Republicans struggle to defend Donald Trump

[Formerly Once-Ler]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/republicans-struggle-to-defend-donald-trump-20191019-p5328a.html

Washington: A growing number of congressional Republicans expressed exasperation on Friday over what they view as President Donald Trump's indefensible behaviour, a sign that the president's stranglehold on his party is starting to weaken as Congress hurtles toward a historic impeachment vote.

In interviews with more than 20 GOP lawmakers and congressional aides in the past 48 hours, many said they were repulsed by Trump's decision to host an international summit at his own resort and incensed by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney's admission - later withdrawn - that US aid to Ukraine was withheld for political reasons.

Others expressed anger over the president's abandonment of Kurdish allies in Syria.

One Republican, Representative Francis Rooney of Florida - whose district Trump carried by 22 percentage points - did not rule out voting to impeach the president and compared the situation to the Watergate scandal that ended Richard Nixon's presidency.

"I'm still thinking about it, you know?" Rooney said of backing impeachment. "I've been real mindful of the fact that during Watergate, all the people I knew said, 'Oh, they're just abusing Nixon, and it's a witch hunt.' Turns out it wasn't a witch hunt. It was really bad."

More at link...

Why on Earth would President Trump think he could take the elected Republicans in Congress for granted?

[Applewood]

Why on Earth would President Trump think he could take the elected Republicans in Congress for granted?

From the start of his presidency Trump berated, bullied and abused members of his own party and refused to work with them.  For a long time I think many of them were bullied into silence.  Now that the Dems want to impeach, these Republicans feel it's safe to speak up.   Trump shouldn't expect any Republican to have his back now.

But it does bother me that so many of them who hid from the media for the last 3 years are coming out of the woodwork now and saying, yes, they would vote to impeach, or, if charged, they will vote to convict.  Really?  In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty.  For a house or senate member to say he/she will vote a certain way in this proceeding before the evidence is presented or even before Trump is charged with any wrongdoing is just plain wrong.  It just fuels Trump's constant refrain that this whole proceeding is a "witch hunt" or a "coup."

[sneakypete]

From the start of his presidency Trump berated, bullied and abused members of his own party and refused to work with them.  For a long time I think many of them were bullied into silence.  Now that the Dems want to impeach, these Republicans feel it's safe to speak up.   Trump shouldn't expect any Republican to have his back now.

But it does bother me that so many of them who hid from the media for the last 3 years are coming out of the woodwork now and saying, yes, they would vote to impeach, or, if charged, they will vote to convict.  Really?  In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty.  For a house or senate member to say he/she will vote a certain way in this proceeding before the evidence is presented or even before Trump is charged with any wrongdoing is just plain wrong.  It just fuels Trump's constant refrain that this whole proceeding is a "witch hunt" or a "coup."

@Applewood

You seem to be operating under the delusion that congresscritters are dedicated to supplying the voters with the best goobermint possible. It just ain't true. Their primary concern is protecting their own nest.

[mountaineer]

Lee Zeldin   @RepLeeZeldin
I’ve sat through EVERY interview so far of this so called “impeachment inquiry” & the President hasn’t done anything to possibly impeach him for.

NOTHING.
10:41 PM · Oct 18, 2019

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Australia Herald?  Well, alrighty.   

[Night Hides Not]

Lee Zeldin   @RepLeeZeldin
I’ve sat through EVERY interview so far of this so called “impeachment inquiry” & the President hasn’t done anything to possibly impeach him for.

NOTHING.
10:41 PM · Oct 18, 2019

If being an ascheloche was an impeachable offense, the halls of Congress would be empty.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

You seem to be operating under the delusion that congresscritters are dedicated to supplying the voters with the best goobermint possible. It just ain't true. Their primary concern is protecting their own nest.

What I expect is for them to do their jobs, keep their promises and uphold the Constitution.  I don't see them or the president doing any of the above.    Seems to me they have all sat on their duffs for 3 years and now that they are up for re-election, they are coming alive. 

[skeeter]

The Australia Herald?  Well, alrighty.   

Its been two and a half years and obviously they're running out of newspapers that'll print this same-damn-story.

[Bigun]

It isn't about Trump @Once-Ler it's about [Breaking the Administrative State[/size]

[sneakypete]

What I expect is for them to do their jobs, keep their promises and uphold the Constitution. 

@Applewood

Sadly,you are destined to be dissapointed all your days.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It isn't about Trump

@Bigun We could not be further apart in our opinions.  Other Presidents have been able to pass legislation without removing every held over government worker.  However your picture of an intransigent deep state juxtaposed to the Whitehouse revolving door of Executive boobs is fun to contemplate.

[Bigun]

@Bigun We could not be further apart in our opinions.  Other Presidents have been able to pass legislation without removing every held over government worker.  However your picture of an intransigent deep state juxtaposed to the Whitehouse revolving door of Executive boobs is fun to contemplate.

You are right @Once-Ler!  We could not be any further apart in our opinions and that is very unlikely to change anytime soon.

[truth_seeker]

My father explained the "permanent bureaucracy to me during the early Reagan days. (He had finished serving for 8 years as Governor)

The permanent government is largely in the hands of "career" employees. The President makes a few political appointments.

My father was friends with Howard Jarvis, co-author of Proposition 13 to permanently restrict property taxes.

Jarvis never held office, but he was an astute analyst of political reality.

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

[Chosen Daughter]

They are only struggling because to not defend it might mean political suicide.  Even if they did think he is wrong they know that Trump has a huge following in their states and it could mean defeat.  It is possible that even the most obvious violations of ethics could be ignored.  Only because opposing them could mean losing your job.

Total control of the media is the start of dictatorships.

[Mesaclone]

They are only struggling because to not defend it might mean political suicide.  Even if they did think he is wrong they know that Trump has a huge following in their states and it could mean defeat.  It is possible that even the most obvious violations of ethics could be ignored.  Only because opposing them could mean losing your job.

Total control of the media is the start of dictatorships.

Yes. And that is why the Dems total control of the media is so concerning. Add to that the strong tendency of Socialist parties around the world "crushing" their opposition once they attain power...and we should all be having some sleepless nights.

As for the President, he clearly has zero control over the media and they have been working non-stop and with wildly absurd bias to ensure he is impeached and loses the next election.

[Right_in_Virginia]

They are only struggling because to not defend it might mean political suicide.  Even if they did think he is wrong they know that Trump has a huge following in their states and it could mean defeat.  It is possible that even the most obvious violations of ethics could be ignored.  Only because opposing them could mean losing your job.

Total control of the media is the start of dictatorships. 

Who are you saying has "total control of the media" @Chosen Daughter

[Chosen Daughter]

Yes. And that is why the Dems total control of the media is so concerning. Add to that the strong tendency of Socialist parties around the world "crushing" their opposition once they attain power...and we should all be having some sleepless nights.

As for the President, he clearly has zero control over the media and they have been working non-stop and with wildly absurd bias to ensure he is impeached and loses the next election.

Oh, see that is the lie.  I have come across it even in my personal relationships.  There are many Conservative News sources but Trump does not endorse any.  In fact he is controlling even FOX news these days.  I hear people say all the time about poor President Trump.  He has so many people against him.  Let pray that the nasty media is silenced.

Baloney.  I watched him in his rally.  Several times pointing to the media calling it fake.  Anybody that says anything that isn't according to Donald Trump gets the label.  Fake.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Anybody that says anything that isn't according to Donald Trump gets the label.  Fake. 

Pull up, chosen one, pull up.

[Mesaclone]

Oh, see that is the lie.  I have come across it even in my personal relationships.  There are many Conservative News sources but Trump does not endorse any.  In fact he is controlling even FOX news these days.  I hear people say all the time about poor President Trump.  He has so many people against him.  Let pray that the nasty media is silenced.

Baloney.  I watched him in his rally.  Several times pointing to the media calling it fake.  Anybody that says anything that isn't according to Donald Trump gets the label.  Fake.

As President, why would he "endorse" any particular media? As for Fox...he is angry with them because they are being so critical of him. So let him be angry and critical all he wants, that is his First Amendment right. IMHO Fox does a great job in its news section of being fair, which means politicians on both sides will not like it....especially the Left as they are use to absurdly slanted news coverage in their favor. If only all news was akin to Fox in its willingness to criticize both sides of the aisle, the nation would be vastly better off.

Again, the president can label anything he wants to be fake news...and for the most part he's correct when he makes that charge (95% of the traditional media sources have become little more than Lefty propaganda mouthpieces). The President calling something fake news has nothing to do with "suppression of the 1st Amendment" as you asserted in another thread...you need a course on Constitutional principles, apparently, to explain how and when that amendment is applicable.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Oh, see that is the lie.  I have come across it even in my personal relationships.  There are many Conservative News sources but Trump does not endorse any.  In fact he is controlling even FOX news these days.  I hear people say all the time about poor President Trump.  He has so many people against him.  Let pray that the nasty media is silenced.

Baloney.  I watched him in his rally.  Several times pointing to the media calling it fake.  Anybody that says anything that isn't according to Donald Trump gets the label.  Fake.

@Chosen Daughter Very interesting observation. 

[Chosen Daughter]

As President, why would he "endorse" any particular media? As for Fox...he is angry with them because they are being so critical of him. So let him be angry and critical all he wants, that is his First Amendment right. IMHO Fox does a great job in its news section of being fair, which means politicians on both sides will not like it....especially the Left as they are use to absurdly slanted news coverage in their favor. If only all news was akin to Fox in its willingness to criticize both sides of the aisle, the nation would be vastly better off.

Again, the president can label anything he wants to be fake news...and for the most part he's correct when he makes that charge (95% of the traditional media sources have become little more than Lefty propaganda mouthpieces). The President calling something fake news has nothing to do with "suppression of the 1st Amendment" as you asserted in another thread...you need a course on Constitutional principles, apparently, to explain how and when that amendment is applicable.

No, he's no right.  And his own Administration can't even get it straight.  Rudy and Mick can't get their stories straight.  And its hard when your trying to cover for Trump.  All the good people who have served him end up with the Trump smear campaign after they are fired.  He hires them and ruins their careers.  He can't even drop it.  He has to go on and on.  How long did he talk about Sessions?

The media is never kind to the Presidents.  With him its like the greatest sin if they are not printing or speaking Trump talking points.  So whether it is people who have worked in the Administration for Trump or the media.   If you cross Trump your career is over.

One of the earliest media casualties was Red State and Susan Wright.  I used to love to read her article's and she was truthful.  But you can't be truthful or your fake.

Example:

Exclusive: Fired RedState Writer Slams Site Over Hypocrisy of Layoffs: We Were ‘Insufficiently Partisan’

By Jon StreetApr 30th, 2018, 8:53 am

“I can’t remember the last time I had a month where I wasn’t in the top three,” Wright added.

Indeed, Mediaite obtained RedState’s traffic report for the month of March. During that month, more than 2.5 million readers visited the website. Of those readers, 740,339 clicked on Wright’s posts, making her the most-read author on the site. Why would a website allegedly struggling with finances let go of a writer who was responsible for more than a third of the website’s overall traffic?

Wright said she believes it’s because she was not pro-Donald Trump enough.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-fired-redstate-writer-slams-site-over-hypocrisy-of-layoffs-we-were-insufficiently-partisan/

[Chosen Daughter]

@Chosen Daughter Very interesting observation. 

Its what all dictators do.  They discredit all information except what is approved through them. 

[Night Hides Not]

Its what all dictators do.  They discredit all information except what is approved through them.

POTUS has the loudest voice in the world, the bully pulpit. Trump has the “bully” part down cold. Using Twitter and public rallies as his pulpit just doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

His incessant complaints about fake news are reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf. It’s become trite and worn out its usefulness, except to his ardent supporters.

[Mesaclone]

Its what all dictators do.  They discredit all information except what is approved through them.

Clearly, you do not know what a dictator is.

Nor do you understand the application and purpose of the First Amendment and its founding intent. And worse, you seem to have swallowed without question such idiotic Dem memes as "Trump is being a dictator" and that the press should be "above criticism from mere voters and their elected President".

Quite frankly, reading your posts on the topic of the President is much like listening to Maxine "the Mouth" Waters waxing poetic on the impeachment process. Like her, your positions on the President are infuriating because they are based on little more than false assumptions ("Fake news" isn't real...its just something the President made up), imaginary facts (Trump is working for Putin), misunderstanding of the Constitution (The First Amendment means the President can't be critical of the Press), and an absolute derangement that precludes any coherent discussion of the President and of politics generally. 

As for Dictators. Dictators arrest people, shoot them, shut down their printing machines or websites and send political opponents to re-education camps.

Dictators do not get daily slammed, dishonestly, by the media in their own country. Dictators do not get continuously investigated, berated and spied upon by the opposition party...because they have no serious opposition party.

And again, you SAY the word Dictator, but clearly don't understand what it means.