was the democratic candidate that Trump defeated. She was the alternative. Your pushback would lead one to think that I was a Trump supporter from the git-go and have blindly rubberstamped his policies just because they were Trump's policies, when in fact I opposed his election and oppose many of his policies and/or his way of implementing them.

Saying I rubberstamp everything when in fact you know I don't is exactly the sort of statement that has led some people to say that Trump lies all the time.

But when I see nonsense, I call nonsense. When I see shades of gray when others are yelling "black and white", I say so. When the crowd is hollering "she's a witch", and all I see is a scapegoat, I say so.

A lot of nonsense and scapegoating going on.

Yep, you and I disagree on a lot of things, Lad, but not on everything, so why do you continue to fight to prove it is everything?

So what is the problem with the press corp taking notes? Is it because it was the Trump Administration that ordered this? Seems to be that way. What is the loss of freedom or the furtherance of the Russians that one sees in this?

I think you are more on a team that I am, so maybe you know more about team dynamics. Maybe I have missed it, but what are the Trump actions that you applauded and support? What choices has he made in economics, foreign policy, and staffing that you have publicly supported? Or what are the Democrats' accusations that you disagree with? I made my opposition to various Trump policies publicly known from the beginning, and you have forgotten that, and with this last post, pointedly ignored it. Go Team!

Trump is president. Not my first choice, nor my last, not my preference, except in comparison with Hillary (his opponent, remember?). I don't like his manner oftentimes, I don't like his tweeting, but I can find things i like, and not just knee jerk like everything or hate everything, as some do.

Tell me what you like about him. I have told you some of the things I don't like about him.

I will say two things Trump did in the campaign that I liked relative to other R candidates.

1) Promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. It was a pretty big part of what he said set him apart from other Republicans. Unfortunately, that was a lie, as he's on the verge of gutting at two of the three. We know that it is a "dream" of Paul Ryan's to gut the third.

2) Expressed support for (or at least did not display the obsessive maniacal hatred of) members of the LBGT community. However, his actions in office unfortunately have shown that he's perfectly willing to let the Pence side of the party take the lead on those issues...

I did think his statement after the baseball shooting was pretty good and struck the right note. It was also totally out of character, but hey.


Edit: I also agreed when he called the Trumpcare bill "mean".

(06-22-2017 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 11:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:27 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder what it would take the Trump admin doing to finally get OO to say that it is a bad idea.

I think it's a pretty looooong runway . . .

There's the problem. You guys think this is in defense of Trump. Just saying, the press can still report the news.

As for pretty bad ideas, I have been saying for a year now the Wall is stupid. HELLO? Is this thing on?

I guess I will just have to repeat everything again, since y'all are so selective in your hearing. Trump has done/is doing/wants to do some things I like. he also has done/is doing/wants to do some things I don't like.

When the original list of 17 candidates announced for the nomination, he was about 14-16 on my list. Kasich was first. When it was reduced to 4, Kasich was first again. In between, I went for other candidates - Fiorena, Rubio, others, bu tas they dropped out, I still did not become a Trumpster. I voted for Rubio in the primary. I did not cast a vote for president in the general. Originally, there was one democratic candidate who might have gotten my vote against Trump, Jim Webb. Democrats hated him. Hooda thunk it, Democrats and me like different things.

I think Trump has a lot of bad qualities, some of which are not qualities I would like in a President and some of which are not qualities I would like in a person. Among his bad qualities are NOT collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Those are just formless smoke thrown up to serve the interests of the Democratic party in 2018.
Yet I still would not see him as a role model for my grandsons.

I would not ever vote for Hillary, as she is one of the worst human beings in North America. The deal was sealed for me when she sidled up to Susan Smith and whispered the lie du jour into the ear of a grieving mother. How you guys can overlook that behavior is beyond me. Totally reprehensible and self-serving. True, didn''t much like her before. Zero accomplishments in office and in life, yet she deserves it, it's her turn. Better with Hillary. Snobbish and entitled are not attractive qualities to me. But what the heck, i'm just a deplorable.

Nothing above is new. You have all heard it before. Yet we get the {quoted above}statements purporting that I rubberstamp everything Trump does or says.

A little honesty, fellows, goes a long way.

Why is Clinton being brought up? I find it interesting how frequently she is brought up by our conservative leaning posters.

And we stated, in essence, that you rubberstamp everything Trump does or say because, since the election, you have. Pretty much any time ANY criticism is leveled, you've come to the defense of Trump either directly or by trying to divert the criticism somewhere else. Here are a few examples (a lot of which don't even deal with Russia or obstruction of justice):

Your pushback on a hypothetical about requiring a test be administered to presidential candidates after an interview with Trump (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-142...id14299891)

Your defense about Trump's flub about Andre Jackson (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14306331)

Your tangential argument that one example of Trump's bad habit of parroting the last thing he heard was not him lying (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14307429)

Supporting Trump's decision to allow Russian media into a closed door meeting, and not the US (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14326986)

After I posted photos of Trump treating the Russian ambassador nicely and being ice to Angela Merkel, you pivot immediately away from it without commenting on your thoughts on how Trump is now seemingly doing the same thing you were criticizing Obama for (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14335841)

Ah, the ol' Trump bow in Saudi Arabia and somehow you disagreeing with me about his avoidance of a term by agreeing with me (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...id14351827)

Support of various Trump members incorrectly filling out their security clearance paperwork (http://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-143...14365806).

And I'm sure I could keep going.

I will 100% admit that I am very critical of this president, and I have been since he started running. Perhaps your pushback/deflection is just a natural reaction to the team dynamics of this thing, which is understandable. Pretty much everyone is willing to brush off more things that their side did as opposed to the other.

Clinton is being brought up because she was the democratic candidate that Trump defeated. She was the alternative. Your pushback would lead one to think that I was a Trump supporter from the git-go and have blindly rubberstamped his policies just because they were Trump's policies, when in fact I opposed his election and oppose many of his policies and/or his way of implementing them.

Saying I rubberstamp everything when in fact you know I don't is exactly the sort of statement that has led some people to say that Trump lies all the time.

But when I see nonsense, I call nonsense. When I see shades of gray when others are yelling "black and white", I say so. When the crowd is hollering "she's a witch", and all I see is a scapegoat, I say so.

A lot of nonsense and scapegoating going on.

Yep, you and I disagree on a lot of things, Lad, but not on everything, so why do you continue to fight to prove it is everything?

So what is the problem with the press corp taking notes? Is it because it was the Trump Administration that ordered this? Seems to be that way. What is the loss of freedom or the furtherance of the Russians that one sees in this?

I think you are more on a team that I am, so maybe you know more about team dynamics. Maybe I have missed it, but what are the Trump actions that you applauded and support? What choices has he made in economics, foreign policy, and staffing that you have publicly supported? Or what are the Democrats' accusations that you disagree with? I made my opposition to various Trump policies publicly known from the beginning, and you have forgotten that, and with this last post, pointedly ignored it. Go Team!

Trump is president. Not my first choice, nor my last, not my preference, except in comparison with Hillary (his opponent, remember?). I don't like his manner oftentimes, I don't like his tweeting, but I can find things i like, and not just knee jerk like everything or hate everything, as some do.

Tell me what you like about him. I have told you some of the things I don't like about him.

Well?

I think Lad makes a good point above about the cumulative effect of all the norms being crushed. Individually, none of them are crucial to the survival of our democracy, but stable democracies are built on norms and traditions as well as law and constitutions. (Some, like the UK, don't actually have a formal constitution.) It's a little like Jenga. You can't take too many out at once.

Of course, traditions and institutions develop and change over time, but are often replaced by new and hopefully better ones. I think we are in a period of institutional hardball which started in the 90sm where the rules and norms keep changing. Hopefully we'll come to an equilibrium at some point. But so many of the norms Trump is breaking are not about specific approaches to democracy, of which there are many that "work"*, but fundamental to democracy. That's what scares me.



*I tend to agree with Churchill that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others..."