Donald Trump

[Gelsons Dad]

The newspaper article he cited was one praising him and we may draw different conclusions about the Cuomo excerpt but to me he was implying that “Andrew” (his new mate) was praising him and only when challenged did he shift the emphasis

Is a good point.
I was referring to the video as that is what was being discussed.

 

[journolud]

OK here is a perfect example of why he treats some of the press so badly. And he does treat some badly. But sometimes they deserve it.

CNN reporter tried to insinuate that Trump was duped by china based on Trumps comments on president XI in January.

JANUARY!!!!

Do you remember January? When the WHO said it was all under control and there was no evidence of Human to Human infection! yes that January, the one where no one knew anything and all reports had this as a localised issue which was being contained. So why would the same guy who tried to insinuate that he shouldn't be happy with keeping the projected deaths to below the lowest CDC estimate then try to trap him into saying he praised president Xi in JANUARY????

my thoughts are a) i really need to fix my shift key and b) it's a hatchet job that Trump is wise to.


Fire away.

But rather than answer the question and pointing out reasonably that this was January he went on about the trade deal which is a separate issue and did his usual going off at past and hopefully future presidents.

In a way it was a dumb question but all the smart ones have been asked and he never answers them ie in respect of his own lax response early on

 

[journolud]

Is a good point.
I was referring to the video as that is what was being discussed.

yeah fair enough but he set the tone and agenda by reading the newspaper article first. And totally shame faced in praising Cuomo for being “bipartisan “ before then going on later in the piece to do his usual criticism of the democrats

 

[Gelsons Dad]

But rather than answer the question and pointing out reasonably that this was January he went on about the trade deal which is a separate issue and did his usual going off at past and hopefully future presidents.

In a way it was a dumb question but all the smart ones have been asked and he never answers them ie in respect of his own lax response early on

Yes. He immediately deflected to the trade deal which he is obviously very proud of. If i was answering the question I would have stated what I did in this thread. That January was a long time ago and hindsight is a wonderful thing. But he's not me and I'm not president of the USA so draw your own conclusions.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Comprehension dear. Ambivalence to him is not the same as ambivalence to you.

Uh, yeah, Rita -- I got that figured out. I know you don't like me. Just don't understand why my posts agitate you if you are perfectly happy being ambivalent to Trump.

I mean, I haven't overtly come out and said that being ambivalent is either an intellectual or a moral failure, have I? Or that it reeks of cowardice? That some ambivalents can't bear to align themselves with the middlebrow liberalism they hate and to disavow Trump explicitly would be to do so (hint: actually, it wouldn't be)? That one's compatriots in America might ridicule you, or consider you a traitor to the conservative cause (hint: you wouldn't be), rendering you an outcast? That they don't have the self-knowledge or intestinal fortitude to follow what they KNOW is right because then they'd have to question the deeper issues as to how it could have come to this, and that such a line of inquiry rocks the foundations of one's conservative beliefs that have provided solace and order among chaos in a changing world?

If I had written that, then, yeah -- I could see how my posts would agitate you.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Uh, yeah, Rita -- I got that figured out. I know you don't like me. Just don't understand why my posts agitate you if you are perfectly happy being ambivalent to Trump.

I mean, I haven't overtly come out and said that being ambivalent is either an intellectual or a moral failure, have I? Or that it reeks of cowardice? That some ambivalents can't bear to align themselves with the middlebrow liberalism they hate and to disavow Trump explicitly would be to do so? That one's compatriots in America might ridicule you, or consider you a traitor to the conservative cause, rendering you an outcast? That they don't have the self-knowledge or intestinal fortitude to follow what they KNOW is right because then they'd have to question the deeper issues as to how it could have come to this, and that such a line of inquiry rocks the foundations of one's conservative beliefs that have provided solace and order among chaos in a changing world?

If I had written that, then, yeah -- I could see how my posts would agitate you.

hehe, nice.

So whist you haven't overtly said ambivalence is an intellectual or moral failure, you have insinuated it. You now add to that by insinuating that it also reeks of cowardice. Agitation. You also state that "some ambivalents can't bear to align themselves with the middlebrow liberalism they hate". This is an interesting if cowardly statement. Who exactly are you referring to? Agitation. The "ones compatriots in America might ridicule me", obviously doesn't refer to me as my friends know my feelings about trump and have no problem with my critique of his optics. Far from rendering me an outcast, it frames me as a sounding post. I would never assume to know what they KNOW is right, to do so would be the hight of arrogance. My solace in a changing world is build on stoicism rather than my conservative nature so again your last point can only be interpreted as you assuming something and being wrong in your assumption and yet willing to use that incorrect assumption as a point of agitation.

So yes, thanks for your response. Nice read.

EDIT: you do know that if you edit your post after I have quoted it the quote isn't also edited right? ;-)

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

hehe, nice.

So whist you haven't overtly said ambivalence is an intellectual or moral failure, you have insinuated it. You now add to that by insinuating that it also reeks of cowardice. Agitation. You also state that "some ambivalents can't bear to align themselves with the middlebrow liberalism they hate". This is an interesting if cowardly statement. Who exactly are you referring to? Agitation. The "ones compatriots in America might ridicule me", obviously doesn't refer to me as my friends know my feelings about trump and have no problem with my critique of his optics. Far from rendering me an outcast, it frames me as a sounding post. I would never assume to know what they KNOW is right, to do so would be the hight of arrogance. My solace in a changing world is build on stoicism rather than my conservative nature so again your last point can only be interpreted as you assuming something and being wrong in your assumption and yet willing to use that incorrect assumption as a point of agitation.

So yes, thanks for your response. Nice read.

I thought you'd like that.

I didn't know stoics got agitated, by the way.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I thought you'd like that.

I didn't know stoics got agitated, by the way.

It takes a lot.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It takes a lot.

All evidence to the contrary ;)

 

[Gelsons Dad]

All evidence to the contrary ;)

All? ;-)