President Donald J. Trump

[PB the Deplorable]

So you think by being something he is not that he'd have marshaled support from the Deep State lackeys for his policies which run counter to their statist agenda...

Is having manners ''being something you're not''?  Is that in Metreon's Guide to Raising Children'?  ''If you're an asshole, that's ok - just be yourself'' - that's your recommendation?

Ok, if you think insulting people whose goodwill, support, and cooperation you're going to need down the road is the smart thing, then you've found your ideal candidate.  If you think ''everyone'' in DC except Trump is a ''Deep State lackey'', you are the who's delusional.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Oh he "didn't lead" and yet all this happened with what has been a largely do-nothing Congress...

Wow, the delusions never end with you...

You're the one who pointed out all the legislation we've had.  But you're still calling them a do-nothing Congress?  Which is it?

[PB the Deplorable]

... I maintain a different man (totally) a different era, and different players...

Basic human nature doesn't change.

[PB the Deplorable]

... You do realize that Reagan's era was largely unsullied by the polarization that Rush and other nascent conservative media would be blamed for. No Fox News either.

And it was the emergence of those two that led to the insanity of the left and the subsequent and ongoing destruction of balanced reportage.

Think your analogies through and try and correct for social context, please.

The Left has been building in this country for 100 years.  Since the early ''progressives'' like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and later with FDR.  They got a big boost during the 1960s, and were able to very effectively use the Vietnam War, then Watergate to grow and take over certain institutions, such as the media.  And the media attacked Reagan relentlessly.

Rush and the others didn't create that, they countered it.  By the time they arrived on the scene, the Far Left had already gained traction and were a sizable group within the Democrat Party.  When Bill told Hilary to work on initiatives to nationalize health care, and get rid of guns, every Democrat in contested House seats across the country lost, leaving the party in the hands of Nancy Peolsi and the far left ''progressive'' Democrats.  Who then hand picked candidates, steered funding their way, and created the new ''progressive'' Democrat Party, culminating with the election of Berock Obama.

[PB the Deplorable]

I have always thought highly of Rudy but I’m beginning to think he’s lost it.  Could he possibly say a more bone headed thing at a worse time?   Time will tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/world/asia/giuliani-kim-jong-un-north-korea.html

He needs to go.  Unless the plan is for him to look like a bigger jerk than his boss

[PB the Deplorable]

... Are you going to service this straw man endlessly?

If anything it's YOU who seem at odds with his style despite positing our collective familiarity with it.

Sorry, I wasn't a viewer of his reality shows so if anything I'm less experienced in the nuances of his bluster...

I don't watch those shows either.  Are you saying you were unaware of 30 years of Trump trying to grab the spotlight whenever he could by being outrageous?  Being an all around wanker?  I don't follow Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, or David Bekham either, but I know who they are and have a general idea of their public persona. 

And I would expect them to act the same way they do now in elected office.  Same with, say, Al Franken and anyone else well known before entering politics.

[Metron2267]

I have always thought highly of Rudy but I’m beginning to think he’s lost it.  Could he possibly say a more bone headed thing at a worse time?   Time will tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/world/asia/giuliani-kim-jong-un-north-korea.html

There's far more behind the scenes than this obvious showy rhetoric would indicate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/south-korea-asks-who-is-thatmystery-man-with-pompeo-and-kim/2018/05/17/0d4281b4-58f6-11e8-8b92-45fdd7aaef3c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92dbdc6975a2

The CIA set up the Korea Mission Center last May “to harness the full resources, capabilities, and authorities of the Agency in addressing the nuclear and ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea,” according to a news release at the time.

“A veteran CIA operations officer has been selected as the new Assistant Director for Korea and presides over the Mission Center,” the statement said. However, it did not name the officer. And the CIA declined to comment for this article.

[Metron2267]

Is having manners ''being something you're not''?

In Trump's case, selectively yes.

Is that in Metreon's Guide to Raising Children'?  ''If you're an asshole, that's ok - just be yourself'' - that's your recommendation?

Again you use the liberals' stratagem of personalizing and demonizing your respondent.

Did you realize you're deep into their playbook with all this personal stuff?

Would you admit that whatever style of "parenting" I might or might not have has NO bearing on discussing President Trump?

Ok, if you think insulting people whose goodwill, support, and cooperation you're going to need down the road is the smart thing, then you've found your ideal candidate.

I've never said Trump was my "ideal candidate" though have I?

Again your need to personally demonize is pure Alinsky grade lib rhetoric signifying only your inability to sustain your own arguments.

If you think ''everyone'' in DC except Trump is a ''Deep State lackey'', you are the who's delusional.

Did I say "everyone"?

No?

Then why ladle out such a silly demonization?

I will say that DC is known as the swamp for both geographic and political commonalities.

And when a Trey Gowdy tells me Americans want FBI spies in political campaigns and then Come goes off the rails to aid the Clintons I've no paucity of deep state tells to rely on.

[Metron2267]

You're the one who pointed out all the legislation we've had.  But you're still calling them a do-nothing Congress?  Which is it?

Under Obama they did virtually nothing, for obvious reasons, so any transition they've made to acting on certain legislation is simply a partisan shift of behavior.

We do know they've dragged their feet on replacing Obamacare and building the border wall, so there's that...

[Metron2267]

Basic human nature doesn't change.

So all Republicans are identical to Reagan?

Do tell... :

[Metron2267]

The Left has been building in this country for 100 years.  Since the early ''progressives'' like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and later with FDR.  They got a big boost during the 1960s, and were able to very effectively use the Vietnam War, then Watergate to grow and take over certain institutions, such as the media.  And the media attacked Reagan relentlessly.

Rush and the others didn't create that, they countered it.  By the time they arrived on the scene, the Far Left had already gained traction and were a sizable group within the Democrat Party.  When Bill told Hilary to work on initiatives to nationalize health care, and get rid of guns, every Democrat in contested House seats across the country lost, leaving the party in the hands of Nancy Peolsi and the far left ''progressive'' Democrats.  Who then hand picked candidates, steered funding their way, and created the new ''progressive'' Democrat Party, culminating with the election of Berock Obama.

So your answer is that Rush and Fox News bore no responsibility, even as targets of the left, for the increasing polarity of partisan politics?

That's silly. Every time Rush lashed out with petty name calling like "Puff Daschle" he upped the animus.

The "progressive" wing of the DNC simply coopted the media 'conversation' and resold it to us as spite and personal identity politics.

Having ALL the media in their laps was never enough, so when talk radio and Fox struck a different path the demonization was on and is now all encompassing, save for the saving grace of trump's Twitter feed.

[Metron2267]

He needs to go.  Unless the plan is for him to look like a bigger jerk than his boss

Have you just "woke" to the concept of a distraction ruse?

[Metron2267]

I don't watch those shows either.  Are you saying you were unaware of 30 years of Trump trying to grab the spotlight whenever he could by being outrageous?  Being an all around wanker?  I don't follow Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, or David Bekham either, but I know who they are and have a general idea of their public persona.

Sorry but I tend not to focus on the public figure glitterati and their luminary twerking.

Trump was off my radar ftmp, ergo his rapid ascension to critical mass was rather a surprise.

Mostly I knew of him as a moderate Dem.

And I would expect them to act the same way they do now in elected office.  Same with, say, Al Franken and anyone else well known before entering politics.

Then you're going to love Howard Schultz and The Rock!

[PB the Deplorable]

... Did I say "everyone"?

No?

Then why ladle out such a silly demonization?...

When I said it was a mistake to attack people whose vote and support he would normally expect to have down the road, you went straight to this:

So you think by being something he is not that he'd have marshaled support from the Deep State lackeys for his policies which run counter to their statist agenda?

Wow.

That is delusional thinking...

When I suggest your post is not exactly accurate, your response is to suggest you didn't say ''everyone'', and my post was a silly demonization.  You were doing the demonizing, and you were the one who suggested everyone he smeared and attacked was a ''deep state lackey''

[PB the Deplorable]

So all Republicans are identical to Reagan?

Do tell... :

Um, no.  Reagans' manner and tactics will always work better than Trump's in getting cooperation from friends and foes. 

[PB the Deplorable]

So your answer is that Rush and Fox News bore no responsibility...

Not ''no responsibility''.  But they sure didn't cause the rise of the Left.  They exposed it.  They fought it.  They provided information the fake news media ignored or lied about.  They developed talking points people could use to deflect the lies coming from the Left.  But the Left was gaining traction regardless - if anything, they alerted the country to it and slowed it down

Of course their enemies were going to use some of that against them

[PB the Deplorable]

... Yet you generally can't illustrate which opportunities have been "missed". It's all nebulous and breathless assertions with you, gripes on style, but nary a concrete example of any of your fears being confirmed....

So you do know what some of the missed opportunities are:

... We do know they've dragged their feet on replacing Obamacare and building the border wall, so there's that...

Immigration, the national debt, the budget (he shouldn't have signed the recent one - and by the way that is one example of the Congress taking the lead and him not leading), Social Security, repealing ObamaCare and actually addressing healthcare, education.  Undoing much of what both parties have done to fund and support the Left through government programs.  Truly draining the swamp...  I've posted all this this before 

I know you think blundering around, tweeting threats, and insulting our trading partners is sound trade policy, but it isn't - he could have actually started negotiations to redo some deals

On and on, there's plenty more but those are most of the top issues.  I'd add rebuilding the military that Obama hollowed out, but they're doing that.  Perhaps he should call back the experienced top officers Obama fired, and fire the ones Obama promoted.

[Metron2267]

When I said it was a mistake to attack people whose vote and support he would normally expect to have down the road, you went straight to this:

When I suggest your post is not exactly accurate, your response is to suggest you didn't say ''everyone'', and my post was a silly demonization.  You were doing the demonizing, and you were the one who suggested everyone he smeared and attacked was a ''deep state lackey''

I never used the definitive of "everyone".

I do stand by the fact that we have a lot of deep state lackeys amongst the Rs who are obstructing his leadership, Gowdy, Ryan, McCain  and McConnell quickly come to mind.

Surely you can see that they do not comprise "everyone" he's stacked, nor have I said one thing to induce you to accuse me of such a belief.

I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my statements, even to the extent of supplying requotes of me which bear no evidence of your claims.

It's silly and it makes you look bereft of factual debate skills.

[Metron2267]

Um, no.  Reagans' manner and tactics will always work better than Trump's in getting cooperation from friends and foes.

Your observation was bathed in universality - "basic human nature"...that's a rather encompassing trait to cite.

Since we both know individuals are diverse in many ways we must accept that even Trump's nature is a.) human and b.) his nature.

How he got there is his own journey as life is for each individual.

Honestly you can bemoan Trump for not being Reagan till the cows come home, but I'm afraid you're not going to sell me that he doesn't have some "basic human nature" that would and must, if we accept the universality of your observation, be similar to Reagan's.

Not identical, but similar.

You want identical.

Not going to happen.

[PB the Deplorable]

I never used the definitive of "everyone".

I do stand by the fact that we have a lot of deep state lackeys amongst the Rs who are obstructing his leadership, Gowdy, Ryan, McCain  and McConnell quickly come to mind...

You certainly inferred everyone he attacked was a deep state lackey.  That was the quote you used to try to refute my post that it isn't a very good idea to attack people whose support and votes he'd need downstream. 

Not one of the people you listed above ran against him in the primaries, and returned to the Senate after the election was over.  It should have been clear to you that's who I was talking about specifically.

... I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my statements, even to the extent of supplying requotes of me which bear no evidence of your claims.

It's silly and it makes you look bereft of factual debate skills.

Those were the comments you posted in response to my post.  What else should I have used if I didn't agree with them?

[Metron2267]

Not ''no responsibility''.  But they sure didn't cause the rise of the Left.  They exposed it.  They fought it.  They provided information the fake news media ignored or lied about.  They developed talking points people could use to deflect the lies coming from the Left.  But the Left was gaining traction regardless - if anything, they alerted the country to it and slowed it down

Of course their enemies were going to use some of that against them

Sorry, not buying the narrative.

I've heard some rather sloppy rhetoric and demonizations over the years from Rush, on Fox, and elsewhere in conservative media

The notion that they were hit first and had to respond in kind is, ironically enough, very much Trump's style defined!

Now admittedly the utter insanity and totalitarian zeal of today's left is so far over the top as to be a behavioral reset of shocking proportions. At least the right has been ceded the ground of reason and manners by the left, and for all the good that did Mitt Romney or anyone else who ever turned the political cheek.

[PB the Deplorable]

... his nature...

The way he treats people is never going to get the best out of them for his purposes.  Maybe he can bully family members and employees, but not Senators, House members, judges, or foreign officials. 

It won't even get the best out of his staff - the good people will leave, and all he'll have left is Yes Men.

The way Trump is is learned behavior.  He operates the way he does because he wants to.  You're confusing human nature with individual behavior.

[Metron2267]

So you do know what some of the missed opportunities are:

Yes I do, and?

Immigration, the national debt, the budget (he shouldn't have signed the recent one - and by the way that is one example of the Congress taking the lead and him not leading), Social Security, repealing ObamaCare and actually addressing healthcare, education.  Undoing much of what both parties have done to fund and support the Left through government programs.  Truly draining the swamp...  I've posted all this this before 

Yes he hasn't had total success with the deep state, so?

Did you really think ( I ask yet again) that by playing nice with them they'd have abandoned their scared cows and porky vote whoring?

I know you think blundering around, tweeting threats, and insulting our trading partners is sound trade policy, but it isn't - he could have actually started negotiations to redo some deals

There you go again with the mischaracterizations, you really do not seem to know what I think as regards "sound trade policy", you do however have a lock on what you need me to think in order for your beliefs not to be tread upon.

I provided you the evidence that he did initiate a Congressional and international reset of NAFTA, which was "sound trade policy".

That Canada and Mexico sniffed at it and did nothing leaves us where we are today.

On and on, there's plenty more but those are most of the top issues.  I'd add rebuilding the military that Obama hollowed out, but they're doing that.  Perhaps he should call back the experienced top officers Obama fired, and fire the ones Obama promoted.

I don't have an issue with the latter, but I submit that neither you nor I have the slightest internal insight as to which officers are the "right " officers to recall from the private sector.

[Jackstar]

transparent shill

[PB the Deplorable]

Sorry, not buying the narrative.

I've heard some rather sloppy rhetoric and demonizations over the years from Rush, on Fox, and elsewhere in conservative media

The notion that they were hit first and had to respond in kind is, ironically enough, very much Trump's style defined!...

I don't think they ever said they were hit first and had to respond in kind.  They came out of nowhere to respond to the established media.

They attack their enemies, people who will never side with them on anything.  That's not what Trump does, he attacks people who would be on his side most or nearly all of the time, and others who would be on his side on many issues.  If you don't think that's counterproductive and just plain stupid then I don't know what to tell you.

That kind of thing can work in the private sector - he can either bully other companies into agreeing to better terms, and send a message to potential business partners they'd better be prepared to give in to his demands going into negotiations.  If those companies don't go along, there are plenty of others who will.

Doesn't work that way in politics.  The House members, the Senate, judges, foreign officials - that's who he has to deal with.  A set group of individuals who aren't going away if they don't do his bidding.  Their incentives are different from various business relationships he can bully, and he can't turn elsewhere if they say ''no''.

[Metron2267]

You certainly inferred everyone he attacked was a deep state lackey.

Oh wow, you're pulling back from your assertion that "I said" to "I inferred"?

Awfully cricket of you old man!

But it still doesn't fly as I never made any reference to "everyone", ever.

That was the quote you used to try to refute my post that it isn't a very good idea to attack people whose support and votes he'd need downstream. 

Not one of the people you listed above ran against him in the primaries, and returned to the Senate after the election was over.  It should have been clear to you that's who I was talking about specifically.

Oh come on now, that's just obfuscation and misplaced blame that I somehow failed to intuit whom you may have meant to infer...

This is a circular conversation at best now.

Those were the comments you posted in response to my post.  What else should I have used if I didn't agree with them?

You might have simply taken the tack of making your points clearly from the get go and dropped all the "you believe" and "you inferred" safety zones for what were in fact your own opinions written straight over mine!

[Metron2267]

I don't think they ever said they were hit first and had to respond in kind.

Oh I bet if we do some deep searches we can find instances of that. You know these absolutist words like "ever" are absolute argument killers.

"The way the way the Fairness Doctrine would work -- and it's being set up this way -- is
professional complainers hear me... criticizing Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy. Within minutes
the general managers of 600 radio stations would receive phone calls from MoveOn.org-
type activists demanding that they get a chance to respond to what I said, and they might
put 'em off for a while, but they'd keep calling and keep calling, and if the Fairness
Doctrine were law, they would have to grant that, and then the station managers would
say, "To hell with this! We can't run a business this way. This is ridiculous. We're turning
over the programming, literally, to people who aren't broadcasters. We're a business,"
and so they just cancel all the, quote, unquote, controversial programming and they'd
have to go back to, you know, doing things that nobody wanted to listen to, which is what
happened when radio was regulated so much in the first place."
- Rush Limbaugh June 28, 2007

They came out of nowhere to respond to the established media.

Not so much "nowhere" as media purgatory, a purgatory established and enhanced by the "fairness doctrine".

Please do not pass that over.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

WASHINGTON â€" President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.

The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

"This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment," Reagan said in his veto message. "In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable."

They attack their enemies, people who will never side with them on anything.  That's not what Trump does, he attacks people who would be on his side most or nearly all of the time, and others who would be on his side on many issues.  If you don't think that's counterproductive and just plain stupid then I don't know what to tell you.

That kind of thing can work in the private sector - he can either bully other companies into agreeing to better terms, and send a message to potential business partners they'd better be prepared to give in to his demands going into negotiations.  If those companies don't go along, there are plenty of others who will.

In a global sense politics IS business!

Chna's found that out when they lost market share in clothing to Vietnam.

So there may be "others" who'll  "go along"...

Doesn't work that way in politics.  The House members, the Senate, judges, foreign officials - that's who he has to deal with.  A set group of individuals who aren't going away if they don't do his bidding.  Their incentives are different from various business relationships he can bully, and he can't turn elsewhere if they say ''no''.

But he can and has turned the partisan tables on them, energized the populace, built a groundswell of support which may result in stunning losses for the Dems in the mid terms - all whilst being an irascible, unpredictable, bullying egomaniac!

Some trick that!

http://theweek.com/articles/777349/democrats-are-totally-blowing

While both Trump and his congressional allies remain staggeringly unpopular, recent polling indicates that they might skate by with a narrow House majority in the fall and even pick up a seat or two in the Senate. Analysts now think the Democrats' chances of retaking the House are no better than a coin flip.

This in itself is stunning. Democrats should clean up in the midterms. Instead, they're barely muddling through. And if they fail to take control of one or both chambers of Congress, that future-altering catastrophe can be traced back to the moment in January when they decided to cave on the fight over the DREAMers and started disastrously cooperating with the president and his allies.

At the beginning of 2018, Democrats held an enormous advantage on the generic congressional ballot â€" almost 13 points. Democratic partisans were downright giddy about the possibility of a truly enormous blue tsunami wiping Republicans out of both the House and Senate.

[Jackstar]

[GravitySucks]

One leaker down

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/7/james-wolfe-ex-senate-intelligence-committee-staff

[Tinfoil_Helm]

One leaker down

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/7/james-wolfe-ex-senate-intelligence-committee-staff

Since when did Trumpers care about lying to the FBI?