Off Topic · Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy? (page 4)

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

I don't think so. There is a report that 97.5% of who voted him before would vote him again. It is not that hard to understand. If you wouldn't care the bad things about him before, you do not care it now too. He is pretty consistent. He has done what he said he would do. To his supporters, this is what it counts. The line is that he doesn't need the love from his enemies. CNN said he has dropped to new low EVERYDAY, but who cares? His supporters would not watch/read CNN, and those watch/read it would not support him anyway.

izybx wrote:I think a lot of Trump voters would have wanted to elect someone else. But give the be two choices, I have no regrets. I got my Supreme Court nominee. I don't have to worry about losing the right to own a gun, or the criminalization of free speech (hate speech is not free speech right). We have ended up with someone who is showing his political naivety by getting schooled by the likes of Schumer, someone who is not truly a conservative in any respect. The Democratic Party has lurched so far to the left that there is no choice anymore, and we have to be happy with that we got...

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

mlby1215 wrote: He has done what he said he would do.

What has he done?

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

I don't know if anyone knows this but....... its harder to convince someone the guy they voted for is doing a bad job than trying to sell an Eskimo some ice. Specially only 6 months later and specially a fanatical Trump supporter, whose only connection to the outside world is Fox news.

But sorry...everyone carry on. Talking politics usually turns out well. Lol

Nothing to see here, folks...just keep on walking...nothing to see here.

washingtonpost.com
Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show

10-12 minutes

The accounts from Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to his superiors, intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, contradict public assertions by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Post's Greg Miller explains. Accounts from Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, contradict public assertions by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Russia’s ambassador to Washington told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to public assertions by the embattled attorney general, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials both in the United States and in Russia. Sessions initially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.

One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he has no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.

Sessions has said repeatedly that he never discussed campaign-related issues with Russian officials and that it was only in his capacity as a U.S. senator that he met with Kislyak.

“I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” Sessions said in March when he announced that he would recuse himself from matters relating to the FBI probe of Russian interference in the election and any connections to the Trump campaign.
Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests

Current and former U.S. officials said that assertion is at odds with Kislyak’s accounts of conversations during two encounters over the course of the campaign, one in April ahead of Trump’s first major foreign policy speech and another in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention.

The apparent discrepancy could pose new problems for Sessions at a time when his position in the administration appears increasingly tenuous.

Trump, in an interview this week, expressed frustration with Sessions’s recusing himself from the Russia probe and indicated that he regretted his decision to make the lawmaker from Alabama the nation’s top law enforcement officer. Trump also faulted Sessions as giving “bad answers” during his confirmation hearing about his Russian contacts during the campaign.

Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions.

“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman in a statement. She reiterated that Sessions did not discuss interference in the election.

Russian and other foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere have been known, at times, to report false or misleading information to bolster their standing with their superiors or to confuse U.S. intelligence agencies.

But U.S. officials with regular access to Russian intelligence reports say Kislyak — whose tenure as ambassador to the United States ended recently — has a reputation for accurately relaying details about his interactions with officials in Washington.

Sessions removed himself from direct involvement in the Russia investigation after it was revealed in The Washington Post that he had met with Kislyak at least twice in 2016, contacts he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing in January.

“I did not have communications with the Russians,” Sessions said when asked whether anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign had communicated with representatives of the Russian government.

He has since maintained that he misunderstood the scope of the question and that his meetings with Kislyak were strictly in his capacity as a U.S. senator. In a March appearance on Fox television, Sessions said, “I don’t recall any discussion of the campaign in any significant way.”

Sessions appeared to narrow that assertion further in extensive testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June, saying that he “never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States.”

But when pressed for details, Sessions qualified many of his answers during that hearing by saying that he could “not recall” or did not have “any recollection.”

A former U.S. official who read the Kislyak reports said that the Russian ambassador reported speaking with Sessions about issues that were central to the campaign, including Trump’s positions on key policy matters of significance to Moscow.

Sessions had a third meeting with Kislyak in his Senate office in September. Officials declined to say whether U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted any Russian communications describing the third encounter.

As a result, the discrepancies center on two earlier Sessions-Kislyak conversations, including one that Sessions has acknowledged took place in July 2016 on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention.

By that point, Russian President Vladimir Putin had decided to embark on a secret campaign to help Trump win the White House by leaking damaging emails about his rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

Although it remains unclear how involved Kislyak was in the covert Russian campaign to aid Trump, his superiors in Moscow were eager for updates about the candidate’s positions, particularly regarding U.S. sanctions on Russia and long-standing disputes with the Obama administration over conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

Kislyak also reported having a conversation with Sessions in April at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, where then-candidate Trump delivered his first major foreign policy address, according to the officials familiar with intelligence on Kislyak.

Sessions has said he does not remember any encounter with Kislyak at that event. In his June testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sessions said, “I do not recall any conversations with any Russian official at the Mayflower Hotel.”

Later in that hearing, Sessions said that “it’s conceivable that that occurred. I just don’t remember it.”

Kislyak was also a key figure in the departure of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to leave that job after The Post revealed that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Kislyak even while telling others in the Trump administration that he had not done so.

In that case, however, Flynn’s phone conversations with Kislyak were intercepted by U.S. intelligence, providing irrefutable evidence. The intelligence on Sessions, by contrast, is based on Kislyak’s accounts and not corroborated by other sources.

Former FBI director James B. Comey fueled speculation about the possibility of a Sessions-Kislyak meeting at the Mayflower when he told the same Senate committee on June 8 that the bureau had information about Sessions that would have made it “problematic” for him to be involved in the Russia probe.

Comey would not provide details of what information the FBI had, except to say that he could only discuss it privately with the senators. Current and former officials said he appeared to be alluding to intelligence on Kislyak’s account of an encounter with Sessions at the Mayflower.

Senate Democrats later called on the FBI to investigate the event in April at the Mayflower hotel.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

Sessions’s role in removing Comey as FBI director angered many at the bureau and set in motion events that led to the appointment of former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel overseeing the Russia probe.

Trump’s harsh words toward the attorney general fueled speculation this week that Sessions would be fired or would resign. So far, he has resisted resigning, saying that he intends to stay in the job “as long as that is appropriate.”

Matt Zapotosky and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Adam Entous writes about national security, foreign policy and intelligence for The Post. He joined the newspaper in 2016 after more than 20 years with The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, where he covered the Pentagon, the CIA, the White House and Congress. He covered President George W. Bush for five years after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.
Follow @nakashimae

Greg Miller is a national security correspondent for The Washington Post. He was among the Post reporters awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for coverage of U.S. surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden and a finalist for the 2013 Pulitzer Prize. He previously worked for The Los Angeles Times.
Follow @gregpmiller

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

Have you reread your initial post? I had to read it a couple of times to sort through the rambling incoherence. And you are the arbiter of what is intelligent discourse?

izybx wrote:

blkexec wrote:

matt wrote:I couldn't believe how any logical/compassionate people supported him in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me that people still do.

Trump removed the blanket, and exposed the dirty laundry. As you can see from Knick fans, there are still Trump supporters out there. It's like this man cant do no wrong, even when he does wrong.

If he was any other race, he wouldn't even be a politician!

We've come a long way....And made some great strides. Trump as president makes you realize we still have a lot to clean up in America.

What does race have to do with it? I'm Puerto Rican, but I voted for Trump because he's white? Or because I really want to be a white supremacist or something (what is the exposed dirty laundry?)

I'm tired of the race baiting, last I checked I was American before I was a Puerto Rican, or a Bronx native, or anything else. We talking politics, insinuating something is racial is a tactic of someone who has nothing to debate

If u don't believe this country was built on racism....or your Puerto Rican ancestors were once slaves, then u have some history to read. The point I was making was not necessarily all about race......But it always plays a part. Racism is in the soil and that dirt ain't going no where. And that's ok.....Its called history. But every once in a while it comes out the dirt. That's my belief.....But again, it's not that simple as race. Trump is also a celebrity just like O.J. They live by different rules than most people. It's not as black and white as it used to be......Take the celeberty tatus away from Trump or OJ....and u get a different outcome. That's all I was saying. Voting for Trump sounds like a personal problem and personally I don't care or asked. it's a free world. But I am curious to hear from the Trumpets.....

blkexec wrote:

izybx wrote:

blkexec wrote:

matt wrote:I couldn't believe how any logical/compassionate people supported him in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me that people still do.

Trump removed the blanket, and exposed the dirty laundry. As you can see from Knick fans, there are still Trump supporters out there. It's like this man cant do no wrong, even when he does wrong.

If he was any other race, he wouldn't even be a politician!

We've come a long way....And made some great strides. Trump as president makes you realize we still have a lot to clean up in America.

What does race have to do with it? I'm Puerto Rican, but I voted for Trump because he's white? Or because I really want to be a white supremacist or something (what is the exposed dirty laundry?)

I'm tired of the race baiting, last I checked I was American before I was a Puerto Rican, or a Bronx native, or anything else. We talking politics, insinuating something is racial is a tactic of someone who has nothing to debate

If u don't believe this country was built on racism....or your Puerto Rican ancestors were once slaves, then u have some history to read. The point I was making was not necessarily all about race......But it always plays a part. Racism is in the soil and that dirt ain't going no where. And that's ok.....Its called history. But every once in a while it comes out the dirt. That's my belief.....But again, it's not that simple as race. Trump is also a celebrity just like O.J. They live by different rules than most people. It's not as black and white as it used to be......Take the celeberty tatus away from Trump or OJ....and u get a different outcome. That's all I was saying. Voting for Trump sounds like a personal problem and personally I don't care or asked. it's a free world. But I am curious to hear from the Trumpets.....

I could point to a lot of things in my life and try to get victim status, but I'm good. This is the best country in the world, whatever happened before I was born is history, like you said. God bless this country and all it's provided for us. We'll get over Trump, the same way we got over Obama

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

Have you reread your initial post? I had to read it a couple of times to sort through the rambling incoherence. And you are the arbiter of what is intelligent discourse?

What does CNN have to do with who you vote for for President and your assessment of his performance?

I hope that's better phrased.

Because his defenders keep bringing the media up unsolicited and the relevancy isn't clear.

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

Have you reread your initial post? I had to read it a couple of times to sort through the rambling incoherence. And you are the arbiter of what is intelligent discourse?

What does CNN have to do with who you vote for for President and your assessment of his performance?

I hope that's better phrased.

Because his defenders keep bringing the media up unsolicited and the relevancy isn't clear.

I don't know, who cares about CNN. Why do you think that people who disagree with your politics are stupid?

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

izybx wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Paris907 wrote:While this refrain doesn't belong here, I'd vote for Trump again in a NY minute. Don Lemon and the other television personalities are disguised as journalists. Everyone's ratings are dependent on Trump. I don't care for his personality or methods or idiosyncrasies. Yet I like his agenda and his work ethic. He will do fine and perhaps Bill Maher and some other of these joksters will need to find material other than Russian collusion (ask Hillary about Collusion) when this latest embroglio is played out

This is the micro-ist of microcosms of his debate, but even here in three pages you can see 3 patterns.

1.) Comps to Clinton
2.) FUCK (mostly, the televised) media.
3.) Resentment that people don't think others make intelligent choices.

#s 2 & 3 are intertwined, however.

We're talking about the President. We should be talking about policy and statesmanship, but for some reason our choice of president and his performance has some specific relationship with what's on CNN at 9pm ET.

I fail to see the relevancy other than the popular theory Trump support is some sort of misplaced ultimate protest over the fact his supporters don't think CNN respects them and man, do they hate that.

Trump, to his credit, is just smart enough to know so long as he puts certain segments ahead of the media ahead of ISIS, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and poverty (to name a few) on his enemies list, he'll find unwavering support.

Again, someone explain how his should be the Presidents (who then gives interviews to same outlets he decries) main agenda - combating a TV network second in the ratings to Fox and some newspapers you don't read anyway.

Yes, that you see a relationship between these things makes me question your capacity for intelligent choices.

Why can't you discuss this without slipping in little insults? Are all smart people democrats? All stupid people republicans?

Because it's the point. It isn't a little aside.

If your choice and/or support of any President is related to a handful of media outlets you don't like/find yourself agreeing with, that's not an intelligent choice.

This thread isn't about calling all Republicans (not all of whom voted for Trump) dumb, it's about ASKING you what do you make of his performance now. It's inviting intelligent discourse about our president.

Nobody is discussing that. They're bringing up CNN.

Why can't I say that isn't a cogent argument when I genuinely don't think it is?

Have you reread your initial post? I had to read it a couple of times to sort through the rambling incoherence. And you are the arbiter of what is intelligent discourse?

What does CNN have to do with who you vote for for President and your assessment of his performance?

I hope that's better phrased.

Because his defenders keep bringing the media up unsolicited and the relevancy isn't clear.

I don't know, who cares about CNN. Why do you think that people who disagree with your politics are stupid?

I don't. Never said I did.

Why are you making things up?

blkexec wrote:

izybx wrote:

blkexec wrote:

matt wrote:I couldn't believe how any logical/compassionate people supported him in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me that people still do.

Trump removed the blanket, and exposed the dirty laundry. As you can see from Knick fans, there are still Trump supporters out there. It's like this man cant do no wrong, even when he does wrong.

If he was any other race, he wouldn't even be a politician!

We've come a long way....And made some great strides. Trump as president makes you realize we still have a lot to clean up in America.

What does race have to do with it? I'm Puerto Rican, but I voted for Trump because he's white? Or because I really want to be a white supremacist or something (what is the exposed dirty laundry?)

I'm tired of the race baiting, last I checked I was American before I was a Puerto Rican, or a Bronx native, or anything else. We talking politics, insinuating something is racial is a tactic of someone who has nothing to debate

If u don't believe this country was built on racism....or your Puerto Rican ancestors were once slaves, then u have some history to read. The point I was making was not necessarily all about race......But it always plays a part. Racism is in the soil and that dirt ain't going no where. And that's ok.....Its called history. But every once in a while it comes out the dirt. That's my belief.....But again, it's not that simple as race. Trump is also a celebrity just like O.J. They live by different rules than most people. It's not as black and white as it used to be......Take the celeberty tatus away from Trump or OJ....and u get a different outcome. That's all I was saying. Voting for Trump sounds like a personal problem and personally I don't care or asked. it's a free world. But I am curious to hear from the Trumpets.....

It is not that hard to understand. If you disliked Clinton more, you voted Trump. If you asked why the same people still support him, it is also very easy to understand. Do you have someone else to take it over? Do we have another George Washington waiting at the sideline? It is like Rick Grimes and his walking dead world. I don't think he is a very good leader. He is too violent to my taste. But in the world of many zombies and crazy dudes, do people have choice?

What Trump has done bad is fully expected by his people. If they looked for a leader for the right and good of human civilization, they would not vote him. They just want someone who would fight and kill for America. You could argue that our world actually are not full of zombies and insane guys. I would not say you are wrong, but I think it is enough for you to understand why the thinking are different for both sides.

I'm in the 54% that voted against him. Ugh.

smackeddog wrote:What I want to know from trump supporters is (and they didn't answer this last time)- do you think he lies or do you think he's always telling the truth? When he says things that are blatantly untrue (still waiting for that proof Obama spied on him) do you think he:

a) Believes what he is saying, in which case he is deluded
b) He doesn't believe what he is saying, in which case he's a compulsive liar

Would you like your children to grow up to be as honest as Donald Trump?

The answer to your disingenuous question is that of course Trump lies. EVERYBODY lies. Furthermore reality is a shared consensus and not some absolute truth so the whoe argument is a very slippery slope.

Furthermore, the critics are equally (and I'm being diplomatic here) disingenuous and telling fictions that have no basis in truly civilized discourse.

fishmike wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

mlby1215 wrote: Let me bring this a little bit "on topic".

One thing Trump has done right is that he never backed down before media. If he bent his knee and asked for forgiveness, would the media forgive him? Those people didn't vote for him still won't, and those people supporting him still would. It is not about making your enemies loving you, it is about making your supporters staying with you. (so it is a bad move about Sessions)

Going back Knicks and Phil. Did killing Phil accomplish anything? FA still did not come. Those people didn't come because Phil still would not come (unless vastly overpaid) because we are weak. If Phil were here, he still would attract "some" guys who respected him. A team only has 17 slots, why should a leader look to be loved by everyone? He only has to have 17 good players willing to work here. It is not beauty contest. Looking for acceptance clouds our fans a lot. Many of us really wants to join the "mass". We want to join the party. So we want to do everything people say we should do. Inside, we are very insecure.

Good post. The bottom line is that there is no fresh air to run to. Trump is the only game in town. The hate-mongers trying to destroy Trump and everyone around him offer absolutely zero reason to believe they would do a better job.

What Trump is doing in an unintuitive way is exposing the last thirty years for what they've been - an exercise in self-deception. For anyone to be able to walk into the presidency and dismantle every social program this country *assumes* its entitled to is a wake-up call and a necessary one.

Trump is not responsible for runaway healthcare costs. He's not responsible for overflowing prisons. He's not responsible for shoot-to-kill policing. He's not responsible for shitty public schools. And there's more.

All of these are bad systems but all of them have become vested interests and political special interests. The "non-profit" hospitals whose administrators make 6 and 7 digit paychecks hate Trump. The guards who make nice livings working at prisons hate Trump. The cops don't want accountability. The public schools that are big business and have nothing to do with kids learning don't want accountability. The list is long.

What Trump is doing is forcing the public to care about the things they care about most and stand up for them or lose them. The bullshit issues dissolve into dust compared to health, common good, and making a living. Political correctness is dead like a vampire but thankfully at least dead for a while.

Trump or someone worse will be around for eight years because there is no alternative. Pop some popcorn.

The issue here is you're conflating a radical worldview (which I am neither criticizing or addressing) with Trump, who really plays no role in what you're referring to.

I think someone of us, even if we don't share your views, don't understand why you wouldn't want a more committed, more capable, less embarrassing leader/spokesperson/symbol of this POV.

He has done nothing about healthcare but sit back and wait for Congress to send him something ... anything that he can call a defeat of the ACA. He has shown no actual engagement in the issue. He has done nothing about crime or education, taxes or infastructure.

What you describe is him being a caught-up as an idiot bystander, and that's good and fine, just don't know what you wouldn't prefer an effective advocate.

Not sure what you think I'm conflating - not arguing here - truly confused.

I would love a more platitudinal spokesperson but unfortunately this country has devolved into an attack dog conversation with each other. The Ideas don't matter - destroying the person with an opposing viewpoint does. That's why Trump is so popular - because he's rich enough not to give a sh@t.

And because you ignore what he has done for the media manufactured, tempest in a teapot, you believe he's an idiot because the other American pasttime has become calling the other names.

So far he hasn't become Hitler.

He hasn't been impeached before 100 days in office.

He hasn't committed treason.

He's not evil. And so on, and so on, and so on... - all of these claims being routinely treated as newsworthy by CNN.

Trump is America.

Take your red hat off dude. Trump's policies are already and immediately hurting Americans and the land starting with the coal deal and the removal of subsidies for Obama care. Go educate yourself a bit about those topics and come back to me. I would honestly like the hear the opinion of one of his supporters on why allowing coal companies to dump waste in waterways (previously outlawed) and thus saving money is a good thing. Sure... the same energy companies just use the saved money on the clean up process to hire new miners. Hey Don just created 300 coal jobs! He's a mover and a shaker.

I'm a liberal Democrat. The coal issue is like many of the rust-belt unemployment weaknesses Trump successfully took advantage of. As I understand it, as jobs were either shipped overseas or legislated (in the name of healthy regulation) away the implicit promise of those who flattened those jobs was that the affected work forces would be retrained at government expense for equal or superior jobs. Not only were these workers not retrained, they were abandoned. Furthermore, these abandoned Americans were fed a nightly dose of sob stories from the alphabet-soup special interests whose entitlement demands were absurd at face value, yet pandered to as if they were the jobless, tax paying, families in America whose jobs were gone.

So Trump's remedy (which is a bad thing in many respects) is to lighten up on regulations that strangle job growth to buy time enough for these areas to diversify and create different and better job alternatives (unlikely as that may be). You should hate that this is what its come to - I do - but its more than the Democrats have done for those who used to vote Democrat.

You can continue to buy into the hyena arguments that Trump is... (evil, glug-gla-glug-gla-glug) or you can begin to develop a better idea for solving the problem - it ain't easy or free.

Sangfroid wrote:

arkrud wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Sinix wrote:With all that's come out about the Russia story being fabricated how could one still buy into this fake news? Probably says a lot about how you easily eat up propaganda.

One clearly lives a sheltered life...doesn't one.

Trump's continued whining and threatening actually proves he did something wrong or is covering up something his people did, but Don Jr. and Kushner being involved means that Trump was aware of everything.

One does not react to a "nothing burger" in this way...

Get real.

Trump and Co were looking for any dirt on Hillary so why its matter from were it comes - from CIA or KGB/FSB?
They are the same people anyways. All secret services are twin-brothers.
Hillary and Dems were not looking for same as they were too confident that they win the thing anyways.
OOPS... They lost. What a pity...
But in general who cares. Politician are all junk and as much all of them fail the better for regular folks.

The difference for me is that when the CIA wins, hopefully I benefit. When the KGB/FSB wins, I lose, in this case Trump. One thing that may be settled with these investigations is an in-depth examination of Trump's "wealth" and the origin of it. If, the country was given the courtesy of examining his taxes, as EVERY presidential candidate as done for the past forty years, then it would have allayed suspicions about who he serves. With Trump's constant pandering to Russia and Russian interests, an accounting to the people is necessary. #FOLLOWTHEMONEY

#StopFollowingTheMediaManufacturedStupidityLikeAWitlessFool

fwk00 wrote:

Sangfroid wrote:

arkrud wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Sinix wrote:With all that's come out about the Russia story being fabricated how could one still buy into this fake news? Probably says a lot about how you easily eat up propaganda.

One clearly lives a sheltered life...doesn't one.

Trump's continued whining and threatening actually proves he did something wrong or is covering up something his people did, but Don Jr. and Kushner being involved means that Trump was aware of everything.

One does not react to a "nothing burger" in this way...

Get real.

Trump and Co were looking for any dirt on Hillary so why its matter from were it comes - from CIA or KGB/FSB?
They are the same people anyways. All secret services are twin-brothers.
Hillary and Dems were not looking for same as they were too confident that they win the thing anyways.
OOPS... They lost. What a pity...
But in general who cares. Politician are all junk and as much all of them fail the better for regular folks.

The difference for me is that when the CIA wins, hopefully I benefit. When the KGB/FSB wins, I lose, in this case Trump. One thing that may be settled with these investigations is an in-depth examination of Trump's "wealth" and the origin of it. If, the country was given the courtesy of examining his taxes, as EVERY presidential candidate as done for the past forty years, then it would have allayed suspicions about who he serves. With Trump's constant pandering to Russia and Russian interests, an accounting to the people is necessary. #FOLLOWTHEMONEY

#StopFollowingTheMediaManufacturedStupidityLikeAWitlessFool

Where as Trump is a beacon of truth- you're really smart if you follow him and believe what he says!

Trump voters can't decide what they love more - being alive or racism.

Pardon Me

"After six months on the job, the President is wondering if he can pardon himself and his family members. Anyone tired of winning yet?" - Brian Klass

Knickoftime wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

mlby1215 wrote: Let me bring this a little bit "on topic".

One thing Trump has done right is that he never backed down before media. If he bent his knee and asked for forgiveness, would the media forgive him? Those people didn't vote for him still won't, and those people supporting him still would. It is not about making your enemies loving you, it is about making your supporters staying with you. (so it is a bad move about Sessions)

Going back Knicks and Phil. Did killing Phil accomplish anything? FA still did not come. Those people didn't come because Phil still would not come (unless vastly overpaid) because we are weak. If Phil were here, he still would attract "some" guys who respected him. A team only has 17 slots, why should a leader look to be loved by everyone? He only has to have 17 good players willing to work here. It is not beauty contest. Looking for acceptance clouds our fans a lot. Many of us really wants to join the "mass". We want to join the party. So we want to do everything people say we should do. Inside, we are very insecure.

Good post. The bottom line is that there is no fresh air to run to. Trump is the only game in town. The hate-mongers trying to destroy Trump and everyone around him offer absolutely zero reason to believe they would do a better job.

What Trump is doing in an unintuitive way is exposing the last thirty years for what they've been - an exercise in self-deception. For anyone to be able to walk into the presidency and dismantle every social program this country *assumes* its entitled to is a wake-up call and a necessary one.

Trump is not responsible for runaway healthcare costs. He's not responsible for overflowing prisons. He's not responsible for shoot-to-kill policing. He's not responsible for shitty public schools. And there's more.

All of these are bad systems but all of them have become vested interests and political special interests. The "non-profit" hospitals whose administrators make 6 and 7 digit paychecks hate Trump. The guards who make nice livings working at prisons hate Trump. The cops don't want accountability. The public schools that are big business and have nothing to do with kids learning don't want accountability. The list is long.

What Trump is doing is forcing the public to care about the things they care about most and stand up for them or lose them. The bullshit issues dissolve into dust compared to health, common good, and making a living. Political correctness is dead like a vampire but thankfully at least dead for a while.

Trump or someone worse will be around for eight years because there is no alternative. Pop some popcorn.

The issue here is you're conflating a radical worldview (which I am neither criticizing or addressing) with Trump, who really plays no role in what you're referring to.

I think someone of us, even if we don't share your views, don't understand why you wouldn't want a more committed, more capable, less embarrassing leader/spokesperson/symbol of this POV.

He has done nothing about healthcare but sit back and wait for Congress to send him something ... anything that he can call a defeat of the ACA. He has shown no actual engagement in the issue. He has done nothing about crime or education, taxes or infastructure.

What you describe is him being a caught-up as an idiot bystander, and that's good and fine, just don't know what you wouldn't prefer an effective advocate.

Not sure what you think I'm conflating - not arguing here - truly confused.

I would love a more platitudinal spokesperson but unfortunately this country has devolved into an attack dog conversation with each other. The Ideas don't matter - destroying the person with an opposing viewpoint does. That's why Trump is so popular - because he's rich enough not to give a sh@t.

But YOU seem to care. Why wouldn't you aspire to have the leader you profess you'd love?

And because you ignore what he has done for the media manufactured, tempest in a teapot, you believe he's an idiot because the other American pasttime has become calling the other names.

I can't ignore what I don't know. What has he done?

I didn't call him a name. I described/reworded what it read to me YOU were describing him - "unintuitive way".

You cannot reasonably on one hand criticize the discourse but on the other tell me what I think and why I think it.

So far he hasn't become Hitler.

He hasn't been impeached before 100 days in office.

Indeed.

He hasn't committed treason.

That we're currently aware of.

He's not evil. And so on, and so on, and so on... - all of these claims being routinely treated as newsworthy by CNN.

At some people you and the others who have made similar comments have to realize railing against a media outlet you don't happen to like has nothing to do with the capacity and job performance of the President of the United States.

My impression of the MSM and the national Democrats was galvanized before the election when ALL the Republican candidates were treated like sub-human morons. As a Liberal and as a Democrat I was and continue to be appalled. Hillary was even bold enough to dignify it - the deplorables - voters beneath her dignity.

My deceased father was a Democrat who was a lifelong factory worker and I'm a lifelong Democrat - the unholy Obama/Hillary hubris exposed the Democrats in States where Hillary was TROUNCED by Sanders. Liberals who supported Sanders were given the same treatment the deplorables were given - no words needed to be spoken.

The media you love so much hate Trump and his administration because they are not family like most Washington administrations are. Scratch the surface of your "objective" journalist and you'll find incestuous relations between them and a politician or government bureaucrat. Who is Andrea Mitchell married to? Thomas Friedman? Keep looking. Money and power are what's driving Trump critics - they want it back.