Trump made his critics look small during his ‘Salute to America’

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  2 months ago  •  151 comments

Trump made his critics look small during his ‘Salute to America’
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The “Resistance” warned us that if we elected an authoritarian such as Donald Trump, eventually there would be tanks in the streets of our nation’s capital. Well, on Thursday, their predictions finally came true.

I’m kidding, of course, but some on the left are not. Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe tweeted a photo of tanks arriving in Washington for Trump’s “Salute to America” and declared, “The resemblance to days before Tiananmen Square is chilling.” At Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989, the Chinese regime broke up pro-democracy protests with tanks and troops in a military action that resulted in a still-uncertain number of deaths that is believed to range between several hundred and several thousand. Totally comparable situation.

Of all the stupid freak-outs we have experienced since Trump was elected, the hyperventilation over his Fourth of July address and celebration on the Mall may be the stupidest.

His critics called his decision to insert himself into the Independence Day celebrations virtually unprecedented. Sorry, but Trump is not the first U.S. president to give a major speech on the Fourth of July. Harry S. Truman once delivered an Independence Day address in front of the Washington monument. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all gave Fourth of July addresses from Independence Hall in Philadelphia. And, in 1986, Ronald Reagan delivered a Fourth of July address from the deck of an aircraft carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy, strategically placed in front of the Statue of Liberty.

Trump’s address took this tradition to new heights on Thursday. Democrats complained before the speech that Trump was politicizing the Fourth of July. He did nothing of the sort. In a speech reminiscent of his outstanding remarks last month at Normandy, Trump delivered a soaring presidential address — a celebration of the greatness of our country. “As we gather this evening, in the joy of freedom, we remember that we all share a truly extraordinary heritage,” Trump said. “Together, we are part of one of the greatest stories ever told — the story of America.”

He went on tell that story — from our struggle for independence, the fight to abolish slavery and secure women’s suffrage and civil rights. He called out the many great Americans who “defined our national character” from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and Jackie Robinson. He celebrated our inventors and explorers — from Lewis and Clark to Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright brothers, Amelia Earhart and the Apollo 11 astronauts. And he vowed “we will plant the American flag on Mars” because “for Americans, nothing is impossible.”

He also called out modern-day heroes in the audience — such as Emil Freireich, a doctor who revolutionized the treatment of childhood leukemia, and Clarence Henderson, who helped lead the sit-in at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C. in 1960. And Trump celebrated each individual branch of the U.S. armed forces, telling stories of their heroism interspersed with dramatic flyovers by each service’s aircraft. It was a stunning combined display of presidential eloquence and American military might.

Millions of ordinary Americans who tuned in to watch must have been wondering what the fuss was all about. Democrats promised they would witness a partisan address. But instead, they saw the president deliver a deeply unifying speech that celebrated America’s accomplishments, and the courage of our men and women in uniform. With each passing minute, the president looked larger while his critics looked increasingly petty and small.




thiessenm.jpg%3Fts%3D1436829499097



Marc A. ThiessenMarc Thiessen writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

We don't usually feature opinion pieces from the Washington Post via this group. It is an opinion piece by Marc Thiessen. Today I saw all of these articles by leftists doubling down on their criticism of the President, instead of just saying they were wrong. They aren't up to that. It's who they are!

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

I was going to seed this awesome post but have a substitute ready in the event it’s already here.  Great find and great seed.  

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

Actually Vic he prove what most of the people said it would look like a failed rally for his igo  And nothing you've shown proves otherwise

If I were you I'duck and cover

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @1.2    2 months ago
Actually Vic he prove what most of the people said it would look like a failed rally for his igo  And nothing you've shown proves otherwise If I were you I'duck and cover

When ya got a big Igo, you can say leggo my Eggo!

384

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2  1stwarrior    2 months ago

MARK LEVIN: "The unhinged media crackpots who spent days trashing President Trump during the lead up to the Independence Day celebration once again reveal themselves as contemptible frauds.

It was a beautiful event. His speech was patriotic and terrific. There was nothing political about it. And our republic was not turned into a dictatorship, at least not by him, as we heard over and over.

I can’t say the same for the Left’s intentions and their daily assault on our nation’s institutions. And most of the TV media censored the president’s speech, refusing to cover it in real time despite spending untold hours propagandizing against it and the entire event before the July 4th celebration.

Absolutely disgusting behavior, yet par for the course."

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @2    2 months ago

Too bad the entire premiss if nothing but trump shit

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @2.1    2 months ago

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Vic, Donald Trump is the president of the United States and he can't read. Thats not my fault , or any other Trump critics fault. It's not even your fault, even though you religiously make excuses for the moron. It's HIS fault. 

The key identifying feature of Trumpsters is that they cannot , under no circumstances, be ashamed of this man. No matter how bizarre or inept he is. 

Again, that is your problem.  I am long past waiting for the die hard Trump supporters to come to their senses. 

The rest of us have to beat them , and bring normalcy and honor back to our government. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago

I think you should have quit on Wednesday. To go on with it places you in company with those who refuse to admit the obvious. I guess it's a McCarthy moment. Therefore, I must say to you what Joseph N. Welch once said to the junior Senator from Wisconsin:

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness."

Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir?

At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.1  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago

The true answer is not only no but heck no they don’t.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

LOL.  Trump supporters like you, who excuse every dishonest or idiotic thing he says or does, are the problem.   I accept that we are at war.  But this war was instigated by those who voted for Trump in 2016, EVEN THOUGH,  it was well known at the time that he was completely dishonest and extremely unethical.

Just two small examples out of dozens.

Before Trump was elected it was KNOWN that he had propagated the racist conspiracy theory known as "birtherism". KNOWN.  

IN AND OF ITSELF Trump's birtherism should have disqualified him for the presidency. The fact that it did not in so many peoples eyes says a lot about THEM.

It was also known before the election that Trump had defrauded hundreds of people through Trump University, for which Trump had recorded video advertisements that were nothing but lies.

This also, in it self, should have disqualified him for office.

He is a lifelong cheat, crook, pathological liar and has pandered in racism.

A random name chose from a phone book would be more qualified than Donald Trump.

This is why Trump supporters are the problem. They didnt god damn care.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago

There is no need for the big print John, you've said it so many times (skirting as you do) that Trump supporters like me willfully support the greatest danger to civilization in the history of mankind!  Yup, me and people like me!  Got it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    2 months ago

Way to respond to what I said Vic.

You voted for someone who was , at the time,  the previous known leader of a racist conspiracy theory and a business fraud.

Do you know why people thought Trump would never be elected? We had more faith in our fellow Americans than was warranted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    2 months ago
We had more faith in our fellow Americans than was warranted.

In that case, you better prepare yourself for another horrible outcome. We will once again hear slime ball Lawrence O'Donnell say "America is crying tonight."  Except America dosen't really think like O'Donnell, does it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    2 months ago
There is no need for the big print John

Well, you intentionally compared me to Joseph McCarthy, so I think a bold reply to you over that was well warranted.

Do it again and there may very well be more large type.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    2 months ago
Well, you intentionally compared me to Joseph McCarthy,

McCarthy like tactics, which is the smearing of individuals, that being a Constitutionally elected President and the 65,844,610 people who voted for him.

Do you deny that you have gone after those who voted for him as well as him?


 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago

John, if Trump cured cancer, erased homelessness, and gave everyone free whatever--you would still find something to complain about.

Your feelings are pretty obvious.

You hate Trump.

Nothing else seems to matter to you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    2 months ago

As I have explained, quite plainly I think, Trump is not remotely an honorable person.

And yet some "conservatives" worship him.

We are at war. It is not a physical war, but it is a war for the soul of America.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.9    2 months ago
And yet some "conservatives" worship him.

Oh, do tell us all which people worship him. Should I wait?

We are at war. It is not a physical war, but it is a war for the soul of America.

Yet MORE hysterical melodrama from you?

Get real.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.11  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    2 months ago

Trying to Trumprumps understand reality Very Very large print is needed

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.12  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    2 months ago

You really don't have to wait, you just proved his point

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.12    2 months ago
You really don't have to wait, you just proved his point

In the future, please have a point somewhat related to my comments if you insist on responding.

thank you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago
Donald Trump is the president of the United States and he can't read

That's it? That's your beef? That he messed up a word? A word that for all you know was written exactly as he read it. That's your whole complaint with what happened yesterday?

This story is not - and never was - about his ability to read or give a speech. Trump's critics have been using this event to equate him with the cruelest totalitarian communist and fascist dictators the world has ever seen. Now you want to pretend all that crap wasn't said by all those people. You want to deflect from all that irresponsible fear-mongering by focusing on what may well have been a simple typo.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.2.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago
You want to deflect from all that irresponsible fear-mongering by focusing on what may well have been a simple typo.

Fear-mongering?  Dog-do!  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago
You want to deflect from all that irresponsible fear-mongering by focusing on what may well have been a simple typo.

Oh please. For fuck's sake, just stop. Trump is the worst public speaker we have ever seen reach such a high office in the United States. It's not about one word that was a typo. The clown did make an excuse for himself today though. He said that he said there were airports in the 18th century because the teleprompter went out. The teleprompter wasnt working right so he said "airports" because, because , . I can't think of a reason. 

He is a terrible speaker. Terrible. 

A normal human being would work to get better. He goes in the opposite direction. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago

Note John how your over-the-top irrational hatred for Trump emboldens those who support Trump.   This is what I suggested to you more than a year ago.   To be effective, the criticism needs to be relevant and on solid ground.   Plenty of material exists to pick from so there is no excuse for going after the relatively minor items.

Note also how your over-the-top attacks on those who do not oppose Trump with your prescribed level of fury causes those of us who are most definitely not Trump supporters to not only refrain from supporting your Trump attacks but at times to take you to task.

In short, this irrational attacking is a losing proposition for your cause.   

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    2 months ago

He works hard at getting Trump reelected by motivating conservatives to get out and vote. People like him are a valuable asset to the Trump campaign. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.4    2 months ago

We agree on something Dean.

Outrageous claims cause people to do two things:

  1. Lump all the criticism into a bucket and
  2. label it TDS (thereby diminishing the effect of genuine criticism)

Thus, per your point, people who are not emotionally offended by the very notion of Trump might be less inclined to deny him a second term because they consider the criticism -in aggregate- as normal partisan noise.

John is engaging in a loser strategy.    To top it off, it causes people like me (very much not a Trump supporter) to give him hell instead of giving him support.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    2 months ago

I'm not concerned with or worried about the "both sides" crowd. It is not remotely worth normalizing Trump just in order to make some "moderate" feel better about their indecision. 

The biggest danger we have is normalizing Trump. When that happens you WILL see his approval tick up. I'm not going to be even a tiny part of that. 

He's not qualified or fit to be president of the United States. He's not qualified today, and wont be on election day. You know that, so say it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    2 months ago

Tig, there is no sign that I have ever seen that you object to normalizing Trump. That's a problem. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    2 months ago
The biggest danger we have is normalizing Trump.

I think your approach is the bigger problem.   You are desensitizing people.

He's not qualified today, and wont be on election day. You know that, so say it. 

I have stated (starting here years ago even) my position that Trump is an embarrassment to the office.   Apparently nothing registers with you unless it is extreme.   Your problem.

Tig, there is no sign that I have ever seen that you object to normalizing Trump. That's a problem. 

Most of the time I avoid partisan discussions because they are often beyond irrational.   Further, almost all of the time I ignore your seeds.    People who would 'normalize' Trump are most often Trump supporters.   You are not going to change them.    Note, however, that because of your extreme and emotional position, you actually create an environment where people (even those who do not support Trump) will disagree with you.   No doubt you would find them to be 'normalizing' Trump when in reality it is likely people just being rational in comparison to an emotional extreme.

Your strategy is a loser.   Your tactics are counter-productive.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.9  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    2 months ago

Your point of this non-topic ramble?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.8    2 months ago

(Although I quoted TiG's words, the bolding was done by me)

"Note, however, that because of your extreme and emotional position, you actually create an environment where people (even those who do not support Trump) will disagree with you.   No doubt you would find them to be 'normalizing' Trump when in reality it is likely people just being rational in comparison to an emotional extreme."

When it comes to John's criticisms of me, you have described the situation exactly, but I know it will not stop - because of the hysteria of persons who comment the way John does, I'm pretty sure Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.2.10    2 months ago

Not a bit surprised Buzz.   It is bizarre to be a Trump critic yet be attacked because you have not shown a sufficient level of over-the-top emotional outrage at Trump.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.11    2 months ago

The problem is that I made the fatal mistake of being happy with Trump's support of Israel, of putting into effect what the previous POTUSes have PROMISED and then refused to do. 

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.13  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    2 months ago

People who are not emotionally offended by trump clearly have no emotions or principles. 

This place has turned into fucking high school where everyone's trying to be noticed by the popular crowd by picking on the outlier. 

Nothing but a bunch of mean kids who grew up to be mean adults.

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.14  PJ  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.4    2 months ago

No, trump's base is working hard to get trump reelected.  Don't blame it on the sane and the intelligent people.  It's the fucking idiots who refuse to rise up and demand better that are going to be the downfall of this country.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.15  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    2 months ago

Although there are some policies that I agree with Trump on, he was not my choice as a President.  I feel that it is unnecessary to constantly attack him. 

You can still not support someone fully and not have the colorful comments. That does not mean other non supporters have the right to label others that do not participate in the attacks.

I do not attack Trump either.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.16  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.11    2 months ago

I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016.  Since he won, the writings of John made really easy to join the Trump supporters and abandon my never Trump position.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.13    2 months ago
People who are not emotionally offended by trump clearly have no emotions or principles. 

One can be intellectually offended and criticize Trump on rational, substantial grounds.   One need not be emotionally charged and irrational ... critical of every move of Trump including the largely irrelevant.    

If you want to persuade someone it is usually better to do so calmly and with solid arguments based on important issues.   Jumping up and down while screaming is often going to achieve the opposite effect.

Further, if you want to rally support against Trump do you think it wise to attack those who are also aligned against Trump?   Think about that.   Does that strategy make good sense?    

This place has turned into fucking high school where everyone's trying to be noticed by the popular crowd by picking on the outlier. 

I think it is more basic than that.   If someone is operating at an extreme level and attacking others because they are not equally extreme, that extreme person will, on occasion, have to deal with the consequences.   Especially if the extreme individual launches an attack.   Like I said, the approach is ill-conceived.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.16    2 months ago

Egad.

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.19  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.17    2 months ago

And if someone is going to offer a different approach it will come off better when not posed in a pompous tone.

[Deleted] It makes me sick to read comments from members who say they don't like trump but like some of his policies. 

I wonder which policies they like so much that they can toss aside every moral principle they use to have.  Is it the pussy grabbing policy?  How about the rape policy?  Wait, it must be the racist policies or the framework that he's constructed to undermine our democracy. 

To recommend rational discussion as though you are going to change the diseased mind of a trump supporter is in itself irrational.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @3.2.19    2 months ago
To recommend rational discussion as though you are going to change the diseased mind of a trump supporter is in itself irrational

Tig analyzes everything from a "rational" "intellectual" perspective. That is fine, but hardly all that is needed. Does anyone in their right mind think Trump or the vast majority of his supporters care about what rationalist intellectuals think of them?

This is all a hoot.

You are either anti-Trump , or you are not. It is binary.

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.21  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.20    2 months ago

I'm not criticizing him for being an intellect.  I like a dude who can think and be measured but this situation is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime and I find it so disturbing that everyone isn't alarmed.  There is time for talk and then there is time for action.  The talking, reasoning and looking for common ground has gotten us no closer together because trump supporters are complicit.  They have created this shit storm because they refused to hold this man to the tiniest bit of moral code that this country was built on. 

I have said this from the beginning.  This is solely on the trump supporter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @3.2.21    2 months ago

I am not criticizing anyone for being an intellect either. God gave me a brain too.

The biggest threat to America right now is allowing Trump to be normalized. That will re-elect him. I think there are some people on NT who are indifferent to Trump and the harm he is causing to our country, and that is a shame.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.19    2 months ago
No one with strong principles and a moral core can separate who trump is with what trump does.  

That is a shame.   If Trump were to sign into law a bill that accomplished something you might like, for example, legislation to better enable states to reduce homelessness, would you find the bill to be wrong simply because Trump signed it into law?    Not good.

It makes me sick to read comments from members who say they don't like trump but like some of his policies. 

You should ask them to identify a policy they like and why.    As before, if one immediately dislikes everything Trump touches simply because of the dislike for the man, then that is confused, emotional thinking.   In a word, that is irrational.

I wonder which policies they like so much that they can toss aside every moral principle they use to have.  Is it the pussy grabbing policy?  How about the rape policy?  Wait, it must be the racist policies or the framework that he's constructed to undermine our democracy. 

Probably something other than those you mentioned.    My guess is that you will find most people giving Trump credit for the economy (every PotUS gets the credit or the blame for the economy even though a PotUS has very little control over same).    And, indeed, this is the biggest challenge for the D's.   In spite of his many character problems, Trump is in the lucky position of being the incumbent (always good) in a good economy (critically important).    If one is looking at the situation critically (without getting nutty emotional) one would focus on arguing extant problems with the economy (e.g. 'good' is temporary, what is Trump doing to sustain it?) as well as separate Trump from the current healthy economy (along the lines that he had little to do with it).    This is going to be tough to do, but the time is better spent attacking Trump's electability strengths rather than losing one's gourd over a brain fart and attacking others who do not support Trump because they dare mention that the 4th of July event was better than they expected while noting that it would have been better to have a JFK or Ike rather than Trump giving the delivery.

To recommend rational discussion as though you are going to change the diseased mind of a trump supporter is in itself irrational.

This is a strawman.   I have never stated that one can change the mind of a Trump supporter (using your implied meaning of one who is all in for Trump).   Where did this come from?    I recommend rational discussion to influence those who can be influenced.   My point is that rational arguments are always better than wide-eyed screams of hatred and dismay.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.16    2 months ago
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016.  Since he won, the writings of John made really easy to join the Trump supporters and abandon my never Trump position.  

Thats hilarious. Are you saying you have a weak brain and you political support can be controlled by someone on an internet forum?

Hmmm. Well you are a Trumpster after all.......

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.21    2 months ago
I'm not criticizing him for being an intellect.  I like a dude who can think and be measured but this situation is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime and I find it so disturbing that everyone isn't alarmed.  There is time for talk and then there is time for action.  The talking, reasoning and looking for common ground has gotten us no closer together because trump supporters are complicit.  They have created this shit storm because they refused to hold this man to the tiniest bit of moral code that this country was built on. 

So you are being personally critical of me for what reason?   Because I decided to not ignore John's attack on me in this seed?   Or are you implying that I am making excuses for Trump?   Not clear.   Given I do not recall the last time I said something good about Trump you might need to refresh my memory.

I have said this from the beginning.  This is solely on the trump supporter.

Given that, why are you going after me?   Do you think I am a Trump supporter?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.20    2 months ago
Tig analyzes everything from a "rational" "intellectual" perspective. That is fine, but hardly all that is needed. Does anyone in their right mind think Trump or the vast majority of his supporters care about what rationalist intellectuals think of them?

What does this have to do with me?   Where have I suggested that rational analysis of the situation is going to influence those who wear MAGA caps?    Strawman.   Rational analysis could lead to rational action to persuade those who can be persuaded.   Emotional meltdowns about irrelevant things such as brain farts will likely not.

You are either anti-Trump , or you are not. It is binary.

That is naïve and illogical.  It is naïve because there are countless millions of people in the electorate who will be evaluating the candidates before they commit.   It is illogical because if your binary hypothesis were true then there is no point doing anything — everyone has already made up their mind.   If you are right then you might as well talk about other topics because the election is already decided.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.27  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago
You want to deflect from all that irresponsible fear-mongering by focusing on what may well have been a simple typo.

but, the people in all 57 states obama visited are upset about trump.

correction: 57with one left to go.

and he wanted to visit two more states but his staff said no.

so it's official.. we now have 60 states... LOL

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.28  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.26    2 months ago

Your approach would inevitably ensconce Trump as "just another politician" with good points and bad points and with good and bad policies.  "Just another politician" = normalization, whether you intend to normalize him or it is just the product of your "intellectual" approach.

He is not just another politician whose pros and cons should be equally weighed and added and subtracted. I'm afraid this is what you don't get.

My personal opinion, of course.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.22    2 months ago
The biggest threat to America right now is allowing Trump to be normalized. That will re-elect him. I think there are some people on NT who are indifferent to Trump and the harm he is causing to our country, and that is a shame.

Preventing the normalization of Trump is best accomplished by focusing on solid, relevant issues.   For example, actual acts such as his handling of Iran or China or North Korea.    Or, domestically, his handling of immigration, the border, etc.

Losing one's composure because NT is not equally freaked out that Trump made an embarrassing mental error in a speech is what will cause people to largely ignore anything of value from the source.   The electorate is largely simplistic and ill-informed.   If solid criticism is combined with emotional petty criticism then the solid criticism is diluted.   The net result is the packaging of all criticism as 'TDS from the extreme left'.

In other words, efforts like yours normalize Trump in effect by encouraging others to read all Trump criticism as simply normal partisan noise.   It all gets packaged into a box with a TDS label.   Your strategy sucks.   Plus, in the process, you turn allies into adversaries.   Sucks twice.

176-1shoot_yourself_in_the_foot.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.28    2 months ago
He is not just another politician whose pros and cons should be equally weighed and added and subtracted. I'm afraid this is what you don't get.

You will likely be disappointed by the reality of the situation.   In reality, the electorate is going to decide based on factors such as the economy, foreign relations, character, immigration, etc.   Many will not vote for him because of his character.   But many others will focus on other factors they find more important.

Not everyone in the electorate votes based on pure emotion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.28    2 months ago
Your approach would inevitably ensconce Trump as "just another politician" with good points and bad points and with good and bad policies.  "Just another politician" = normalization, whether you intend to normalize him or it is just the product of your "intellectual" approach.

Where do you get the idea that a rational criticism of Trump would not include his character, his intelligence, his integrity, etc?    

The difference between your approach and mine is that I recommend critical analysis, formulation of an effective plan and execution by agents who present themselves as calm, rational and well-informed.

Your approach, in contrast, is to sound the alarms and run about like a wild man because Trump screwed up a speech.

Your approach sucks.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.32  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    2 months ago

I don’t see you on these kinds of threads very often and I am not on them as much either. Simply because of misunderstandings and outbursts. I just wanted to say that you have explained it very well and kind of the way I feel about it all. I just don’t have that burning hatred of Trump like some do.  I don’t think it’s a very healthy approach.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.33  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago

was written exactly as he read it.

So, his speech writer(s) came up with "airport"?  Maybe he needs better writers.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.34  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    2 months ago

Donald Trump was the "leader" of a racist conspiracy theory known as "birtherism".

Despite knowing that was true, would you have voted for him in 2016 because you weighed his "policies" and whether or not they appealed to you?

As far as I am concerned your subsequent comments are just reinforcing everything PJ and I said farther up the thread.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @3.2.32    2 months ago

Thanks Kathleen.

I usually steer clear of the ultra partisan stuff because it is mostly emotional.   Nothing to learn from 'debates' that amount to who can toss the biggest turds.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @3.2.32    2 months ago

Kathleen I do not hate Trump. He has poisoned America and if we dont talk about it every day we will normalize him and get him re-elected, but I dont hate him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.37  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.35    2 months ago

"Both Sides" 

rofl.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.34    2 months ago
As far as I am concerned your subsequent comments are just reinforcing everything PJ and I said farther up the thread.

Emotions have a way of clouding rational faculties to the point that nothing sinks in.   This does not surprise me though given what I have observed for well over two  years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.39  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.36    2 months ago

I can only imagine what would happen if you did hate him!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.37    2 months ago
"Both Sides" 

Strawman argument in phrase form?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.36    2 months ago
Kathleen I do not hate Trump. He has poisoned America and if we dont talk about it every day we will normalize him and get him re-elected, but I dont hate him.

I never use this emoticon.   However ...

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Sure, John, you do not hate Trump.   Your calm, rational analysis of relevant issues (rather than emotional rants on petty nonsense) illustrates this.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.42  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.35    2 months ago

If everyone took your approach his approval would be much higher than it is, because the media would follow the crowd, Trump would be normalized and in a MUCH stronger position for the coming election.

The "resistance" is responsible for his 41% "popularity".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.43  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.42    2 months ago
The "resistance" is responsible for his 41% "popularity".

You may have something there. Joe Stalin would be so proud!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.44  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.41    2 months ago

You do what you have to do, and I will oppose Donald Trump.

Trumpism does not merit "rational analysis".

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.42    2 months ago
If everyone took your approach his approval would be much higher than it is, because the media would follow the crowd, Trump would be normalized and in a MUCH stronger position for the coming election.

You should know by now that ultimately the level heads tend to prevail.   Human beings do factor in the emotional stability of their sources.    Petty emotional rants are downplayed against well-reasoned calmly delivered criticism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.44    2 months ago
Trumpism does not merit "rational analysis".

Strawman (yet again).   Failure to read what I write is on you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.43    2 months ago

You voted for the king birther. That is your shame, not mine.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.48  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.35    2 months ago

Your welcome, Yes, I try to myself but then sometimes I get caught up in it. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.49  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.36    2 months ago

"I do not hate Trump"  well you could of fooled me........

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.47    2 months ago

Not interested in his position on Obama's candidacy when he was a private citizen. I am proud of Trump, the job he is doing and the return to American prosperity and values. As for this seed it proves what you just said - that the resistance thinks that by hammering away at this brave man they can effect the peoples view of him. It's perception over reality. Let's see how it works for you

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.51  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.41    2 months ago

I almost used the one you used.... I just posted above. OMG. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.52  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.50    2 months ago
that the resistance thinks that by hammering away at this brave man they can effect the peoples view of him.

they don't understand that their resistance to trump is why he got elected... LOL

they threw everything including the kitchen sink at trump before the 2016 election and yet...

they just think they did not try hard enough. so they double down on stupid.

somehow a center-right country will then go full batshit left. and everyone will then support open borders, socialism. more taxes and more regulations.

personally, I luv it :)

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.53  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    2 months ago
If Trump were to sign into law a bill that accomplished something you might like, for example, legislation to better enable states to reduce homelessness, would you find the bill to be wrong simplybecause Trump signed it into law?    Not good.

If the example you site were to happen I feel confident there would be some defect in it such as only white men who pay off their porn star mistress and rape women their type and are homeless would reek the benefits of the law.

As before, if one immediately dislikes everything Trump touches simply because of the dislike for the man, then that is confused, emotional thinking.   In a word, that is irrational.

No, its not irrational or confusing.  What's irrational and confusing are those who claim to be religious but will turn their heads and support a man who does hateful and evil things to other human beings directly and indirectly.  Spend your time preaching to them.  I'm not confused or irrational.

My guess is that you will find most people giving Trump credit for the economy

What a risky guess that was.  My argument isn't an economic one.  It's a moral one.  And so I'm not interested in learning what policies these immoral people like.

I have never stated that one can change the mind of a Trump supporter (using your implied meaning of one who is all in for Trump).   Where did this come from?    I recommend rational discussion to influence those who can be influenced.   My point is that rational arguments are always better than wide-eyed screams of hatred and dismay.

Then why bother conversing with them?  If you don't think you can change the diseased mind of a trump supporter why bother having any discussion with them at all?  Those who can be influenced are definitely not trump supporters which means they don't require influence.  And that is the flaw in your argument.

There is no half right/half wrong.   There are no "good people on both sides".  There is no good way of spinning "she's not the type of women I would rape". 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.54  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    2 months ago

Let's be clear Tig, none of us personally care for the type of man Trump is. We just love what he has done to John. It's the entertainment that keeps us logging in to this site.

I am only a fan of his regulatory disdain and massive unwinding of the regulatory fiat Obama plagued our economy with. It obstructed what would have been a quick recovery.

Trump is no economic genius, he simply undid what the last Moron did. Simplistic yet effective. I personally dream of an Austrian Economic ideologue but those really don't exist in modern American politics. For now, I'll take the deregulation spree.

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.55  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.25    2 months ago

I do not think you are a trump supporter.  I think you are an enabler because you think all that needs to be done is to apply logic and reason and all will be well.  You are too smart for your own good.  And that is your Achilles heel.

Why do you think trump invokes so much emotion in people?  Because people are emotional beings.  Our emotions make us human beings and compassionate.  They make us love and hate and feel regret.  They make us better people.  Applying logic to everything is dangerous because it takes the emotion out of it.  That's how tragedies occur. 

But, you are right.  I should not go after you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.56  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.50    2 months ago
Not interested in his position on Obama's candidacy when he was a private citizen. I am proud of Trump, the job he is doing and the return to American prosperity and values.

Donald Trump is, a low life. He lied about Barack Obama , knowingly, in order to get some love from the tea party political right.

He also exploited the belief in him that wanna be entrepreneurs had when he created his bogus and dishonest real estate university.

In other words Vic, he has no American values to emulate.

I don't have any problem warring with you people, I really dont. Ive attacked racists and the far right on internet forums since 2001.

The ONLY thing that bothers me about it is that I know it bothers Perrie to see discord on her forum, and she is a good friend of mine.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.57  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.2.54    2 months ago
Let's be clear Tig, none of us personally care for the type of man Trump is. We just love what he has done to John. It's the entertainment that keeps us logging in to this site.

If I don't talk about Trump any more, do you promise to leave?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.57    2 months ago
If I don't talk about Trump any more, do you promise to leave?

Is that even possible?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.59  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.53    2 months ago
If the example you site were to happen I feel confident there would be some defect in it such as only white men who pay off their porn star mistress and rape women their type and are homeless would reek the benefits of the law.

That pretty much avoids the spirit of the question I posed.

Spend your time preaching to them.

I am not preaching.  I am defending myself.  Have you noticed that I am not the one bringing the attacks but rather returning in kind (hopefully a little more than that even).    I made a simple comment where I noted the July 4th event was better than I thought it would be and that it would have been better with someone other than Trump doing the talking.   From that we have gone into this truly ridiculous controversy.   Now that is pathetic.

The reason I am responding heavily to this kind of crap in this seed is because I have decided that it is time to do so.   I can be patient and overlook this for a while, but at some point I will act.   Well given John (and now your) reaction to my rather matter-the-fact comment which really had nothing to do with Trump, this now is the time.

If I had made a comment such as defending a particular policy of Trump or defending Trump himself then maybe John's comments might be applicable.   Given what I actually wrote, his comments were absurd, extreme and exaggerated.

And so I'm not interested in learning what policies these immoral people like.

Not really my concern.

Then why bother conversing with them?  If you don't think you can change the diseased mind of a trump supporter why bother having any discussion with them at all?  

Excellent question!   Why do you and John bother conversing with them?    You never find me debating hard-core Trump supporters so you need to ask the question of John.

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.60  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.59    2 months ago
That pretty much avoids the spirit of the question I posed.

Yeah, well I'm a girl.  We're really good at avoiding questions we don't want to answer.  Truth is, I cannot pretend that trump would ever do anything for anyone unless it benefited him in some way.  The question you posed is simply not imaginable. 

Why do you and John bother conversing with them?    You never find me debating hard-core Trump supporters so you need to ask the question of John.

I don't converse with them.  I ridicule and call them out.  I don't try to find out what policies they like or dislike.  I don't care.  lol

I generally don't respond especially to the members I have zero respect for.

As for John - I have asked John many times why he bothers responding to them.  shrug.....that's just who he is.  He cares I guess.

I've already admitted that I should not have called you out.  I'm not going to keep saying it. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.61  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.57    2 months ago
If I don't talk about Trump any more, do you promise to leave?

What would you talk about?  Trump and BF are who you have become.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.62  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.55    2 months ago
I do not think you are a trump supporter.  I think you are an enabler because you think all that needs to be done is to apply logic and reason and all will be well.  You are too smart for your own good.  And that is your Achilles heel.

I enable by recommending a reasoned approach delivered in a calm, clear fashion?    How funny.   Imagine how effective our society would be if the cool heads were silenced and all matters were resolved by out-of-control, irrational emotion?   

Why do you think trump invokes so much emotion in people?  Because people are emotional beings.  Our emotions make us human beings and compassionate.  They make us love and hate and feel regret.  They make us better people.  Applying logic to everything is dangerous because it takes the emotion out of it.  That's how tragedies occur. 

You will be more effective if you use your emotions to energize your reasoning faculties and then deliver a calm, cogent, relevant criticism of Trump.   Look at how you have spent your time.   You are trying to give support to John after he stepped into a pile of shit.   This is his doing and your admirable defense of a friend accomplishes nothing good.   Note:  you are going after me.   Why?   Where do you find me supporting Trump?    You are going after me because I am not getting all emotional about petty things.

If you buy into John's strategy you will be normalizing Trump by causing those who really are undecided to categorize your criticism as TDS.    Better to criticize Trump on relevant points (there are quite a few of them) with a clear calm delivery and steer clear of picking fights with those of us who are also critical of Trump.   Amazing that this is not obvious.

But, you are right.  I should not go after you. 

Except you have (and continue to do so).

 
 
 
PJ
3.2.63  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.62    2 months ago

You tickle me with your analysis of me.  

John didn't step in a pile of shit, he's wading through the shit left by trump supporters.   Yes, I'm a good friend - thanks for compliment.

I don't care what you or others on here label me.  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png I quit caring what members on this site thought of me several years ago.  Now I just come on periodically when I'm bored and add my 2cents and then I go back to the real world. 

You're starting to become dramatic.  I haven't continued to go after you.  I'm simply responding to your posts in a calm and reasonable manner.   I thought you wanted me to be rational.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.64  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.2.61    2 months ago

LOL.

Im waiting for you to work AOC, the Betsy Ross flag, Hillary, and tranny high school athletes into the same meme.

You are slipping.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.65  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.33    2 months ago

You never made a mistake? You never said the wrong thing? Picked up the wrong car keys? Said "left" when you meant "right?" You never said something that - looking back - you knew was totally wrong? People make mistakes. It doesn't mean anything. It would be even dumber to imagine that Trump or any of his people genuinely believe that airports existed 200+ years ago.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.66  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.65    2 months ago

You seem to sincerely believe that this was an anomaly for trump instead of business as usual.

That is truly bewildering.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.67  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.64    2 months ago

jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.68  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.66    2 months ago

What do you think it means?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.69  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @3.2.63    2 months ago
You tickle me with your analysis of me.  

That is good.

So we are done, right?  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.70  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.68    2 months ago

512

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.71  Don Overton  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    2 months ago
Wait T,G   I don't ever see anyone but the trumpetts using TDS which we well know is nothing more than bullshit and their way of covering up their own spittle 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.72  TᵢG  replied to  Don Overton @3.2.71    2 months ago

I do not know who uses it Don.    Does not even matter what they call it.   After a while if the criticism is non-stop and much of it is petty and emotional, that dilutes ALL criticism.   So the criticism (strong to weak) is placed in a box with a label that will connote: 'largely noise' and will be deemphasized.

Far better is to focus on the critical negatives that will undermine Trump's chances of getting reelected.     There are plenty of them.   One of them is not, however, the fact that he had a brain fart during a speech or that he cheats at golf.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.73  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.65    2 months ago

Of course I have, but as POTUS, he is held to a higher standard with public speaking.  It is not like it was a one time gaff.  Trump has on more one occasion spewed embarrassing gaffs.  Did you give Obama the same pass with the 57 states gaff?  I doubt it.  Trumps puts his foot in his mouth so often that he has athlete's tongue.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.74  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.2.70    2 months ago

H       D        S

 
 
 
WallyW
3.3  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago

The rest of us have to beat them , and bring normalcy and honor back to our government. 

You will never beat us. We are on the right side. The good side.

Progressives and their ilk stand for nothing that is good and decent, only hate, fear, perversion, and intolerance.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago
The rest of us have to beat them , and bring normalcy and honor back to our government.

today's progressive/marxists will never beat us.   not even a small chance of that.

cheers :)

 
 
 
TᵢG
4  TᵢG    2 months ago

I think it was tastefully done.   It was based on history and not a display of military might.   It was far better than what I was concerned it might be.   Although I think it would have been substantially better if we had someone like JFK or Ike giving the presentation.   No modern day equivalent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 months ago

You have to be kidding.  The president of the United States has the public reading and speaking skills of a 12 year old. 

The major issue with yesterday is not necessarily what was said, although Trump likes to talk a little overly about how the U.S forces smash other countries and obliterate them.  The major problem with this show was that it's only reason for existence was to aggrandize Trump.  It was a 2 1/2 hour show, and guess what? There were no other speakers. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
You have to be kidding.  The president of the United States has the public reading and speaking skills of a 12 year old

You complain about Trump's reading skills yet ironically do not even realize that I made no positive comment about Trump but rather opined on the design of the event.   My only mention of Trump was indirect and it was not complimentary:

TiG @4.1 - Although I think it would have been substantially better if we had someone like JFK or Ike giving the presentation.   

I suggest you read what I write before engaging in an emotional rant.   I am quite tired of you jumping down my throat simply because I do not take every opportunity to say something negative about Trump.   I suspect others feel likewise.   Get a grip.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    2 months ago

I suspect more people are wondering why you cut him so much slack.  He IS very unpopular you know. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 months ago

And here again you fail to actually read what I write but instead invent your own reality.   On one hand it is fascinating to watch; on the other hand I am tired of the nonsense.    Get a grip.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    2 months ago

Whatever.  I think our opinions about the thing are pretty clear. 

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.5  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    2 months ago

He's going to win reelection...that's perfectly clear.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
 It was based on history

C'mon man... LOL He said that our armies captured airports during the Revolutionary War. Script, no script, typo....i'm sorry but there is no way to explain that away as anything but stupidity. If you were reading a scripted speech, and saw that come up, (even if you had not read it through once beforehand), I am 99.99% sure you would catch it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @4.1.5    2 months ago
He's going to win reelection...that's perfectly clear.

Unlikely. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.6    2 months ago

You should address your comment to Tig, not me.  He's the one you are quoting and the one who thought Trump did fine. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    2 months ago
He's the one you are quoting and the one who thought Trump did fine

Yet again you show your inability to read what I wrote in the very article where you complain about Trump not being able to read.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.6    2 months ago
C'mon man... LOL He said that our armies captured airports during the Revolutionary War.

MrFrost, my comment was comparative.   Before the event I expressed concern that Trump would make this a partisan show based on a display of military might of the USA.   I noted that I would be very much against that and would favor a program that was historical in nature.   

This show was not a display of military might and was indeed based on American history.

Mistakes by the speaker do not change the fact that this was an historical vs. a military-might show.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.11  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.6    2 months ago

So tell me, what are the names of the seven additional states we are supposed to have?  Do you look to see if thee is a "d" or an "R" after their names to give them a pass for Miami's mistakes or is it just those who you support that can do no wrong? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    2 months ago
"And here again you fail to actually read what I write but instead invent your own reality."

He's very good at creating his own meanings for what others say. He practises it on me all the time.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    2 months ago
"I am quite tired of you jumping down my throat simply because I do not take every opportunity to say something negative about Trump.   I suspect others feel likewise."

Yes, others DO feel likewise. Welcome to the club. I've had to suffer it for a long time.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.15  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago

47 minutes.  You've been told a million times to quit exaggerating.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  WallyW @4.1.5    2 months ago

Notwithstanding the hysterical complaints, but because of them I'm sure he'll be re-elected.  Their hysteria causes them to be blind to the fact that they are just shooting  themselves in the foot, and building the resolve of Trump's supporters, and probably a lot of other voters who just resent the constant demonizing.  If the Democrats are not fast enough to sign up the increasing number of migrants, harvesting their votes, Trump may even win a majority this time, besides getting an electoral college victory.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.10    2 months ago
Mistakes by the speaker do not change the fact that this was an historical vs. a military-might show.

Fair enough. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.11    2 months ago

These are the dates for the Revolutionary War.

Apr 19, 1775 – Sep 3, 1783

How many airports do you think were in the USA at that time? 

Since the Wright Brothers flight was on December 17, 1903, and that's what ~120 years later? My guess would be NONE. 

I get it, all presidents say stupid shit, but trump does it with alarming regularity. It's difficult to discern if he is lying or just plain dumb. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.18    2 months ago
It's difficult to discern if he is lying or just plain dumb. 

Trump likely has been lying his entire life (since cheating is easier than winning fair and square).   People like that cannot keep all the lies straight and eventually just do not care.   Seems to me that is where he is.   I do not think he is stupid, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is a pathological liar.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.21  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.6    2 months ago

Really? More likely it was supposed to be sea port and was misread, no big deal to most people.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.21    2 months ago

Trump claims his teleprompter went out and he had to ad-lib.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.23  dave-2693993  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    2 months ago
Trump claims his teleprompter went out and he had to ad-lib.

LOL, that was just a stupid thing to say.

But, it very well may have been an illegible "sea ports" he was trying to make out.

I still have to laugh...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.24  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    2 months ago
Trump claims his teleprompter went out and he had to ad-lib.

Just another way to try to cover up his stupid statement. He can't take the blame for his own stupidity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.23    2 months ago
LOL, that was just a stupid thing to say.

I totally agree.   He certainly had enough time to spin a cover lie.   It is funny.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1.24    2 months ago
He can't take the blame for his own stupidity.

Never, ever, ever will that happen.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.27  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    2 months ago

Can't seem to forget the times when Carter, Reagan, Ford, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama had issues with their tele-prompters - all the media "joked" about it.  And Ford, with his inability to NOT have tripping issues, even when coming off AF 1 would make the "joke" of the day with the media throwing out little reminders of his previous "trips".

In fact, there are numerous sites that have media showing the Bush tongue slips and Reagan's slips and Obama's slips.

Really interesting how folks really like to grab onto anything Trump does and they do their best to totally annihilate him for making HUMAN mistakes.

Yup - that's our America.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.27    2 months ago

Pathetic.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.21    2 months ago
Really? More likely it was supposed to be sea port and was misread, no big deal to most people.  

No, that's what you want to believe, the reality, and what he DID say doesn't match up with your fantasy and spin. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.30  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    2 months ago

I find it sad that so many herald Trump merely for the fact that he managed to READ. 

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that Trump made his critics look small just by managing to READ. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @4.1.30    2 months ago
I find it sad that so many herald Trump merely for the fact that he managed to READ. 

Yes, that would be ridiculous.

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that Trump made his critics look small just by managing to READ. 

I think that claim is more about the show not being as bad or costly or partisan as it was speculated to be.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago
“The resemblance to days before Tiananmen Square is chilling.”

What utter idiotic bullshit.  There is absolutely no comparison.  The use of tanks in Tiananmen Square was to overcome a protest attempting to change the existing government.  What the hell does that have to do with a celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence?  Just how unbelievably ridiculous the American leftists are becoming is bound to cost them in 2020.  Compare what Trump did with the tanks used on the DC streets to CELEBRATE Eisenhower.

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    2 months ago
What the hell does that have to do with a celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence? 

Right, and what the hell does the display of tanks and fighter jet flyovers have to do with the signing of the Declaration of Independence ?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    2 months ago

Did you ask previous presidents who did the same "show" the same question?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    2 months ago

I don't think she was aware of that.  Even I, a Canadian, was aware of it.  By the way, I was never taught very much American history, and history was far from being my best subject.  Did the signing of the Declaration of Independence happen due to a MILITARY VICTORY over the British?  If so, is it wrong to celebrate the military victory as much as the result of it?  Was not the "independence" due to that victory - i.e. independence from Great Britain?

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    2 months ago

Several presidents have elected to include tanks in their inaugural parades, among them Roosevelt in 1941, Dwight D. Eisenhower in both 1953 and 1957, and John F. Kennedy in 1961.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/03/tanks-trumps-july-fourth-salute-america-have-rolled-through-washington-before/?utm_term=.d187127db569

iIs that what you're referring to ?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.3    2 months ago

I was referring to that. Is it fake news?  Are they not examples of the use of military equipment for an American celebration of some kind?

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.4    2 months ago

Not on the 4th of July. This is the celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Not to salute an oaf whose trying to show how big (or not) his missile is.

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.6  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.2    2 months ago

No, the American Revolution was fought from April 19, 1775 until September 3, 1783 when British General Cornwallis finally surrendered to George Washington though hostilities continued for decades culminating in The War or 1812. On July 4th,1776 representatives of the 13 original colonies signed a "Declaration Of Independence" from King George and Great Britain.It was an act of treason that would have merited them all a horrendous traitor's deaths if we had lost The American War of Independence. 

Also, don't confuse long ago presidential inaugurations with 4th of July. 4th of July commemorates exactly what it was. America declaring it independence from England. NOT A BATTLE!

Sheesh! I cannot believe any real Americans voted that comnent up...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.5    2 months ago
Not to salute an oaf whose trying to show how big (or not) his missile is.

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.5    2 months ago

jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.9  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    2 months ago

Actually Cornwallis surrendered in Yorktown in 1781. The treaty of Paris officially ended the war and established boundaries in 1783.   

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.10  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    2 months ago

Our winning independence from England didn’t involve battles? There wasn’t a war and a military that fought in it? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.10    2 months ago

Seems strange--very strange to me--that some folks are fine with military displays during inaugurations but not on the 4th.

The same folks who claim that the 4th is about the Declaration of Independence, and nothing else should be included. 

Makes me wonder what they think an inaugural is for (like the incoming President must be a warmonger?)

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.12  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    2 months ago
Did you ask previous presidents who did the same "show" the same question?

Please post a list of the 'previous presidents who did the same "show"' of tanks and planes on the 4th of July. I'll wait...

 
 
 
MonsterMash
5.1.13  MonsterMash  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    2 months ago
On July 4th,1776 representatives of the 13 original colonies signed a "Declaration Of Independence"

WRONG: On July 4, Congress officially adopted the Declaration of Independence, and as a result the date is celebrated as Independence Day. Nearly a month would go by, however, before the actual signing of the document took place. First, New York’s delegates didn’t officially give their support until July 9 because their home assembly hadn’t yet authorized them to vote in favor of independence. Next, it took two weeks for the Declaration to be “engrossed”—written on parchment in a clear hand. Most of the delegates signed on August 2, but several—Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris, Thomas McKean and Matthew Thornton—signed on a later date.

https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-declaration-of-independence

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.11    2 months ago
Seems strange--very strange to me--that some folks are fine with military displays during inaugurations but not on the 4th.
The same folks who claim that the 4th is about the Declaration of Independence, and nothing else should be included.
Makes me wonder what they think an inaugural is for (like the incoming President must be a warmonger?)

Perhaps it would help if you recognized that inaugurations are inherently political events. Another tidbit of information that might help is the fact that since 1901, inaugurations have been the responsibility of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, NOT by the POTUS being sworn in. 

The National Park Service [Interior Dept.] is responsible for the 4th of July celebration on the Mall.

Though the NPS had no control over the 'Salute for America' Trump ego play, they and the DOD [AKA the taxpayer] will be paying the price for it if Trump has his way. 

So in short, the 4th of July celebration on the Mall can't be compared to an Inauguration so it isn't 'strange' at all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.2    2 months ago
Did the signing of the Declaration of Independence happen due to a MILITARY VICTORY over the British?  If so, is it wrong to celebrate the military victory as much as the result of it? 

The Declaration Of Independence was not dependent on a military victory.

Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense was published in January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator.[24] Paine had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, and he argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[25]Common Sense made a persuasive and impassioned case for independence, which had not yet been given serious intellectual consideration in the American colonies. Paine connected independence with Protestant beliefs as a means to present a distinctly American political identity, thereby stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss,[26] and public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after its publication.[27]
200px-Independence_Hall_Assembly_Room.jp
The Assembly Room in Philadelphia's Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence

Some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, but developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament's passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the "Act of Independency", calling it "a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire".[28] Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Independence was the culmination of some long developing events. By July 1776 the ducks were in a row.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    2 months ago
Perhaps it would help if you recognized that inaugurations are inherently political events. Another tidbit of information that might help is the fact that since 1901, inaugurations have been the responsibility of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, NOT by the POTUS being sworn in.

I know what inaugurations are. Doesn't have a thing to do with what I stated or asked, but still, nice try.

I'm just wondering why all the yahoos with their little panties twisted up haven't bitched like little girls over the displays at inaugurations, too.  Must be because Trump.

Who is in charge of the events doesn't matter.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.16    2 months ago
Who is in charge of the events doesn't matter.

Actually, it DOES matter and the fact that one is inherently political and the other isn't matters too. 

But hey, doesn't fit into your agenda so ignore facts all you want. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.17    2 months ago
Actually, it DOES matter and the fact that one is inherently political and the other isn't matters too.

Nope, doesn't matter to me at all.
But then again, I am not the one who is bothered by it.

I really try not to be concerned with inane crap.

You have fun, though.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6  Kathleen    2 months ago

For the record.

I do not agree with any kind of putting down women and rape and other such things. I am sure in my history of posting, anyone can see that. The type of “policies” I was referring to is more like the “financial policies”.  There are many other things I disagree with about him.  

Also, I have never attacked any President or any of the First Ladies either.  I just think why? It does not help anything, it just makes things worse.  Why not directly address each issue at a time and try to come to a compromise and a solution?

jmo.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



JBB
bugsy
Drakkonis
KDMichigan
JohnRussell
MrFrost
Dulay
Freefaller


58 visitors