I support Trump — but he’s annoying us all By Michael Goodwin

[mystery-ak]

Opinion
I support Trump — but he’s annoying us all

By Michael Goodwin

May 14, 2017 | 1:29am

Not long ago, a friend was reciting things she needed to do before celebrating Passover with her family: preparing the ritual foods, doing something special for her grandchildren and making room for her daughter’s in-laws.

Exhausted by the list, she looked at me and said, “It’s not easy being Jewish.”

I know the feeling. I’m a Donald Trump supporter.

The president rarely makes it easy on the faithful, often testing his tribe through errant word and deed. Even on his best days, he manages to insert a hurdle or two or 10.

more
http://nypost.com/2017/05/14/i-support-trump-but-hes-annoying-us-all/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Opinion
I support Trump — but he’s annoying us all

By Michael Goodwin

May 14, 2017 | 1:29am

Not long ago, a friend was reciting things she needed to do before celebrating Passover with her family: preparing the ritual foods, doing something special for her grandchildren and making room for her daughter’s in-laws.

Exhausted by the list, she looked at me and said, “It’s not easy being Jewish.”

I know the feeling. I’m a Donald Trump supporter.

The president rarely makes it easy on the faithful, often testing his tribe through errant word and deed. Even on his best days, he manages to insert a hurdle or two or 10.

more
http://nypost.com/2017/05/14/i-support-trump-but-hes-annoying-us-all/

It's just Trump being Trump. I don't know why anyone would find this shocking. This is what he does, this is who he is. He acted like this in the 2016 campaign, he acted like this in 2015 when the primaries were just starting, he acted like this in 2012 when he ran in that campaign (arguably he acted even worse in 2012 because of the birther stuff).

[mountaineer]

Not tweeting would reduce the level of annoyance some of us have.

[Cripplecreek]

It's just Trump being Trump. I don't know why anyone would find this shocking. This is what he does, this is who he is. He acted like this in the 2016 campaign, he acted like this in 2015 when the primaries were just starting, he acted like this in 2012 when he ran in that campaign (arguably he acted even worse in 2012 because of the birther stuff).

Its who Donald Trump has always been. I haven't forgotten where Trump's rise to fame began. It began with Trump as a willing participant in trashy tabloid TV in the 1980s. Crap like Current Affairs.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not tweeting would reduce the level of annoyance some of us have.

Nonsense.  If the tweeting stopped, most here would find something else to be annoyed with.  The hate runs deep.

[driftdiver]

Not tweeting would reduce the level of annoyance some of us have.

It's not the fact that he thinks those things.  In many ways it's good.  What's a major annoyance and embarrassment is that he says them publicly.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Its who Donald Trump has always been. I haven't forgotten where Trump's rise to fame began. It began with Trump as a willing participant in trashy tabloid TV in the 1980s.

          

   


@Cripplecreek

[EasyAce]

          

   


@Cripplecreek

I think there's a considerable difference between an actual actor (whose only political activity in those years involved
the Screen Actors Guild) who once made ads for cigarettes and a couple of turkeys on the big screen and a real estate guy
with a taste for or at least an inability to resist scandal. In Ronald Reagan's time there was nothing scandalous about
doing an ad for cigarettes (to name just a few, I can remember people like John Wayne, Jack Webb, Lucille Ball, Joan Crawford,
Jackie Robinson, Dan Dailey, Hank Aaron, James Arness, Bob Hope, William Bendix, Barbara Stanwyck, and John Cameron
Swayze endorsing them)---and there was certainly nothing terrible other than inspiring jokes about making a turkey or
two in the film world. (Please don't tell me you think Bedtime for Bonzo was the sine qua non of Reagan's film
career.)

If anyone thinks there was something horrible about hosting The General Electric Theater on television, they should
think again. There were worse dramatic anthologies on television at the time, and the list of guest stars on The General
Electric Theater would drop a few jaws around here. Reagan credited the experience not just with completing his conversion
to conservatism---by way of his concurrent contract requirement to tour GE facilities and meet workers there, which he said
helped open him up to deeper conservative thought as time went on, right up to the moment GE canned him for a 1962 speech
criticising the Tennessee Valley Authority, which just so happened to be one of GE's big customers---but with really honing
his skills as a public speaker over the near-decade he spent hosting the show.

If someone doesn't know the difference between a dramatic anthology show (others of that time included Lux Television
Theater, Four Star Theater, Studio One, Playhouse 90, and The Philco Television Playhouse)
and a tabloid-style news/gossip show on which someone isn't exactly averse to being covered, they should be pitied.

[INVAR]

If someone doesn't know the difference between a dramatic anthology show (others of that time included Lux Television
Theater, Four Star Theater, Studio One, Playhouse 90, and The Philco Television Playhouse)
and a tabloid-style news/gossip show on which someone isn't exactly averse to being covered, they should be pitied.

I think it's pathetic that in order to prop up Trump, they have to apply Trump's lack of character, lack of self-control and bombastic egomaniacal narcissism to Ronald Reagan in a vain attempt to excuse his behavior and suggest he is even in the same league as The Gipper.

[EasyAce]

I think it's pathetic that in order to prop up Trump, they have to apply Trump's lack of character, lack of self-control and bombastic egomaniacal narcissism to Ronald Reagan in a vain attempt to excuse his behavior and suggest he is even in the same league as The Gipper.

Besides, Donaldus Minimus didn't begin his career the way Ronaldus Maximus did---as a baseball broadcaster. ;)

[bolobaby]

Nonsense.  If the tweeting stopped, most here would find something else to be annoyed with.  The hate runs deep.

And if Trump shot people on 5th Avenue, you'd find a way to praise it - the obsequiousness runs even deeper.

[Sanguine]

          

   

@Cripplecreek

So, RIV, you've got to denigrate Reagan to make Trump look good?  That doesn't seem like a winning argument.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think there's a considerable difference between an actual actor

So many words .... so little thought 

[Right_in_Virginia]

So, RIV, you've got to denigrate Reagan to make Trump look good? 

Is reminding you that Ronald Reagan also started in the "arts" a denigration @Sanguine...would you like to know other similarities between the two men???-- :

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think it's pathetic that in order to prop up Trump, they have to apply Trump's lack of character, lack of self-control and bombastic egomaniacal narcissism to Ronald Reagan in a vain attempt to excuse his behavior and suggest he is even in the same league as The Gipper.

 @INVAR ... 

Love ya  Boobala , you never disappoint.   

[Hondo69]

I never know when I'm in the comedy thread.

[INVAR]

@INVAR ... 

Love ya  Boobala , you never disappoint.   

That kind of reply is of course expected from BS propaganda artists when they get called out on their tactics.

Thanks for illustrating.

[bolobaby]

That kind of reply is of course expected from BS propaganda artists when they get called out on their tactics.

Thanks for illustrating.

Remember, we are talking about a person who needed a "safe space" on this forum during the primaries and election because she could handle no dissent or criticism.

Very, very similar to the one she idolizes. Let that sink in.

[EasyAce]

So many pictures .... so little thought 

Fixed.

[truth_seeker]

So, RIV, you've got to denigrate Reagan to make Trump look good?  That doesn't seem like a winning argument.

Do you take it as denigrating Reagan? I simply take it as depicting people as they actually were.

Reagan was a product of the entertainment society. Pointing that out, is not denigrating him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So

[EasyAce]

Do you take it as denigrating Reagan? I simply take it as depicting people as they actually were.

Reagan was a product of the entertainment society. Pointing that out, is not denigrating him.

Saying Reagan was a product of the entertainment society is one thing. Suggesting his entertainment
society was the same thing as the 1980s-1990s tabloid version is something else again. The chosen images,
too, were somewhat disingenuous---choosing magazine ads (as if Reagan was the only actor or actress to
endorse cigarettes or clothes) and the box art for one particular turkey film he made (as if he was the only
actor or actress who made a few turkeys amidst their better works) could be taken as quite suggestive of the
thought that, well, he wasn't exactly Mr. Upright, considering attitudes today toward commercial endorsements.

Almost as if to say that conservatives supporting a former actor for president means they have no business
objecting to a realtor as president. Well, now. If you say it that way, without names or particulars, you
could say from there that a former actor was an exercise in a kind of frivolity compared to a former realtor.
Now add the names. You won't need anyone to tell you the distinctions, which only begin with Reagan's
adeptness at communicating---which he himself credited, I repeat, to his years hosting General Electric
Theater and having to meet, greet, and speak to numerous GE facilities as part of his contract---and
Mr. Trump's clumsiness at it.

Maybe Mr. Trump, too, might have been served better hosting some sort of anthology series with concurrent
contractual requirements to meet, greet, and speak to people at his sponsors' facilities. It might not make
his politics or his performance in the presidency to date any more palatable to his critics, but it might make
him a lot less likely to trip all over himself when he communicates.

Though I suspect myself that, given the absolute choice, even some of Donaldus Minimus's more recalcitrant
supporters might prefer watching Bedtime for Bonzo over The Apprentice.

[truth_seeker]

Maybe Mr. Trump, too, might have been served better hosting some sort of anthology series with concurrent
contractual requirements to meet, greet, and speak to people at his sponsors' facilities. It might not make
his politics or his performance in the presidency to date any more palatable to his critics, but it might make
him a lot less likely to trip all over himself when he communicates.

Though I suspect myself that, given the absolute choice, even some of Donaldus Minimus's more recalcitrant
supporters might prefer watching Bedtime for Bonzo over The Apprentice.

I doubt that most of us plan to run for office. But if we did today, everything we left in our electronic messaging trails would be up for scrutiny.

Nixon was on the political scene much of my life until he resigned (and after). He was a typical politician. And essentially from my hometowns of Whittier, and San Clemente.  We were there, and so was he.

I was happy when he won in 1968 complete with his promise of a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. By the end of his time, I was fed up with him.

He went from great guy, VP, Potus--to an awful guy. The product of his own doing, but also the victim of politics, biased media, etc.

I do not place ANY OF THEM on pedestals. Not Reagan, not Trump, not even Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX.

I expect them all to fall short, to become involved in some sort of scandal. It is almost by definition who they are.

Trump is doing, and trying to do the things conservatives have said they wanted for years. I give him lots of credit for that.

That is only common sense.

[Sanguine]

Do you take it as denigrating Reagan? I simply take it as depicting people as they actually were.

Reagan was a product of the entertainment society. Pointing that out, is not denigrating him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So

Don't be coy.  If that is the only thing you post about Reagan, it is for the purpose of denigrating.  Showing him as he really was would have necessitated the inclusion of a lot of other, different photos.  That's not what RIV did.

Edited to add: EasyAce said it much better than I did.

[Fishrrman]

One of the reasons I voted for Mr. Trump was because I believed he'd be almost a literal "bull in the DC china shop".

He seems to be doing a bang-up job in that regard!

[EasyAce]

I doubt that most of us plan to run for office.

I wasn't brought up to make a life of organised crime. I'm sure you weren't, too. ;)

[Nixon] went from great guy, VP, Potus--to an awful guy. The product of his own doing, but also the victim of politics, biased media, etc.

It's just the way you put it. It was his personality and his mode of operation that did him in.---John Mitchell, to Len Colodny and Robert Gittlin,
when they interviewed him while researching their should-read book Silent Coup: The Removal of a President. (Among other things, Colodny and
Gittlin argued in the book that Mitchell was essentially fingered by John Dean---the real Watergate mastermind---and that Nixon never troubled himself
to find the truth instead of posting Mitchell as a kind of sacrificial lamb.)

I expect them all to fall short, to become involved in some sort of scandal. It is almost by definition who they are.

Give me the man or woman who has to be dragged kicking and screaming to run for office. We'd be way better off.

Trump is doing, and trying to do the things conservatives have said they wanted for years. I give him lots of credit for that.

That is only common sense.

Assuming you're right (for me the jury's still out), when he does right, give the man credit. When he does wrong, it's pointless to try
justifying or excusing it. That's what we zapped about Democrats and about other errant Republicans.