ForumGarden

Sadly I think so.

Ted;1521314 wrote: Sadly I think so.


Sadly, meaning what?

It's a correspondent's job to ask the questions and be bullish about getting the unvarnished answers. After all, the average person isn't in the room, and like I said before, Trump called on Acosta deliberately as a set up which had already been staged in his fiendish mind. He could have ignored him, many times expressing his dislike.

I never mind it when you use cartoons to express your thoughts. A picture can be worth a 1,000 words.

Personally I think the press is way too easy on Trump when asking questions. He gives a lot of nonsense answers, and is often so vague as to say nothing at all. He also outright lies, and then lies about lying. They almost never follow up or challenge his answer. Of course there's no point, since he'll just insult the person.

According to Trump the midterms were.a tremendous success. He brags about holding the Senate, ignoring the fact that almost no Republicans were up for reelection this year. Meanwhile they barely held onto solid red Texas.

You'll notice Trump has said almost nothing about the caravan since the midterms. Which largely proves Acosta's point.

AnneBoleyn;1521324 wrote: It's a correspondent's job to ask the questions and be bullish about getting the unvarnished answers.


Acosta was trying to start an argument, not to expand the issue.

AnneBoleyn;1521324 wrote: After all, the average person isn't in the room, and like I said before, Trump called on Acosta deliberately as a set up which had already been staged in his fiendish mind. He could have ignored him, many times expressing his dislike.


Really?

AnneBoleyn;1521324 wrote: I never mind it when you use cartoons to express your thoughts. A picture can be worth a 1,000 words.


Glad you see it that way.

Always been a fan of political cartoons.

tude dog;1521326 wrote: Acosta was trying to start an argument, not to expand the issue.




See here, we are cancelling each other out! Neither one of us can prove our assertions. If you don't agree, you'd better have a good defense. [Insert laughing face]

I expect Mr Acosta's income will increase dramatically as a result of the exposure, I doubt the same applies to the incumbent. Follow the money.

spot;1521329 wrote: I expect Mr Acosta's income will increase dramatically as a result of the exposure, I doubt the same applies to the incumbent. Follow the money.


Well, he could write a book, however to deal with your doubts Follow the Emoluments Clause:

"The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

https://www.britannica.com/story/what-i ... nts-clause

"Ka-Ching

Donald Trump is raking in big bucks from emoluments foreign and domestic.

By Robert Schlesinger Managing Editor for OpinionMarch 5, 2018, at 6:00 a.m."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... t-the-ways

AnneBoleyn;1521327 wrote: See here, we are cancelling each other out! Neither one of us can prove our assertions. If you don't agree, you'd better have a good defense. [Insert laughing face]


The whole thing is on tape that anyone can see. I assert nothing more than what anybody can see.

Speaking of tapes... the fact that the White House released an altered propaganda version just to make Acosta look more agressive, only makes Trump look like a mad dictator.

I don't understand how we've got to the point where calling the press "the enemy of the people" is now normalized. Reminds me of the Lugenpresse. Turns out, the actual liars are never a fan of journalism.

tude dog;1521332 wrote: The whole thing is on tape that anyone can see. I assert nothing more than what anybody can see.


I see the same tape and come to the Opposite Conclusion.

AnneBoleyn;1521336 wrote: I see the same tape and come to the Opposite Conclusion.


There were two tapes.

LarsMac;1521345 wrote: There were two tapes.


You are correct, sir.

AnneBoleyn;1521368 wrote: You are correct, sir.


Can either of you clue the rest of us in, and more importantly is what is there difference which might make a difference?

Oh wait, think I found it.

Oh gee, no wonder I missed that. Jimmy Kimmel vs. INDOWARS

tude, what snooz said.......

Doctored tap real tape, I got that.

Same tape and Acosta is still a jerk.

tude dog;1521385 wrote: Doctored tap real tape, I got that.

Same tape and Acosta is still a jerk.


Well, if they stop letting people in the White House because they are jerks, ...

Maybe, we're on to something?

LarsMac;1521386 wrote: Well, if they stop letting people in the White House because they are jerks, ...

Maybe, we're on to something?


Oh no, by all means, let them in. Makes good entertainment watching them being escorted out.

tude dog;1521387 wrote: Oh no, by all means, let them in. Makes good entertainment watching them being escorted out.


OK, so we can start booting folks who are jerks from the White House, I think I can see where that might work out.

tude dog;1521385 wrote: Doctored tap real tape, I got that.

Same tape and Acosta is still a jerk.


Thinking he is a jerk is your opinion and does not matter in the grand scheme of things, namely Constitutional Law. What you said reminded me of Sammy Davis Jr. who told a story in his great autobiography "Yes I Can" -- yeah, he said it first! -- about how he was in a fight in his army days with a racist. Sammy wins the fight, but the white loser says to him, "Yeah, but you're still a N" See how childish you are with that remark? No?

A quote from today's Guardian:on Wednesday, Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, tweeted that Trump should “just shut the hell up and get on the helicopter. Give us a rest from your crazy. You don’t know the 9th circuit from a circuit breaker. It’s Thanksgiving for crying out loud. Let us be thankful for your silence. You’ve said enough this week.


American political life appears to be heating up.

spot;1521398 wrote:

American political life appears to be heating up.


Where have you been? This kind of thing has been going on for two years now.

AnneBoleyn;1521389 wrote: Thinking he is a jerk is your opinion and does not matter in the grand scheme of things, namely Constitutional Law. What you said reminded me of Sammy Davis Jr. who told a story in his great autobiography "Yes I Can" -- yeah, he said it first! -- about how he was in a fight in his army days with a racist. Sammy wins the fight, but the white loser says to him, "Yeah, but you're still a N" See how childish you are with that remark? No?


jerk noun

ˈjərk

Definition of jerk (Entry 1 of 3)

1a : an annoyingly stupid or foolish person

was acting like a jerk

b : an unlikable person

especially : one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded

a selfish jerk

Constitutional Law?

He is stii a JERK

"He is stii a JERK"

Yes, in your opinion; not mine.

AnneBoleyn;1521406 wrote: "He is stii a JERK"

Yes, in your opinion; not mine.


Well, Acosta can be a jerk, but that should not give cause to keep him from the White House. Not when the Jerk of all Jerks resides there.

LarsMac;1521419 wrote: Well, Acosta can be a jerk, but that should not give cause to keep him from the White House. Not when the Jerk of all Jerks resides there.


Acosta is doing his job which is Demanding Answers; to seek Truth from Power.

I'm puzzled by what about the video shows Acosta in a worse light than Trump. Here is what I see.



First off Acosta is just asking questions. That's his job. He's also supposed to ask tough follow up questions and challenge answers. He did that all respectfully. The disagreement is respectful.

Trump in response cuts off the reporter for asking questions which displeased him. I don't recall Obama doing that. Or even Bush. They would spend time answering stupid questions.

Acosta's big crime was refusing to be cut off.

But it is rude to walk up and yank something out of someone's hands. Who does that? Try it and see the general response. Smart people cut the mic. Or have multiple mics.

Trump on the other hand is displaying character traits of a mad dictator. Especially with the altered propaganda video he released. And he started attacking the press again. The Enemy of the people?

What am I missing in the video?

AnneBoleyn;1521423 wrote: Acosta is doing his job which is Demanding Answers; to seek Truth from Power.


I don't disagree with that. A lot of people in the WH press Corp can be jerks.

It's part f what they are paid for.

I can't see the point of a polite press corp

yaaarrrgg;1521426 wrote:

But it is rude to walk up and yank something out of someone's hands. Who does that? Try it and see the general response. Smart people cut the mic. Or have multiple mics.




That's one of the reasons why I think the whole routine was staged in advance---to have a young pretty woman take the mic making Acosta look like a burly bully. Delicate female -v- the enemy. Trump didn't have to call on Acosta at all but the director's cut insisted. The Play's the Thing. About as 'real' as Reality TV.

AnneBoleyn;1521430 wrote: That's one of the reasons why I think the whole routine was staged in advance---to have a young pretty woman take the mic making Acosta look like a burly bully. Delicate female -v- the enemy. Trump didn't have to call on Acosta at all but the director's cut insisted. The Play's the Thing. About as 'real' as Reality TV.


I agree. If they want to send someone out to physically rip a mic out of the reporter's hands, they need to get someone with muscle.

That or build a giant trap door in the press room: Sir, you said ..... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! (Falls into alligator pit).

We're not far from that now.

That's part of Trump's gig. To use females as victims of men. It's why all the faces he puts forward to public view are all female while his inner circle is almost all men. Even Conway, because she does his television arguing for him. Ivanka is his daughter and she's been trained very well in the art of the con that is Trump.

I do agree. Trump is so unused to being questioned he has to resort to scheming and BSing. The truth it seems to me is very foreign to his nature. I find him a hateful person.

May I drift a thought across this thread just to see how it's taken?

If you consider the contrast between how Abe Lincoln was regarded while he was President, with how he's been overwhelmingly canonised over the last forty years or so, that's quite a change in national mood.

I suggest President Trump might undergo just such an apotheosis as time goes by. Whether that will bring us to worshipping Trump in wayside shrines I'm not sure, but I have a vision of a second Rotunda one day. Maybe in matching scale and material, facing the first, who knows.

(Is it called the Rotunda, the Lincoln Memorial? It's the word that came to mind while I was writing but I may have that wrong - it's a bit early for me to be typing).

spot;1521476 wrote: May I drift a thought across this thread just to see how it's taken?

If you consider the contrast between how Abe Lincoln was regarded while he was President, with how he's been overwhelmingly canonised over the last forty years or so, that's quite a change in national mood.

"

(Is it called the Rotunda, the Lincoln Memorial? It's the word that came to mind while I was writing but I may have that wrong - it's a bit early for me to be typing).


The rotunda is the space below the Capital Dome.

"I suggest President Trump might undergo just such an apotheosis as time goes by. Whether that will bring us to worshipping Trump in wayside shrines I'm not sure, but I have a vision of a second Rotunda one day. Maybe in matching scale and material, facing the first, who knows."

Who knows indeed. You are as believable as Trump. This is disingenuous and I fail to see your true motivation. Not all British wit is funny or intelligent. You piss me off with this BS.

I'm sorry Anne but you must realize, Lincoln was detested by half the nation while he was President. I can't think of any better comparison with President Trump. Both men deliberately split the nation on ideological grounds, did they not?

As for motivation, President Trump is isolationist. I've been waiting all my life for an isolationist US President, with good reason. Have I no reasonable cause to want such a circumstance?

spot;1521478 wrote: I'm sorry Anne but you must realize, Lincoln was detested by half the nation while he was President. I can't think of any better comparison with President Trump. Both men deliberately split the nation on ideological grounds, did they not?

As for motivation, President Trump is isolationist. I've been waiting all my life for an isolationist US President, with good reason. Have I no reasonable cause to want such a circumstance?


Now at least you are being honest. Yes, as a non-citizen of the U.S. I fully understand your desire for an isolationist president who doesn't go around the world effing any available situation. I can also see, as written in this second post, your comparison of Trump/Lincoln.

I object to the language of your first post. I found it derisive with contempt for your audience. You know very well how to google rotunda if you don't already know where it is. Starting off w/a dumb question I believe you might know. "worshipping Trump in wayside shrines I'm not sure." Even unsure I find the phrase snide.

Your second post here is right on the mark. So, I guess I am complaining less about content and more about style.

AnneBoleyn;1521479 wrote: Now at least you are being honest. Yes, as a non-citizen of the U.S. I fully understand your desire for an isolationist president who doesn't go around the world effing any available situation. I can also see, as written in this second post, your comparison of Trump/Lincoln.

I object to the language of your first post. I found it derisive with contempt for your audience. You know very well how to google rotunda if you don't already know where it is. Starting off w/a dumb question I believe you might know. "worshipping Trump in wayside shrines I'm not sure." Even unsure I find the phrase snide.

Your second post here is right on the mark. So, I guess I am complaining less about content and more about style.As for Rotunda, I did say I was writing early in the morning. I was minutes from leaving for a school run and talking to the child as I typed. Mainly about breakfast rather than Lincoln.

As for "worshipping Trump in wayside shrines", I'd referred to apotheosis. The head of the Roman Empire was traditionally declared a god either on his death or during his lifetime. Achieving godhood is "apotheosis". Statues of these newly-made gods were then worshipped throughout the Empire.



I think Lincoln has been put in that position by Americans - Lincoln is no longer an historical figure, he's become an American God over the last forty years though he certainly wasn't before then. I can see American public adulation of President Trump following the same path as time goes on, quite possibly during his own lifetime. Can't you?

I think my tone and content were quite intelligible though I do recognize you take exception to the man we're discussing.

Spot some great posts. As far as that man we are discussing is concerned I see him as a poor excuse for a human being.

Ted;1521493 wrote: Spot some great posts. As far as that man we are discussing is concerned I see him as a poor excuse for a human being.


He's undoubtedly that. He's been a weak blustering bully for as long as I've heard about him. What should be far more distressing is that his supporters know he's a weak blustering bully and cheer him on for it. The more he outrages people of integrity, the more support he generates within his base. His skill is inventing denials, delays and deflections through the use of blatant transparent lies, thereby avoiding ever addressing real issues. And the more he attracts attention to Washington politics instead of foreign engagements the happier I'll get.

I think Lincoln was hated at the time because half the country was extremely racist and wanted slaves. History has judged these people poorly.

Trump OTOH generally wants to go backwards in time, not forward. Unless history takes a dark turn, I can't see how a guy who stares at the sun and defends neo Nazis would be viewed favorably long term.

He lies 10 times a day. I wouldn't count on him being an isolationist. He's the guy asking why he can't use nukes.

If I recall, he said he reserved the option to use nukes before being attacked. Since that's the same reservation every US President has made since Truman it's not something he can be picked out for.

I'd much rather pass judgement on what he's done than on what people think he might do. He hasn't taken America to war. President Osama took America to war, President Bush 43 took America to war, President Clinton took America to war, President Bush 41 took America to war, President Reagan took America to war, President Carter took America to war. Gerald Ford was the most recent President to opt for a peaceful Presidency until President Trump's term, and the gung-ho American people not surprisingly rewarded Gerald Ford by refusing to re-elect him.

I think I can speak objectively in saying that history is not going to judge the post-war American electorate any less harshly than it judges the Confederacy, regardless of which President you focus on. President Trump is the one beacon of hope to appear from Washington since President Kennedy.

President OSAMA? Unless that's a typo ---- that's something tude might say. I would accept it from him, not you. Have my reasons. Go wash your mouth out with soap.

AnneBoleyn;1521499 wrote: President OSAMA? Unless that's a typo ---- that's something tude might say. I would accept it from him, not you. Have my reasons. Go wash your mouth out with soap.


Who else do you think kicked off the disintegration of Syria? Go and look at which administration handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Syrian opposition in exile to hire and arm their fundamentalist mercenaries. Who else do you think provided air superiority over Syria to make the civil war possible?

You'd think the US would be in favour of secular republics in the Middle East but no, every secular republic has been undermined. Absolute monarchies are supported, Wahabist fanatics can buy all the weaponry they ask for, secular republics are flattened into the dust. The fact that secular republics are the only part of the Middle East where women get an education and employment is totally overlooked.

AnneBoleyn;1521499 wrote: President OSAMA? Unless that's a typo ---- that's something tude might say. I would accept it from him, not you. Have my reasons. Go wash your mouth out with soap.




I didn't like the guy to be sure but that is way beneath even me. It is akin to comparing somebody to Hitler which I never do.

tude dog;1521501 wrote:

I didn't like the guy to be sure but that is way beneath even me. It is akin to comparing somebody to Hitler which I never do.


You don't remember your Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? "We came, we saw, he died"? Who was President at the time if not President Obama? Have you seen the condition of Libya this year? That's his world legacy.

yaaarrrgg;1521496 wrote: I think Lincoln was hated at the time because half the country was extremely racist and wanted slaves.


I think a war costing so many lives and destruction of much of the country tends to evoke emotions. Lincoln didn't start the war but to end it destroyed much of the South.

yaaarrrgg;1521496 wrote: History has judged these people poorly.


Who speaks of History? Lincoln himself by present standards could be frowned upon for his attitude towards Neegros. It is a complicated story.

yaaarrrgg;1521496 wrote: Trump OTOH generally wants to go backwards in time, not forward. Unless history takes a dark turn, I can't see how a guy who stares at the sun and defends neo Nazis would be viewed favorably long term.


The first I heard of it I took a view similar view as the Don, a pox on both the white nationalists and supremacists and counter-protesters. According to a popular view, Don's sin was not condemning the white nationalists and supremacists, fast enough.

yaaarrrgg;1521496 wrote: He lies 10 times a day. I wouldn't count on him being an isolationist. He's the guy asking why he can't use nukes.

If something like 9/11 happened under Trump's watch, his fragile ego would likely cause rivers of blood.

If you recall the last election cycle, the GOP bragged about dropping so many bombs, we'd find out if the sand would glow at night. Trump promised he would bomb the hell out of other countries. He said Obama was too restrained. The motto is America First, which specifically means he doesn't care if your country is turned into a big crater. Either economically or physically.

Trump can't even be trusted not to incite violence against fellow Americans. He's encouraged violence against protesters and journalists, and even floated the idea of someone shooting or jailing his political opponents.

As for Obama, he wasn't always the best but I don't know who could have done much better cleaning up the giant messes that Bush left...a collapsing economy and two wars.

spot;1521502 wrote: You don't remember your Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? "We came, we saw, he died"? Who was President at the time if not President Obama? Have you seen the condition of Libya this year? That's his world legacy.


The shame is that the attempt by President Reagan to kill that bastard failed. When I heard that Kadaffi was killed I rejoiced. Seems maybe sometimes it is better to let live a bastard.

Tough calls.