President Donald Trump

[onejayhawk]

And his TV interviews. And his press conferences. And his editorials. And his rallies. Seriously, has Trump made a coherent and intelligent public appearance since he became President? I guess when he sticks to a written script he can sound normal, but anytime he speaks on his own, he sounds incompetent.

Seriously, he has.

Take for example the claim that Trump Tower was tapped. It turned out he was being spied on by the FBI. There are articles about how he has delivered on more promises than any other President. When he hasn't, eg the border wall, it has not been for lack of trying.

Where do you get his rallies are incoherent? If he could not play a crowd he would never have won a primary, much less the election. Show me someone better.

J

[chancellor]

Tweet of day: "Stormy Daniels makes history. First time a prostitute ever paid a politician. " - Evan Sayet

[Sour Masher]

Tweet of day: "Stormy Daniels makes history. First time a prostitute ever paid a politician. " - Evan Sayet

Are you not even the tiniest bit embarrassed by your guy doing things like getting into twitter beefs with porn stars that he has had sex? Him calling her horseface, her calling him poorly endowed, the whole back and forth? I mean, even if you are happy with his agenda, can you admit him doing things like this is beneath the dignity of the office?

[chancellor]

Are you not even the tiniest bit embarrassed by your guy doing things like getting into twitter beefs with porn stars that he has had sex? Him calling her horseface, her calling him poorly endowed, the whole back and forth? I mean, even if you are happy with his agenda, can you admit him doing things like this is beneath the dignity of the office?

I pretty much quit worrying about the dignity of the office when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable for the president to get sexual favors from someone other than his wife while in different places in the White House. I completely quit worrying about it when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable to call Mitt Romney a Nazi.

So, really, I don't give a rip what he does with his private life, which for a president, essentially becomes public sooner or later. I mean, after all, isn't it Trump who said "when they go low, we kick them!" Oh, wait a minute...maybe not...

[Sour Masher]

I pretty much quit worrying about the dignity of the office when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable for the president to get sexual favors from someone other than his wife while in different places in the White House. I completely quit worrying about it when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable to call Mitt Romney a Nazi.

So, really, I don't give a rip what he does with his private life, which for a president, essentially becomes public sooner or later. I mean, after all, isn't it Trump who said "when they go low, we kick them!" Oh, wait a minute...maybe not...

I knew you'd go to whataboutery with this. I still don't know why, though. Why not want better from both sides? I can admit when my side does and says things I think are beneath what our ideals should be. I don't get being okay with poor behavior from your side being the logical response to the other side being okay with it when it is their guy. Why match hypocrisy with hypocrisy, unless you are now totally okay with all those things you mention about Dems?

Just because lots have that attitude about Trump on the right doesn't mean I won't denounce such behavior if, God forbidden, the Dems elected a petty reality star that gets into twitter beefs with porn stars. I think we should all agree on some baseline behaviors as being unacceptable regardless of party before we go to our separate corners on issues of policy. Why is it so hard to admit that you don't like when Trump does these things? Even if you like the man's agenda or even the man in total, you can denounce the behavior.

And for the record, I denounce Holder's approach to this. And I also admit I may be inconsistent on this, because while I cringed when he said that line, I didn't when Biden said he'd beat up Trump if they were in HS. So, I guess I'm guilty of inconsistency too, or maybe it was because that was specifically about Trump and not a statement of a general tactic in politics.

[Steve 2.0]

Trump? Agenda? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

(The man's a buffoon, BTW).

[B-Fly]

I completely quit worrying about it when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable to call Mitt Romney a Nazi.

I must have missed that.

[DMT]

I must have missed that.

I was just about to post the same.

[cardboardbox]

I pretty much quit worrying about the dignity of the office when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable for the president to get sexual favors from someone other than his wife while in different places in the White House. I completely quit worrying about it when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable to call Mitt Romney a Nazi.

So, really, I don't give a rip what he does with his private life, which for a president, essentially becomes public sooner or later. I mean, after all, isn't it Trump who said "when they go low, we kick them!" Oh, wait a minute...maybe not...

completely agree with this. And I'd add that all things being equal I would prefer a president who would shut up already but he does entertain me sometimes.

[Fresno Bob]

I pretty much quit worrying about the dignity of the office when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable for the president to get sexual favors from someone other than his wife while in different places in the White House. I completely quit worrying about it when the bulk of the Democratic populace considered it perfectly acceptable to call Mitt Romney a Nazi.

So, really, I don't give a rip what he does with his private life, which for a president, essentially becomes public sooner or later. I mean, after all, isn't it Trump who said "when they go low, we kick them!" Oh, wait a minute...maybe not...

FDR? JFK? who?

[Sour Masher]

I continue to maintain, despite the clandestine atrocities committed in the past that America has tacitly condoned through their silence that the brazenness of the torture and dismemberment of an Arab-American journalist, who was living and writing in the US, needs a strong response from the US. This sort of sadistic and horrific act of retribution and intimidation of journalists cannot be tolerated by the free world.

Here are some horrific details of the act, which was so brazen and obviously sanctioned by the Saudi crown prince, it boggles the mind that they thought they could get away with such a public act. They didn't even try to establish plausible deniability. They were so open with what they did, they are daring the US to do something about it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...Ron?li=BBnb7Kz

[nots]

I continue to maintain, despite the clandestine atrocities committed in the past that America has tacitly condoned through their silence that the brazenness of the torture and dismemberment of an Arab-American journalist, who was living and writing in the US, needs a strong response from the US. This sort of sadistic and horrific act of retribution and intimidation of journalists cannot be tolerated by the free world.

Here are some horrific details of the act, which was so brazen and obviously sanctioned by the Saudi crown prince, it boggles the mind that they thought they could get away with such a public act. They didn't even try to establish plausible deniability. They were so open with what they did, they are daring the US to do something about it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...Ron?li=BBnb7Kz

What kind of strong response? What can be done that won’t embolden or validate Iran?

[chancellor]

FDR? JFK? who?

I think it'd be the one who lacked the balls to own up to it, even when questioned under oath, because he was afraid of the political ramifications.

[Sour Masher]

What kind of strong response? What can be done that won’t embolden or validate Iran?

Trump fans like that he is tough, right? A loose cannon that scares the world a little. Maybe that can be used to our advantage with this. Saudi Arabia has preemptively threatened retaliation in the form of expensive oil for the US, but I think we should call that bluff--publicly denounce this act as antithetical both to democracy and the progressive public image the crown prince has so carefully crafted lately. Then, hit them with sanctions, calculated to be tough enough to make them and other countries recognize that such brazen, overt acts of barbarism against American journalists will not be without repercussions. But not so tough that they have nothing to lose in retaliating. Trump is willing to play chicken on trade wars with China. He should be willing to do the same with Saudi Arabia. If he does, I'll be the first to praise him for it.

As far as validating or emboldening Iran, I'm not sure what denouncing this act, and being precise in condemning the crime while not suggesting our relationships with SA are irreparably damaged, does for Iran in a tangible sense. Maybe I'm missing something? What are the tangible repercussions in terms of Iran for us denouncing this act of barbarism?

[The Feral Slasher]

Trump fans like that he is tough, right? A loose cannon that scares the world a little. Maybe that can be used to our advantage with this. Saudi Arabia has preemptively threatened retaliation in the form of expensive oil for the US, but I think we should call that bluff--publicly denounce this act as antithetical both to democracy and the progressive public image the crown prince has so carefully crafted lately. Then, hit them with sanctions, calculated to be tough enough to make them and other countries recognize that such brazen, overt acts of barbarism against American journalists will not be without repercussions. But not so tough that they have nothing to lose in retaliating. Trump is willing to play chicken on trade wars with China. He should be willing to do the same with Saudi Arabia. If he does, I'll be the first to praise him for it.

As far as validating or emboldening Iran, I'm not sure what denouncing this act, and being precise in condemning the crime while not suggesting our relationships with SA are irreparably damaged, does for Iran in a tangible sense. Maybe I'm missing something? What are the tangible repercussions in terms of Iran for us denouncing this act of barbarism?

I'm guessing it would have been ok if they just droned him ?

Edit: I guess I'm really trying to understand what it is in particular about this event makes it unique and important. From your perspective is it because the individual resided in the U.S. ?