-
Our Nation Is Paying for Trump’s Refusal to Be Presidential
By Jonah Goldberg
January 22, 2020 6:30 AM
The president’s inability to act like a president has further exacerbated our political dysfunction.
I’
ve long argued that Donald Trump’s presidency will end poorly because he’s a person of bad character. I still think that’s true, though I very much doubt the impeachment trial now underway will result in his removal. Regardless of its outcome, his impeachment illustrates the damage bad character can do to the presidency, the culture, and the constitutional order.
In monarchies and other systems built around one-man (or one-woman) rule, the leader’s quirks, obsessions, or inadequacies cease to be any of those things, instead becoming fashionable attributes of greatness. Bad jokes that emerge from his or her mouth become hilarious; rudeness, strength. Mispronunciations become fashionable locution. The story of Castilian Spaniards replacing the “s†sound with a “th†sound (“therveza†instead of cerveza) to accommodate King Ferdinand’s lisp is myth, alas (or “alathâ€). But the moral of the story stands...…………..
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second)
-
FTA:
We’ve seen something similar happen to large swaths of the GOP. Because Trump is unteachable about how the presidency and our constitutional system are supposed to work, politicians and media figures have dropped their long-held views on foreign policy, the national debt, trade, and even the need for basic civility in order to get in sync with the president.
Need Less of these Never Trumper Scum, Fake News, Low I.Q., Enemy of the People dummies.
Need More American Thinker genius toadies.
-
Truth:
Our problems with partisanship and polarization predate Trump’s election, but his presidency has been gasoline on a fire. Trump could have avoided impeachment countless times. Most obviously, he could have not done what he obviously did vis-à -vis Ukraine. Or he could have admitted his error, apologized, and taken the steam out of the impeachment train’s boilers.
Instead, because of his low character, he opted to stand by his claims that his actions were “perfect.†As a result, Republicans must now further deform their character to accommodate his and scramble to protect themselves from hearing the truth at his impeachment trial, on the accurate but embarrassing pretext that the Democrats didn’t expose the truth the right way.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second)
-
This is an opinion piece. Moving.
-
The premise isn't quite right. The problem isn't that he's refusing to be presidential, it is that he is too presidential for democrats the media and never Trumpers. He's too decisive, quick acting, and stands for America. In other words, he is the polar opposite of Barak Hussein Obama and THAT is what has his enemies so upset. His actions make Obama look like a dimestore clerk suddenly thrust into the presidency. His indecisiveness, preference for Muslims and Russia over America, hatred of the military, hatred for white people, his poor understanding of economics and business is all being exposed but the media either doesn't see it or, if they do, won't put it into words.
-
Whatever.
-
The narrative is Trump isn't 'acting presidential'.
What 'presidential acting' is Trump not doing? Is he not negotiating trade deals on the USA's behalf? Acting as Commander & Chief where there's a national threat? Refraining from blowing his nose into the tablecloth while at state dinners?
He insults those who attack him. BFD.
-
What our country is "paying for" is dems' refusal to accept the results of one election, and refusal to allow voters to choose who they want in the next election.
-
This is an opinion piece. Moving.
@Wingnut
Can you move it to the Huffington Post,where it belongs?
-
:2popcorn:
-
@Wingnut
Can you move it to the Huffington Post,where it belongs?
You mean move Chosen Daughter to the Huffer? @sneakypete :yowsa:
-
On a daily basis, he's doing an amazing job of demystifying the presidency, without the inconvenience of a House inquiry and a Senate trial.
If so, then what good is the current impeachment effort supposed to do? That's a question raised recently by executive-power critics on both the left and the right. "Recent partisan impeachment crusades haven't challenged the gravest executive excesses," The American Conservative's Jim Antle pointed out. "Drone an American citizen, no worries. Drone on about Joe Biden in a telephone call, constitutional crisis."
"If Trump is going to be impeached," The Intercept's Murtaza Hussain wrote, "don't fool yourself that what he's allegedly done to Hunter Biden is the worst crime he committed while in office."
It's a fair point: The third-rate shakedown attempt at the heart of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July. Even so, in politics, as in economics, incentives matter. Lower the cost of bad behavior and you'll probably get more of it. Not launching an impeachment inquiry in this case would signal that, going forward, it's perfectly acceptable for presidents to use the diplomatic and foreign policy powers of the office to, in John Dean's memorable phrase, "screw [their] political enemies." Moreover, to tolerate Trump's blanket stonewalling of Congress would establish the precedent that it's OK for presidents to ignore lawful subpoenas if he thinks the people investigating him are "biased." Repudiating those notions is hardly a waste of the House's time.
. . . The presidency has grown far too powerful to entrust to any one fallible human. Will the current impeachment drive do anything about that?
Impeachment's core purpose is to serve as "a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government," as Federalist No. 65 puts it. But history proves there's no guarantee any particular impeachment will further that purpose . . . The post-Watergate Congresses made a lot of mistakes, and the good they did was steadily undermined by less assertive lawmakers in the decades that followed. But they carried out the last serious effort to limit executive power. Impeachment wasn't a "distraction" from that effort but the catalyst for it. Today, for only the fourth time in American history, an American president has been forced to contemplate early retirement via the impeachment process. Those of us who'd like to downsize the presidency itself have little to fear from that process and some reason to hope.
---Gene Healy, from "Don't Freak Out About Impeachment," Reason (https://reason.com/2019/12/20/fired/), February 2020 issue.
He opened his article with this:
Nobody likes losing his job, but if there's any country on Earth that's copacetic about firing people, it's these United States of America. Almost alone among industrialized democracies, the U.S. hews to the old-school regime of employment at will, which means most of us can be frogmarched out of the building at any time—for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.
. . . Does it bother us when an old lech like Les Moonves of CBS or some new economy manchild like Adam Neumann of WeWork gets the business end of creative destruction? Like hell it does: This is the country that pioneered the idea of firing people as entertainment. For 14 seasons of NBC's reality TV game show The Apprentice, Americans tuned in eagerly to see which contestants would be shown the door with the signature line "You're fired!" Then, in 2016, we went and elected the game-show host president of the United States.
Since his inauguration, Donald Trump's tenure has been a whirlwind of self-dealing, management pratfalls, and public meltdowns of the sort that might get a mere captain of industry summarily canned. Luckily for him, he's failed upward into a post that comes with more job protection than the vast majority of American workers enjoy. Somehow we've decided that the one job in America where you have to commit a felony to get fired is the one where you also control nuclear weapons. Given the damage an unfit president can do, shouldn't it be easier to get rid of one?
Mr. Healy, by the way, is also the author of these two books that I for one wish more people had read and would read:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BZC%2Bzfo3L._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51a1lUf3YDL.jpg)
False Idol, by the way, is a free read! (http://www.cato.org/false-idol-free-ebook)
-
You mean move Chosen Daughter to the Huffer? @sneakypete :yowsa:
@Wingnut
No comment.
-
Still waiting on the U-haul.
-
Our Nation Is Paying for Trump’s Refusal to Be Presidential
No, our country is paying for putting Democrats in power.
-
What EXACTLY has Trump done that could be voiced or written as a CHARGEABLE CRIME? Did he wipe himself in the wrong direction? :silly:
-
What EXACTLY has Trump done that could be voiced or written as a CHARGEABLE CRIME?
A president can be impeached for reasons having nothing to do with legally chargeable crimes. So said the Founding Fathers, among others (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trump-lawyers-argue-abuse-power-isnt-thing-when-it-comes-impeachment).
-
This is the kind of opinion piece that ticks me off. Given the choice to focus on Trump's "unPresidential behavior", or the Democrats anti-democratic 3 year long crusade to overturn an election, Goldberg chooses to focus on the issue that only helps elect a Democrat. And which is truly worse? A President who says some offensive things, or the refusal of one political party to accept the results of an election, and trying to use the machinery of government to derail a Presidency?
Make me sick. People like Goldberg are small-minded twerps who simply can't get over that their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination in 2016, and likely was offended by/unsulted by Trump in the process. Well, my preferred candidate didn't win either. But sometimes, you have to deal with disappointment and act like an adult moving forward.
-
So, we should all settle for do nothing government, high unemployment, stagnant stock market and real estate values.We need more food stamps and welfare with a side of socialism.
I will gladly pay... let me get my check book...
-
This is the kind of opinion piece that ticks me off. Given the choice to focus on Trump's "unPresidential behavior", or the Democrats anti-democratic 3 year long crusade to overturn an election, Goldberg chooses to focus on the issue that only helps elect a Democrat. And which is truly worse? A President who says some offensive things, or the refusal of one political party to accept the results of an election, and trying to use the machinery of government to derail a Presidency?
Make me sick. People like Goldberg are small-minded twerps who simply can't get over that their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination in 2016, and likely was offended by/unsulted by Trump in the process. Well, my preferred candidate didn't win either. But sometimes, you have to deal with disappointment and act like an adult moving forward.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
A president can be impeached for reasons having nothing to do with legally chargeable crimes. So said the Founding Fathers, among others (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trump-lawyers-argue-abuse-power-isnt-thing-when-it-comes-impeachment).
?? Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
-
?? Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Cato has been highly predictable in all matters Trump. The Live Thread for today ought to be heating up any minute now...it's 1PM in DeeCee.
-
Cato has been highly predictable in all matters Trump. The Live Thread for today ought to be heating up any minute now...it's 1PM in DeeCee.
Speaking of heating up; it finally warming up a bit outside...time for another walk. happy77
-
?? Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[H]owever much it may fall in with the political theories of certain statesmen and jurists, to deny the existence of a common law belonging to, and applicable to the nation in ordinary cases, no one has as yet been bold enough to assert, that the power of impeachment is limited to offences positively defined in the statute book of the Union, as impeachable high crimes and misdemeanours.
---Justice Joseph Story, from Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_5s18.html).
-
And which is truly worse?
Really, must I choose? :pondering:
I choose neither, thanks.
-
Really, must I choose? :pondering:
I choose neither, thanks.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.
And you chose poorly.
-
[H]owever much it may fall in with the political theories of certain statesmen and jurists, to deny the existence of a common law belonging to, and applicable to the nation in ordinary cases, no one has as yet been bold enough to assert, that the power of impeachment is limited to offences positively defined in the statute book of the Union, as impeachable high crimes and misdemeanours.
---Justice Joseph Story, from Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_5s18.html).
I believe "Maladministration" was discussed and rejected in the framing of the Constitution, because it could literally mean "We don't like his policies."
-
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.
And you chose poorly.
No, I chose well. I have no dog in this hunt.
-
No, I chose well. I have no dog in this hunt.
"You may not be interested in the government, but the government is interested in you."
-
ap·a·thy
/ˈapəTHē/
noun
1. lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern.
The main symptom of apathy is a lack of motivation to do, complete, or accomplish anything. You may also experience low energy levels. You may have diminished emotions, motivation, and willingness to act. ... You may exhibit a lack of effort, planning, and emotional response.Nov 1, 2016
https://www.healthline.com (https://www.healthline.com)
-
"You may not be interested in the government, but the government is interested in you."
How is that any different than ever?
-
ap·a·thy
/ˈapəTHē/
noun
1. lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern.
The main symptom of apathy is a lack of motivation to do, complete, or accomplish anything. You may also experience low energy levels. You may have diminished emotions, motivation, and willingness to act. ... You may exhibit a lack of effort, planning, and emotional response.Nov 1, 2016
https://www.healthline.com (https://www.healthline.com)
Refusing to support that which is counter to one's principles is not apathy.
-
How is that any different than ever?
Never, in the short time I've been around. :shrug:
I guess what I was thinking of was, "can anybody just wash their hands of it?"
-
Never, in the short time I've been around. :shrug:
I guess what I was thinking of was, "can anybody just wash their hands of it?"
How can one not? It's a sh*t-show, no matter which way.
-
How can one not? It's a sh*t-show, no matter which way.
That may be, but I'll still sell a lot of popcorn. Sh*t shows still sell. :2popcorn:
-
That may be, but I'll still sell a lot of popcorn. Sh*t shows still sell. :2popcorn:
Sure. But they sure as hell don't govern worth a crap.
-
I suppose that Bubba Clinton, the Liberal God figure, 'acted Presidentially'. Was the anti-American, pro-Islam, Christian hater, Obama presidential?
What the Liberals are upset about of course, is that the don't have the drunk criminal felon Hillary who of course is very Presidential, in their minds.
If a Republican must be President, then it should be a George Bush/Jeb Bush type who the Liberals can kick around like a soccer ball with no push back and with impunity. They want a milquetoast whipping boy who will take his daily media beating and stay silent about it.
Democrats are not used to Republicans pushing back and they don't know how to deal with it. Liberals don't have any Defense plays in their playbook because they have never needed them before Trump. They only know Offense, all day, everyday, all the time.
-
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.
@Wingnut
The words of the amazing Neil Peart....
R.I.P.
-
I believe "Maladministration" was discussed and rejected in the framing of the Constitution, because it could literally mean "We don't like his policies."
"Maladministration" seems to have been rejected not because it could mean (literally or otherwise), "We don't like his policies," but because James Madison thought it too vague. It was George Mason who took that objection and then suggested "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state" in its stead, modified to "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Says (https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html) the Constitutional Rights Foundation from there:
Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors†as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors†were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,†granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
(Emphasis added--EA.)
Two Congressional Research Service attorneys (Jared P. Cole, Todd Garvey), wrote this (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf) in 2015:
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain . . .
. . . Is Impeachment Limited to Criminal Acts?
The Constitution describes the grounds of impeachment as“treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.†While treason and bribery are relatively well-defined terms, the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors†is not defined in the Constitution or in statute and remains somewhat opaque. It was adopted from the English practice of parliamentary impeachments, which appears to have been directed against individuals accused of crimes against the state and encompassed offenses beyond traditional criminal law. Some have argued that only criminal acts are impeachable offenses under the United States Constitution; impeachment is therefore inappropriate for non-criminal activity. In support of this assertion, one might note that the debate on impeachable offenses during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 indicates that criminal conduct was encompassed in the “high crimes and misdemeanors†standard. The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.†According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors†a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.â€
(Emphases added--EA.)
Wrote Erick Trickey in Smithsonian Magazine in October 2017 (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/):
Americans have debated the meaning of this decidedly open-ended phrase ever since. But its inclusion, as well as the guidance the Founders left regarding its interpretation, offers more protection against a dangerous executive power than many realize.
Of all the Founders who debated impeachment, three Virginians—[George] Mason,[James] Madison and delegate Edmund Randolph—did the most to set down a vision of when Congress should remove a president from office. Though the men had very different positions on the Constitution, their debates in Philadelphia and at Virginia’s ratifying convention in Richmond produced crucial definitions of an impeachable offense. And their ultimate agreement—that a president should be impeached for abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law—remains essential to the debates we’re having today, 230 years later.
. . . “Shall any man be above justice?†Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?†A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?â€
Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.†Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculationâ€â€” embezzlement—“or oppression,†Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.â€
Randolph agreed on both these fronts. “The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power,†he warned, “particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands.†The delegates voted, 8 states to 2, to make the executive removable by impeachment.
. . . Unfortunately for everyone who’s argued since about what an impeachable offense is, the convention’s Committee on Style and Revision, which was supposed to improve the draft Constitution’s language without changing its meaning, deleted (from the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause) the phrase “against the United States.†Without that phrase, which explained what constitutes “high crimes,†many Americans came to believe that “high crimes†literally meant only crimes identified in criminal law.
-
Really, must I choose? :pondering:
I choose neither, thanks.
That works for you because you're not a professional writer. But if you are a professional writer, and are going to write an article about one or the other, you have to make a choice by definition. And Goldberg made his.
-
What EXACTLY has Trump done that could be voiced or written as a CHARGEABLE CRIME? Did he wipe himself in the wrong direction? :silly:
@conservativevoter
That's easy. His feet stink and he doan luv Jesus enough!
-
That works for you because you're not a professional writer. But if you are a professional writer, and are going to write an article about one or the other, you have to make a choice by definition.
I don't think that is true.
-
No, I chose well. I have no dog in this hunt.
@roamer_1
So,nothing that happens to America is of any concern to you because you don't like the President.
Good to know.
-
@roamer_1
So,nothing that happens to America is of any concern to you because you don't like the President.
Good to know.
@sneakypete
Of course many things concern me.
And you omitted that I don't like the Dems either.
-
I don't think that is true.
Okay, I do. If you're writing an article, you have to pick a topic.
Feel free to disagree.
-
@conservativevoter
That's easy. His feet stink and he doan luv Jesus enough!
I thought was because his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries?
-
A refusal implies a choice is available and one knows the difference.
Given his behavior since toddler days what makes anyone believe
that Trump knows what "Presidential Behavior" is???
-
Okay, I do. If you're writing an article, you have to pick a topic.
Feel free to disagree.
Certainly you have to pick a topic. But the very heart of true journalism is to set your feelings aside and report the facts. Not that I am saying that occurred this time (the OP), but I think it not only possible, but necessary to resurrect.
-
I thought was because his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries?
@Wingnut
I am fairly certain those would be seen as positives by the Dims.
-
A refusal implies a choice is available and one knows the difference.
Given his behavior since toddler days what makes anyone believe
that Trump knows what "Presidential Behavior" is???
No one knows the difference. Who knows what 'Presidential Behavior' is?
Look at past Democrat Presidents over the last fifty years and name one who was 'Presidential'.
-
From para #2 of this decidedly TDS #nevertrumper article,
"The story of Castilian Spaniards replacing the “s†sound with a “th†sound (“therveza†instead of cerveza) to accommodate King Ferdinand’s lisp is myth, alas (or “alathâ€). But the moral of the story stands..".
That is the premise of the article.
And page after page, members write as if the article has some great truth, instead of words for which the author gets paid, whether true or not, whether wise or not.
-
Truth:
Our problems with partisanship and polarization predate Trump’s election, but his presidency has been gasoline on a fire. Trump could have avoided impeachment countless times. Most obviously, he could have not done what he obviously did vis-à -vis Ukraine. Or he could have admitted his error, apologized, and taken the steam out of the impeachment train’s boilers.
Instead, because of his low character, he opted to stand by his claims that his actions were “perfect.†As a result, Republicans must now further deform their character to accommodate his and scramble to protect themselves from hearing the truth at his impeachment trial, on the accurate but embarrassing pretext that the Democrats didn’t expose the truth the right way.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=second)
Truth.
-
Refusing to support that which is counter to one's principles is not apathy.
In fact, it is the antithesis of apathy.
But the charge will continue to be made, despite its absence of truthfulness.
-
In fact, it is the antithesis of apathy.
But the charge will continue to be made, despite its absence of truthfulness.
Exactly right. happy77 :beer:
-
No one knows the difference. Who knows what 'Presidential Behavior' is?
Look at past Democrat Presidents over the last fifty years and name one who was 'Presidential'.
And since they have been unpresidential, our guy clearly should be unpresidential as well....
In spite of the fact that in the past we have always criticized the dems for their bad behavior......
-
And since they have been unpresidential, our guy clearly should be unpresidential as well....
In spite of the fact that we criticized the dems for their bad behavior......
Have you any idea, any idea whatsoever, of the scope of the battle we are in ... right at this very moment?
To be concerned with demeanor is at its best and its worst: Vacuous.
-
Geesh, I was wondering what's developed on TBR whilst I was busy accomplishing honey-doos before I have to go on a beer run for the Castle bar...A slim of Shock Top today.
I found the answer.... :laugh:
:police:
-
No one knows the difference. Who knows what 'Presidential Behavior' is?
Look at past Democrat Presidents over the last fifty years and name one who was 'Presidential'.
-----------------------------
Agree, both D and R were collection of buffoons, giving Reagan a pass.
The likes of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe no longer exist!
-
Certainly you have to pick a topic. But the very heart of true journalism is to set your feelings aside and report the facts.
Which facts you choose to report is often just as important as the truth of the facts. If you repeatedly focus on the flaws of one side, while deliberately refusing to address the equally factual flaws committed by comparators, the picture created is just as deceptive is if you'd lied about the actual facts.
-
Truth:
Trump could have avoided impeachment countless times. Most obviously, he could have not done what he obviously did vis-à -vis Ukraine. Or he could have admitted his error, apologized, and taken the steam out of the impeachment train’s boilers.
Truth!?!? That's flat-out delusional. Nothing could possibly have taken the steam out of the Democrats' desire to impeach, which they stated long before the phone call with Ukraine. That was simply the excuse to impeach. Had Trump "apologised" for the phone call, the Democrats would have shouted with glee and used his admission of guilt as complete justification for impeachment.
They have been trying to get him out of office since before he was inaugurated. The suggestion that they are just fair minded people who would have been placated by an apology can only be believed by someone who is completely ignorant of what has been going on these last three years.
-
Which facts you choose to report is often just as important as the truth of the facts. If you repeatedly focus on the flaws of one side, while deliberately refusing to address the equally factual flaws committed by comparators, the picture created is just as deceptive is if you'd lied about the actual facts.
Agreed. Being even-handed requires discernment, and should indeed be part of reporting the facts.
-
Truth!?!? That's flat-out delusional. Nothing could possibly have taken the steam out of the Democrats' desire to impeach, which they stated long before the phone call with Ukraine. That was simply the excuse to impeach. Had Trump "apologised" for the phone call, the Democrats would have shouted with glee and used his admission of guilt as complete justification for impeachment.
They have been trying to get him out of office since before he was inaugurated. The suggestion that they are just fair minded people who would have been placated by an apology can only be believed by someone who is completely ignorant of what has been going on these last three years.
Dems and Progs were discussing impeachment on November 9, 2016, if not weeks earlier. And contriving to use the 25th Amendment to get Trump out of office. So no, the current shampeachment is not due to things done by Trump. House Dems simply chose, last fall, a pretext that had not yet been shown to be false.
-
What very precisely is this 'price" we are claimed to be paying?
How much of it are we paying?
-
@EasyAce
I just want to say thank you for the intelligence and information you've added to this thread.
It is good to read opinions and thoughts from the founding of this (once) great Republic that go beyond the current partisan sound bites on both sides.
888high58888
-
Dems and Progs were discussing impeachment on November 9, 2016, if not weeks earlier. And contriving to use the 25th Amendment to get Trump out of office. So no, the current shampeachment is not due to things done by Trump. House Dems simply chose, last fall, a pretext that had not yet been shown to be false.
Exactly. Unpresidential? Last time I checked he showed extreme leadership and acted very presidential when he silenced Soilemani and saved American lives.
Secondly ... Trump has committed no crime. Nothing, nadda, zilch, zero evidence has been proven or provided by the DEMS. President Donald Trump gave them the transcripts. No quid pro quo. Again, nothing, nadda, zilch, zero evidence the Trump has committed a crime. Oh ... and after millions of dollars and over a year of bogus investigations and false accusations, there IS no proof or evidence that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia.
Russian collusion and this circus impeachment is nothing more than to try to prevent him from getting re-elected.
I would hope that most on this board are smart enough to see the attempted coup against our President. President Donald J. Trump is standing between us and socialism.
-
Dems and Progs were discussing impeachment on November 9, 2016, if not weeks earlier. And contriving to use the 25th Amendment to get Trump out of office. So no, the current shampeachment is not due to things done by Trump. House Dems simply chose, last fall, a pretext that had not yet been shown to be false.
The perceived mess our politics are in is due entirely to Democrats’ unwillingness to accept the results of the 2016 election, and to their anti-American “resistance†to the administration’s legitimacy, which too often turned violent, and not to anything Trump has done.
In any event, Democrat’s move on impeachment now only needed some pretext, any pretext, however flimsy. Because democrats knew the media would have their backs whatever shit they came up with.
-
The perceived mess our politics are in is due entirely to Democrats’ unwillingness to accept the results of the 2016 election, and to their anti-American “resistance†to the administration’s legitimacy, which too often turned violent, and not to anything Trump has done.
In any event, Democrat’s move on impeachment now only needed some pretext, any pretext, however flimsy. Because democrats knew the media would have their backs whatever shit they came up with.
Amen. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the current partisan mess and assert this is what the founders intended. Doesn’t pass the giggle test.
-
The perceived mess our politics are in is due entirely to Democrats’ unwillingness to accept the results of the 2016 election, and to their anti-American “resistance†to the administration’s legitimacy, which too often turned violent, and not to anything Trump has done.
In any event, Democrat’s move on impeachment now only needed some pretext, any pretext, however flimsy. Because democrats knew the media would have their backs whatever shit they came up with.
@aligncare
I think it is safe to go a step further.
We adopted more of the socialist/globalist agenda during the obama term thanwe have probably over the last 50 years and the socialists/globalist are angry that President Trump is upsetting their plan.
Trump has destroyed, at least for the moment, the new world order and UN dominance of the world.
-
@aligncare
I think it is safe to go a step further.
We adopted more of the socialist/globalist agenda during the obama term thanwe have probably over the last 50 years and the socialists/globalist are angry that President Trump is upsetting their plan.
Trump has destroyed, at least for the moment, the new world order and UN dominance of the world.
Don’t discount the fact that he’s also messed up their sweet racket in the process.
-
@aligncare
I think it is safe to go a step further.
We adopted more of the socialist/globalist agenda during the obama term thanwe have probably over the last 50 years and the socialists/globalist are angry that President Trump is upsetting their plan.
Trump has destroyed, at least for the moment, the new world order and UN dominance of the world.
Yep. And for his upending of globalists’ utopian dreams of a one-world government, I am eternally grateful to President Donald J. Trump. Trump has shown he is a political pioneer, in that his actions will inspire future political patriots to bring America back from the brink of socialist decay.
-
Dems and Progs were discussing impeachment on November 9, 2016, if not weeks earlier. And contriving to use the 25th Amendment to get Trump out of office. So no, the current shampeachment is not due to things done by Trump. House Dems simply chose, last fall, a pretext that had not yet been shown to be false.
I'll freely concede that there are times that Trump's statements are embarrassing as hell, and lacking in dignity. I really hoped that he'd clean that up after the election, but it didn't happen.
But that being said, being indecorous, rude, or abrasive is not sufficient grounds to try to remove a duly elected President. If voters want a loudmouth from Queens because they're ticked off, and tired of nobody listening to them, they're entitled to elect him. And it's not for the tea and crumpets crowd to veto that election by manufacturing grounds to remove him from office.
-
I'll freely concede that there are times that Trump's statements are embarrassing as hell, and lacking in dignity. I really hoped that he'd clean that up after the election, but it didn't happen.
But that being said, being indecorous, rude, or abrasive is not sufficient grounds to try to remove a duly elected President. If voters want a loudmouth from Queens because they're ticked off, and tired of nobody listening to them, they're entitled to elect him. And it's not for the tea and crumpets crowd to veto that election by manufacturing grounds to remove him from office.
:amen:
-
@EasyAce
I just want to say thank you for the intelligence and information you've added to this thread.
It is good to read opinions and thoughts from the founding of this (once) great Republic that go beyond the current partisan sound bites on both sides.
888high58888
@musiclady
888high58888 in return!
More from Mr. Madison during the Virginia debates on ratifying the Constitution (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp), as recorded in its record:
Mr. MADISON thought [impeachment] indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
-
I'll freely concede that there are times that Trump's statements are embarrassing as hell, and lacking in dignity. I really hoped that he'd clean that up after the election, but it didn't happen.
But that being said, being indecorous, rude, or abrasive is not sufficient grounds to try to remove a duly elected President. If voters want a loudmouth from Queens because they're ticked off, and tired of nobody listening to them, they're entitled to elect him. And it's not for the tea and crumpets crowd to veto that election by manufacturing grounds to remove him from office.
The name Winston Churchill kept coming to mind as I read your post.
-
Good opportunity to post some of my favorite Churchill quotes:
“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Winston Churchill
"A modest little person, with much to be modest about." - Winston Churchill (Regarding Attlee)
"An empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Attlee got out." - Winston Churchill
"Attlee is a very modest man. And with reason." - Winston Churchill
"I may be drunk madame, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will be just as ugly." - Winston Churchill (when asked if he was drunk)
"The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth." --Winston Churchill
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Sir Winston Churchill
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
-
Well, now.
Since a few of us (myself included) are into quoting, now, I'd like to share a favourite of mine, from Samuel Johnson about Edmund Burke: He chose his side like a fanatic and defended it like a gentleman.
-
Have you any idea, any idea whatsoever, of the scope of the battle we are in ... right at this very moment?
To be concerned with demeanor is at its best and its worst: Vacuous.
@Right_in_Virginia
@musiclady
Not a single one of them have the first clue,and they are too busy patting themselves on the back because they think they are being "moral",they don't have the time OR the ability to learn.
They are dogmatic moralists. If they can't have America THEIR way,they would just as soon see it disappear into the dust bins of history.
-
(B)eing indecorous, rude, or abrasive is not sufficient grounds to try to remove a duly elected President.
Perhaps not, but abuse of power, corrupt conduct, and perfidy (acts of deceit, disloyalty, untrustworthiness, if you're scoring at home) certainly are. (Said whom? Said the Founding Fathers, to name a few.)
Many of the president’s defenders are attempting to make categorical defenses of the president’s conduct. This is understandable. If one can argue that his actions simply don’t fit in the category of conduct that the founders intended to be subject to impeachment, then one doesn’t have to defend the actions themselves or even seriously ponder the gravity of the president’s wrongs. This is a tactic that good defense attorneys use, and the president is surrounded by good defense attorneys.
But the jury doesn’t have to buy it, and the jury shouldn’t buy it. Donald Trump conducted diplomacy for personal gain—and not for public benefit. That’s corrupt conduct. That’s perfidy. And I tend to believe that James Madison would agree.
---David French, in "James Madison Disagrees with The Wall Street Journal," (https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/james-madison-disagrees-with-the) The Dispatch.
-
It's the whole dumbing down of America across the board. Every cuss word in the dictionary is said on TV with regularity. It is nothing anymore. There are dildo and lingerie commercials all over television today. It has become normal to see a woman in bra and panties on a commercial saying, 'Do you like my new underwear.' This is something I could never imagine as a child. All of this stuff was sternly forbidden. But not anymore. I suspect that in 10 years from now ABC/CBS/NBC will become what Cinemax was 10 years ago.
The point I am struggling to make is that the level of Presidential behavior has dipped so low that simply not getting BJs under the Presidential Desk from a 20 year old intern is now considered Presidential behavior. If one does not take calls from foreign leaders when you are drunk or stoned out of your mind, as was reported with Obama, that is now Presidential behavior. In that sense, Trump passes the test. He no longer needs to wear a top-hat and tail and speak in somber stentorian staccato cadence. Those days have passed.
Like everything else in society, Presidential behavior is an undefined moving target. Twitter Trump is the exact version of Presidential behavior for 2020. He is the embodiment of modern Presidential behavior, minus the top-hat.
-
Truth!?!? That's flat-out delusional. Nothing could possibly have taken the steam out of the Democrats' desire to impeach, which they stated long before the phone call with Ukraine. That was simply the excuse to impeach. Had Trump "apologised" for the phone call, the Democrats would have shouted with glee and used his admission of guilt as complete justification for impeachment.
@Maj. Bill Martin
They know that,and don't care. What they care about is we have a president that dumped wives to marry newer models,and that had sex with women who weren't his wife. On top of that,despite the fact that he goes to church,he doesn't play their "thump the Bible" game like Bubba did.
He is independent and truly doesn't give a squat what they or anyone else thinks,and he refuses to play their little reindeer games of lies,deceit,and backstabbing.
I think most could accept him if he were willing to "play the game",but he just doesn't care what they think,and sees no reason to pretend. This drives them even nuttier.
If given a chance,I am convinced most of them would swap Bubba for Trump as President today if they could. Trump just doesn't kiss their asses,and Bubba will tell them all their favorite lies to make them feel good about themselves.
-
Yep. And for his upending of globalists’ utopian dreams of a one-world government, I am eternally grateful to President Donald J. Trump. Trump has shown he is a political pioneer, in that his actions will inspire future political patriots to bring America back from the brink of socialist decay.
@aligncare
BUT.....BUT...BUT..,he has sometimes had sex with young women he wasn't married to ! The HORRORS! He should be impeached and put in prison for life for such grievous sins!
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?
-
Donald Trump conducted diplomacy for personal gain—and not for public benefit.
@EasyAce
What personal gain?
-
Donald Trump conducted diplomacy for personal gain—and not for public benefit. That’s corrupt conduct. That’s perfidy.[/i]
---David French, in "James Madison Disagrees with The Wall Street Journal," (https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/james-madison-disagrees-with-the) The Dispatch.[/left-indent]
It's also an opinion. A incorrect one, IMO.
Uncovering a racket where an elected US official, charged with acting in this nation's interests, was instead using one of the most corrupt countries on the planet as his family's piggybank would be very much in America's interest. ESPECIALLY if the SOB was currently running for president.
-
LOL This looks like a good place to drop this:
[url=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/must-see-list-of-president-trumps-historical-and-miraculous-accomplishments-three-years-into-his-presidency/]https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/must-see-list-of-president-trumps-historical-and-miraculous-accomplishments-three-years-into-his-presidency/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/must-see-list-of-president-trumps-historical-and-miraculous-accomplishments-three-years-into-his-presidency/)[/url]
Not presidential? Not conservative enough?