President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

I wonder sometimes what brings anyone to choose to defend Donald Trump. The man is an evil wretch who is putting children in cages and being cruel to them on purpose.

I will defend Donald Trump's human dignity, that he is a human being, who, like the children he incarcerates, is deeply loved by God and of great intrinsic value. I will defend his legal rights as a human being and as an American citizen.

But I cannot fathom those who choose to defend Trump against the outrage of those who see the helpless and marginalized that he systematically belittles, attacks, and harms. I cannot understand those who do it, whether in the service of "fairness" or parts of the Republican or libertarian agenda. That is not for the greater good, it is in support of dark evil.

Well put, as was gcstomp's post. I tried to articulate this myself but it didn't get through. I doubt these will either, because some folks think it is really important to defend Trump against perceived exaggerations, and to focus on media bias against who they themselves agree is a horrible man, rather than focus on the larger evils this man has done, does, and will continue to do. It is a brilliant tactic of Trump's team to do this as well. They distract from really serious Trump policies and statements to get us all talking about the media, and the other "true enemies of the state" instead.

It is like if a man is caught cheating on his wife with her friend and the wife screams, "you are screwing my best friend on our marriage bed!" But then later the guy defends himself to all their friends by saying, "fake news, Susan isn't her Best friend. And it was a new bed not the same one we had when we first got married. Oh, and my wife is very nasty and a fat pig anyway. Also, I'm the smartest and the best, and I didn't even do it, but I could if I wanted to, I have every legal right as laid out in my prenup, but I didn't, because Susan doesn't even look like my daughter, who is my type." And the response to this, from all too many, is, "you know what, it is factually accurate that the bed wasn't technically their martial bed, because it was brand new. And why is everyone saying Susan was his wife's BEST friend? Do we know she was? Why exaggerate their relationship? This is exactly what deserves the most attention in this moment! His wife is deranged! The liberal media is biased! These two things are the real problem, so let's all focus on them rather than the guy in the middle of it all.

I keep saying this tit for tat game that has always been par for the course should be put aside during the Trump era, because it will all look so petty and misguided when weighed against the fact that we have an evil man as our POTUS, but some continue to claim Trump is just a crasser version of a regular old politician. Nothing really all too concerning. It is just TDS to think otherwise. Again, I think history will judge otherwise. My hope is Trump is gone in 2020 and we can all go back to point out each other's hypocrisies without inadvertently distracting from the words and deeds of a truly evil man in the process.

[GwynnInTheHall]

In other news, rejoice and be happy.

At his campaign kickoff rally, trump promised, among other things, that he would cure cancer and other diseases if reelected.

I wonder if he will cure willful ignorance as well.

We can only hope God gives him the chance before the demonic democrats take him out.

[onejayhawk]

In other news, rejoice and be happy.

At his campaign kickoff rally, trump promised, among other things, that he would cure cancer and other diseases if reelected.

I wonder if he will cure willful ignorance as well.

We can only hope God gives him the chance before the demonic democrats take him out.

If only there was someone that could even get close, right?

J

[TranaGreg]

... I think you and others chose to confuse my pushing back on nonsense and BS against some of the lefties as somehow defending Trump. ...

but surely you realize that if a person chooses only lefties to push back against, by definition that's supporting the right? It's certainly not an unbiased, objective position ... and I don't think it's much of a leap to equate "defending the right" with defending Trump.

[nots]

but surely you realize that if a person chooses only lefties to push back against, by definition that's supporting the right? It's certainly not an unbiased, objective position ... and I don't think it's much of a leap to equate "defending the right" with defending Trump.

The genesis of this latest brouhaha was BB pushing back on the reason Sarah Sanders resigned. Are you saying Revo’s reason was an ‘unbiased, objective position’’? Or do you think it may have been exaggerated? Could it be that after working for 3.5 years for a guy that is notoriously difficult to work for, including 2+ for a press that she obviously loathes and that loathes her right back, she decided to quit, maybe monetize her government experience by writing a book (like the Clinton’s), maybe teach a class or two, take the kiddos to the beach and then announce a run for governor in 2021? Which of those speculative reasons (BB’s or Revo’s) is less biased and more objective?

[frae]

I suspect you are sincere and think that's what my issue was with revo. It's wasn't. I wasn't suggesting that the part about "94 days" was ever in dispute. Your opinion of the job duties of the Press Secretary is based on the past 50 years or so, in which daily press briefings were held. I don’t disagree that this is the way it should be. If Bernie Brewer were President, it would be! The stopping of daily press briefing, if I recall correctly, kind of began during the second term of the Obama administration, but I'll have to verify that to be sure. Regardless, the press has been harsh towards Trump since he was elected and they weren't buying his BS, any way. So he's mandated a roll back of briefings, because the Jim Acosta types of the world, at least in Trump's mind, were just going to twist things negatively, anyway.

Not here to fight over this just did the best I could to find any reliable data and here is what I have...

https://qz.com/1503024/2018-was-the-year-the-white-house-press-briefing-died/

This second one is better and easier to read if you can see the times...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/22/us/politics/white-house-press-briefing.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

Clinton is the last president to truly do a daily press briefing. After that, we have sort of settled in to get a press briefing every other day for 5/8 years under Bush with 3 years under 10 per month avg. Obama was over 15 for year 1 and then mostly settled in around 12.5 or 13 with one year under 10. Trump was just over 10 per month in year one but since it was under 5 per month in 2018. I can't find an accurate count for 2019 except we haven't had one since March, over 100 days. So I am going to guess she is averaging maybe 2 a month for 2019? The data also indicates her press briefings were the shortest in terms of time.

So I think the Bush admin moved the standard from 20+ to 10-15 and Obama followed that model. 2017 was in the low range of normal, 2018 and now 2019 are unprecedentedly low.

[TranaGreg]

The genesis of this latest brouhaha was BB pushing back on the reason Sarah Sanders resigned. Are you saying Revo’s reason was an ‘unbiased, objective position’’? Or do you think it may have been exaggerated? Could it be that after working for 3.5 years for a guy that is notoriously difficult to work for, including 2+ for a press that she obviously loathes and that loathes her right back, she decided to quit, maybe monetize her government experience by writing a book (like the Clinton’s), maybe teach a class or two, take the kiddos to the beach and then announce a run for governor in 2021? Which of those speculative reasons (BB’s or Revo’s) is less biased and more objective?

hey, I'm making no claims wrt revo's position ... I just think that if someone takes a position attacking A, and someone else takes a contrary position, then they're defending A.

[nots]

hey, I'm making no claims wrt revo's position ... I just think that if someone takes a position attacking A, and someone else takes a contrary position, then they're defending A.

I think if A has a view that is biased, partisan and opinion based, pointing that out doesn’t mean you are endorsing the opposite view. YMMV.

[Steve 2.0]

Thank you. Maybe we all need to lighten up. I’m going to work on that myself.

Lighten up? I only came back to not be lightened up. (or something like that)

[Kevin Seitzer]

Lighten up? I only came back to not be lightened up. (or something like that)

Darkening, maybe? Bad lighting?

[onejayhawk]

Darkening, maybe? Bad lighting?

We need a smaller darkon sink.

[The Feral Slasher]

We need a smaller darkon sink.

Perhaps a dense matter boundary layer is more appropriate

[onejayhawk]

Perhaps a dense matter boundary layer is more appropriate

It's enough to draw less power anti-power from the sink.

Dense matter is cool, though. It makes great radiation shielding.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

It's enough to draw less power anti-power from the sink.

Dense matter is cool, though. It makes great radiation shielding.

J

Not as efficient as a tinfoil hat tho......

[onejayhawk]

Not as efficient as a tinfoil hat tho......

Can I borrow one of yours if I ever need one? You seem to have several.

FYI Darkons and other related ideas are real physics. They are used as an exercise in perspective adjustment. Rather than photo emmiters, you have darkon sinks. The math is the same.

J