(02-17-2017 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think I thought was OO that asked about my assertion of the american people's right to know what was going on between the Trump org and Russia. Turns out at least one Fox News reporter agrees with me.

This clip of Sharp Smith is a pretty good summary of my current feelings on the matter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fysSDYkhHlU

Good to finally see your response.

also good to see you are quoting Fox news as an authority. I could never get away with that.

so what is this "right to know' that you and Shep Smith are talking about? Is it a constitutional right? Was it in a law passed in 1799? All I asked you was what is this right you are asserting, and all you can come back with is a second person quoting this right. If I have a right to know, I want to exercise it. I want to know what is said when Schumer and Pelosi meet privately. I want to know what is said when the DNC meets or one member calls another. I want to know what the UTEP game plan is for tomorrow night.

I asked you to explain about my right to know. You can start anytime.

Right now, I would like to know, and I have a right to know, what were your criticisms of my timeline of the Russian takeover? There are a lot of logical inconsistancies with the story of Russian meddling and influence, and I hope I pointed some of those out for the ones willing to see. What did you think of that? where do you disagree.

As for Flynn's phone call to the Russian Ambassador, nobody has yet shown an attempt to conduct diplomacy on his own, including the wiretappers. Nobody has shown an attempt to wrest policy away from the President. At worst, just a guy who would be office in a month saying that then, he could be more flexible. No terms agreed on, no agreements hammered into place.

So, I still think this is hysteria, and you are caught up in the mob (little m) who is acting emotionally to the Russian threat instead of thinking about it.

The press can ask. They can dig. That is the freedom of the press from the Billk of Rights. But they do not have a right to an answer. Nor do they have the right to go beyond security protocols. The leaker did not have the right to decide to leak.

That's the way I see it, anyway. If I am wrong, I would like to know where Seal team Six is deployed and their next mission. I have a right to know.

My son went though Russia about six years ago, tranversing the country East to West. If I were a Cabinet appointee, I think this would just be more proof of how Russia has taken over our government. Another log on the fire of hyteria. But I'm not, and we can all be thankful for that.

Busy today. Will respond to your responses when I can.

Geeze, I get busy for a day with work and meetings and OO flogs me for it. Sorry about that.

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I have no idea of what percentage of the electorate believe him when he makes erroneous statements.

I suspect it's smaller than you fear.

I suspect that a lot of Trump's supporters understand when he is speaking off the cuff and based on what he believes, as opposed to facts (in some cases minor, often major) and frankly they don't care.

In either case, arguing to the ground stuff like this won't change either group's support for Trump.

One knows he 'exaggerates' and doesn't care.

The other group believes him and explicitly won't believe those who oppose him no matter how often CNN or ABC or anyone else verbally calls him on his gross inaccuracies, since they also believe the press is out to get him (and, let's face it, . . . . . . ).

Focusing on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue (or the 'how much he won California by' issue) will never change anything.

At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.

That's not to say that there aren't real issues that need to be bird-dogged and that close scrutiny applied. But could we be smarter about it?

I'm sick of the soap opera quality of everything coming out of Washington. It would be difficult to deal with at times anyway, but it would be easier if it didn't feel like EVERYTHING the Administration does is going to be criticized roundly.

I have to admit I don't completely follow your point, but I do think the electoral college lies are an issue. He's either knowingly lying repeatedly even though it's something easily disproven or he is existing in his own world of "alternative facts". He is the most powerful man on earth right now. Either one of those options is scary.

He also repeated the nonsense about "Hillary gave Russia 20% of our Uranium" which is false on multiple levels and has been debunked repeatedly. It's one thing for your crazy uncle on facebook to be repeating nonsense, but this is the leader of the free world at a press conference.

(02-17-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Geeze, I get busy for a day with work and meetings and OO flogs me for it. Sorry about that.

They don't stop me.

Do I think Putin has masterminded some 10-year plan to elect Donald Trump President? No

Do I think Trump went to the Russians as a lender of last resort, and that has opened a potentially big window for them? Yes.

Do I have a right to know SEAL operations? No.

Do I have a right to know if the President et al. are playing footsies with Russians they shouldn't be? Yes.

(02-17-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  It's one thing for your crazy uncle on facebook to be repeating nonsense, but this is the leader of the free world at a press conference.

At this point, I think most would trust Drunk Uncle from SNL more than Trump.

BTW, I mentioned uranium in the previous post. In case some of you are confused by that reference, President Trump offered this helpful reminder:

"You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things."

Exactly.

Not clear on nuclear weapons? Another helpful reminder:

"...don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's no up-side. We're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other."

I'm sure some libTARD or DEMONcrat will twist this and try and say he's giving us top secret info from a briefing. But he can say that because it's in the most basic book. In fact I remember reading that to my daughter when she was a baby: "Curious George and the nuclear holocaust". Such fond memories!

Apparently President Trump didn't read that one, since he found out in the briefing.

OO has asked why those of us who didn't vote for Trump aren't giving him a chance. Maybe because his philosophy is that he needs to "crush" us.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-obamacare

-----------
[Trump] said that “they’re not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.” He said that Republican members of Congress aren’t elected to represent the people who live in their districts, or even the citizens of their districts — they’re elected to represent the people who voted for them, and free to ignore everybody else.

On some level, this isn’t wrong — nothing forces any elected official to care about the opinions of people who didn’t vote for him, as long as he maintains a majority in the next election. But that doesn’t mean the official hasn’t been elected to represent everyone — that the people who voted for someone else, or didn’t vote, or couldn’t vote, simply fall out of the polity.

...

This is in Trump’s intellectual DNA. In his 2007 book Think Big and Kick Ass (co-authored with Bill Zanker), he wrote, “You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win. That is a bunch of crap. In a great deal you win — not the other side. You crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself."

-----------------

Trump is not an idiot. He's an a-hole. He doesn't say and do these things because he's an idiot; he does and says them because he's an a-hole. And as pissed off as the leftist elites are about these things, the people who voted for him love them.

(02-17-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I have no idea of what percentage of the electorate believe him when he makes erroneous statements.

I suspect it's smaller than you fear.

I suspect that a lot of Trump's supporters understand when he is speaking off the cuff and based on what he believes, as opposed to facts (in some cases minor, often major) and frankly they don't care.

In either case, arguing to the ground stuff like this won't change either group's support for Trump.

One knows he 'exaggerates' and doesn't care.

The other group believes him and explicitly won't believe those who oppose him no matter how often CNN or ABC or anyone else verbally calls him on his gross inaccuracies, since they also believe the press is out to get him (and, let's face it, . . . . . . ).

Focusing on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue (or the 'how much he won California by' issue) will never change anything.

At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.

That's not to say that there aren't real issues that need to be bird-dogged and that close scrutiny applied. But could we be smarter about it?

I'm sick of the soap opera quality of everything coming out of Washington. It would be difficult to deal with at times anyway, but it would be easier if it didn't feel like EVERYTHING the Administration does is going to be criticized roundly.

I have to admit I don't completely follow your point, but I do think the electoral college lies are an issue. He's either knowingly lying repeatedly even though it's something easily disproven or he is existing in his own world of "alternative facts". He is the most powerful man on earth right now. Either one of those options is scary.

He also repeated the nonsense about "Hillary gave Russia 20% of our Uranium" which is false on multiple levels and has been debunked repeatedly. It's one thing for your crazy uncle on facebook to be repeating nonsense, but this is the leader of the free world at a press conference.

He lives in his own world where what he believes he says, and what he says he believes.

This has been true of populists since the dawn of time, from Huey Long to Hugo Chavez. Fighting to try and force him to incorporate fact into his narrative on the election is useless, and is as useless as trying to correct your best friend's recounting of a fishing story from 20 years ago. When it comes to the election, which is already over, what he says has no relevance. It hurts no one.

Hillary and the DNC have given their opinions on the election, some of them false as well.

Compared to other issues the electoral count debate is not even on the radar.

Having conversations or relationships with Russia is not the problem. The problem is whether those conversations or relationships hurt American interests. And what the motivation is. If Trump is financially benefitting from his dealings with Russia on our behalf, HUGE problem for Trump. If Trump is being 'blackmailed' by Russia and is making decisions based on what is best for Russia and not for us, big problem - and Russia is the most guilty party, although Trump would be as well.

If it's just we don't like the current Administrations policies/stances/relationships . . . . absent the above, and absent him committing espionage, that's the unfortunate ramifications of an election.

Bobby and Jack Kennedy agreed to take Titan missiles out of Turkey as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis solution. This was not publicized and did not come out for years. Were they heroes for deescalating a crisis that could have led to nuclear war or were they traitors for de-arming/weakening NATO unilaterally at the behest of a very real enemy?

(02-17-2017 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump is not an idiot. He's an a-hole. He doesn't say and do these things because he's an idiot; he does and says them because he's an a-hole. And as pissed off as the leftist elites are about these things, the people who voted for him love them.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Gallop has his disapproval rating at 53% (and approval at 41%).
That's a lot of elites.

(02-17-2017 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump is not an idiot. He's an a-hole. He doesn't say and do these things because he's an idiot; he does and says them because he's an a-hole. And as pissed off as the leftist elites are about these things, the people who voted for him love them.

Yeah, it's way more than the monolith and semi-mythical "leftist elites" that are pissed off about these things.

I wouldn't count any of my friends as "elites" quite yet, and I definitely wouldn't count my father as a leftist. In fact, with his approval rating dropping well below 50%, I'd find it hard to imagine that >50% of the country is full of "leftist elites."

Right now, Trump is pissing off almost everyone who isn't an ardent supporter.

(02-17-2017 02:35 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump is not an idiot. He's an a-hole. He doesn't say and do these things because he's an idiot; he does and says them because he's an a-hole. And as pissed off as the leftist elites are about these things, the people who voted for him love them.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Gallop has his disapproval rating at 53% (and approval at 41%).
That's a lot of elites.

Didn't read your post before I wrote mine, but yeah, in the same boat with the # of "leftist elites" there apparently are out there.

Rick, Huey Long has always been a fascinating case study for me.
His rule of thumb was, "Be of the crowd, but apart from the crowd."
Thus, silk suits and pajamas, and socks with holes in them.

He argued two cases before the Supreme Court and won both (I think) by unanimous decisions.
Chief Justice Taft (the former President) said Long had the finest legal mind he had ever encountered.

I've always wondered what would have been if he had been a more traditional politician.

(02-17-2017 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump is not an idiot. He's an a-hole. He doesn't say and do these things because he's an idiot; he does and says them because he's an a-hole. And as pissed off as the leftist elites are about these things, the people who voted for him love them.

Yeah, it's way more than the monolith and semi-mythical "leftist elites" that are pissed off about these things.

I wouldn't count any of my friends as "elites" quite yet, and I definitely wouldn't count my father as a leftist. In fact, with his approval rating dropping well below 50%, I'd find it hard to imagine that >50% of the country is full of "leftist elites."

Right now, Trump is pissing off almost everyone who isn't an ardent supporter.

I'm not pissed off. I just see an alarming lack of competence.

(02-17-2017 02:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  Rick, Huey Long has always been a fascinating case study for me.
His rule of thumb was, "Be of the crowd, but apart from the crowd."
Thus, silk suits and pajamas and socks with holes in them.

He argued two cases before the Supreme Court and won both (I think) by unanimous decisions.
Chief Justice Taft (the former President) said Long had the finest legal mind he had ever encountered.

I've always wondered what would have been if he had been a more traditional politician.

Grew up in Louisiana. Not an expert, but agree he is a fascinating individual.

Given the economic realities of the time, and his appeal to the common man, had he not been murdered (I hesitate to call it an assassination, since it was more of a personal thing, IIRC) you wonder whether he might have mounted a challenge to FDR in 1940, or at least enough of a challenge that would've dissuaded FDR from running for an unprecedented 3rd term.

There have been other charismatic leaders in the U.S., but Trump is the closest to what I would call a populist leader since the 1930's (at least off the top of my head - I think Lafollette was governor in Wisconsin at around the same time.

Economic woes tend to create conditions ripe for that brand of politician (see Europe post-WWI). Not necessarily Fascist, but definitely different.

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...
At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.
...

...
At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.
...

That's twice on this thread that you put is something that keeps happening to Trump, something that the media keeps doing to him.

It's not. He's the one who keeps making this false assertion.

In his press conference yesterday, apropos of exactly nothing, he brought it up. Here are his introductory remarks, before any questions have been taken:

Quote:Well, that's what I've been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised, oh, he having strong borders, well that's what I've been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular but they're necessary for security and for other reasons.

And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests which is more important to many politicians. I'm here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. I put it out before the American people, got 306 electoral college votes. I wasn't supposed to get 222. They said there's no way to get 222, 230's impossible.

270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media's trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they're not happy about it for whatever reason.

Then later in the Q&A section, when called on it he sidesteps, claiming that he was "given that information". The transcript's not good on the question, but presumably the questioner is pointing out that Trump's claim is false, that Obama and Bush I got more electoral college votes than he did (365 and 426, respectively), and both elections had happened since Reagan.

Quote:TRUMP: OK, go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365 (OFF-MIKE).
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obama (OFF-MIKE) 426 on (OFF-MIKE). So why should Americans...
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: ...I'm skipping that information, I don't know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) why should Americans trust you (OFF-MIKE) the information (OFF-MIKE)?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know, I was given that information. I was given -- I actually, I've seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that's...

Putting aside the obvious irony of Trump teeing up his lie with his outrage "after years of politicians lying to you", what is it that drives him to do this? It's so easily, obviously false.


Full transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/d...index.html

(02-17-2017 03:12 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...
At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.
...

...
At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.
...

That's twice on this thread that you put is something that keeps happening to Trump, something that the media keeps doing to him.

It's not. He's the one who keeps making this false assertion.

In his press conference yesterday, apropos of exactly nothing, he brought it up. Here are his introductory remarks, before any questions have been taken:

Quote:Well, that's what I've been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised, oh, he having strong borders, well that's what I've been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular but they're necessary for security and for other reasons.

And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests which is more important to many politicians. I'm here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. I put it out before the American people, got 306 electoral college votes. I wasn't supposed to get 222. They said there's no way to get 222, 230's impossible.

270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media's trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they're not happy about it for whatever reason.

Then later in the Q&A section, when called on it he sidesteps, claiming that he was "given that information". The transcript's not good on the question, but presumably the questioner is pointing out that Trump's claim is false, that Obama and Bush I got more electoral college votes than he did (365 and 426, respectively), and both elections had happened since Reagan.

Quote:TRUMP: OK, go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365 (OFF-MIKE).
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obama (OFF-MIKE) 426 on (OFF-MIKE). So why should Americans...
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: ...I'm skipping that information, I don't know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) why should Americans trust you (OFF-MIKE) the information (OFF-MIKE)?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know, I was given that information. I was given -- I actually, I've seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that's...

Putting aside the obvious irony of Trump teeing up his lie with his outrage "after years of politicians lying to you", what is it that drives him to do this? It's so easily, obviously false.


Full transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/d...index.html

I get it. But to heck with the fact that it's false. The press doesn't have to take the bait. The 'winner' of this issue is meaningless.

My wife is an F, not a T on the Myers Briggs as well. Correcting details when she's recounting a story is not a good strategy on my part, unless the matter is of extreme consequence.

My teenagers are wonderful kids. They are also stubborn. I have the ability to 'pick my battles' with them. Rather than fight with them over who is right, sometimes it's better to discuss with them why being right is not as important as what you're trying to accomplish.

My point is that the issue is wasted energy.

How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.

I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.

(02-17-2017 04:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 03:12 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...
At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.
...

...
At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.
...

That's twice on this thread that you put is something that keeps happening to Trump, something that the media keeps doing to him.

It's not. He's the one who keeps making this false assertion.

In his press conference yesterday, apropos of exactly nothing, he brought it up. Here are his introductory remarks, before any questions have been taken:

Quote:Well, that's what I've been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised, oh, he having strong borders, well that's what I've been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular but they're necessary for security and for other reasons.

And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests which is more important to many politicians. I'm here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. I put it out before the American people, got 306 electoral college votes. I wasn't supposed to get 222. They said there's no way to get 222, 230's impossible.

270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media's trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they're not happy about it for whatever reason.

Then later in the Q&A section, when called on it he sidesteps, claiming that he was "given that information". The transcript's not good on the question, but presumably the questioner is pointing out that Trump's claim is false, that Obama and Bush I got more electoral college votes than he did (365 and 426, respectively), and both elections had happened since Reagan.

Quote:TRUMP: OK, go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365 (OFF-MIKE).
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obama (OFF-MIKE) 426 on (OFF-MIKE). So why should Americans...
(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: ...I'm skipping that information, I don't know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) why should Americans trust you (OFF-MIKE) the information (OFF-MIKE)?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know, I was given that information. I was given -- I actually, I've seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that's...

Putting aside the obvious irony of Trump teeing up his lie with his outrage "after years of politicians lying to you", what is it that drives him to do this? It's so easily, obviously false.


Full transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/d...index.html

I get it. But to heck with the fact that it's false. The press doesn't have to take the bait. The 'winner' of this issue is meaningless.

My wife is an F, not a T on the Myers Briggs as well. Correcting details when she's recounting a story is not a good strategy on my part, unless the matter is of extreme consequence.

My teenagers are wonderful kids. They are also stubborn. I have the ability to 'pick my battles' with them. Rather than fight with them over who is right, sometimes it's better to discuss with them why being right is not as important as what you're trying to accomplish.

My point is that the issue is wasted energy.

How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.

I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.

You're right about picking battles, and I think the electoral college idiocy is the perfect battle. There is no way for Trump to weasel out of the the numbers like he can try to with the popular vote. The way the reporter handled the electoral college question handled it well. He very succinctly told Trump what the numbers were for the other elections and forced Trump to stare his bold-faced lie in the face and come up with an excuse.

For every lie Trump can't weasel his way out of, this is what you do. I kind of lean towards your comment about picking the battles for the lies that he can manipulate more easily.

But when he says the sky is blue, and it obviously isn't, ask him why he thinks the sky isn't blue, where he got his information on the color of the sky, and why he is telling the American people why the sky isn't blue.

(02-17-2017 04:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My point is that the issue is wasted energy.

How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.

I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.

You're taking issue with the response, but the original question here was: why does Trump keep bringing this up? Why does he keep making the same false statement?

(02-17-2017 11:19 AM)JSA Wrote:  Do I have a right to know SEAL operations? No.

Do I have a right to know if the President et al. are playing footsies with Russians they shouldn't be? Yes.

What's the difference? Why do you have a right to one set of knowledge and not the other?

Does the low level analyst have the right to decide what you have the right to know and what you don't have the right to know? What if he decides the world has the right to know where Seal Team Six is and their mission?

I think you have confused "need to know" with "right to know".


Still, can somebody give me a source for. This right and a definition of it?

And JSA, I still don't know why debt in Russia would be any sort of motivator for Trump to commit treason. Can you explain that more clearly?