(11-23-2017 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

Ok, so we're both focusing on two different things here, and for obvious reasons.

You're looking just at the situation with the players and China. As of this moment, there is no evidence to suggest anything happened besides Trump personally requesting the release of the players. In this regard, Trump acted as a POTUS should.

I'm looking at how Trump is conducting himself post-event. At which point he is singling out a father from his bully pulpit, degrading him publicly, and throwing in some racially tinged language to boot. In this regard, Trump is acting FAR from how a POTUS should.

Had Trump just focused on the facts, which you so want to focus on, there would be nothing to comment on, really. He would have done his job as he should. Instead, just as he is want to do, Trump interjected some truly boorish thoughts and opinions on the situation.

So I guess I should at least give him a pat on the back for not lying about the situation?

But now my question for you, just because Trump was correct on the facts, does that mean we should gloss over the absolutely classes response that he had to Big Baller? Should we not try and hold our POTUS to a standard that is better than that tweet?

I am not aware of the behavior rules for presidents. I think we all like the self-effacing hero, the hero who saves the child and then goes his way expecting neither recognition or thanks. Sometimes the hero saves the child and hangs around to tell the story on the ten o'clock news. Still, though, a hero.

All of our presidents have had moments when they acted or spoke in ways that many of us would consider "unpresidential". Yes, all of them. Even your favorites.

Yep, I would have preferred Trump had kept his mouth shut about what he did. My question was, did he do what he said he did? Apparently so.

Owl69 has pointed out the important aspect of this.

Did I say there were behavior rules? At this point are we only allowed to criticize someone if they explicitly broke the law or some defined rule?

I guess rules is the wrong word. I don't know the criteria used to define what is presidential behavior. Is picking up a dog by its ears presidential? That was Johnson. How about puking at a state dinner? GHWB.

I guess it is like art or porn. You know it when you see it. However, some people see porn as art, and others see nothing at all. I am still totally mystified by Jackson Pollock.